Model Evaluation Sample Clauses

Model Evaluation. Using the updated, verified model, SEH will examine the distribution system adequacy and recommend improvements. The model will simulate the operation of the Xxxxx Park water system during average day, maximum day, and fire flow events. Water system operational flow capacities and system pressures will be examined to assure that the water system can deliver an effective level of service. System resiliency will be tested to determine if redundant water lines are needed. Overall Water System Evaluation In Task 2, historical water system demands will be analyzed to determine average per capita water use and peak water system demands. SEH will pair this data with future land use and population projections to estimate water system demands through 2040. As part of Task 3, these future demands will be compared with existing water supply, treatment, distribution, and storage capacities. If water system deficiencies are identified as part of this effort, SEH will provide alternatives for water system improvements. Key components of Task 3 will include: • Updating the City’s existing water model using current GIS sources for water infrastructure • Associating demands to water users (model junction nodes) spatially throughout the water system, assigning each demand to the correct location. GIS geocoding will be used to locate meters based on addresses from billing records; a demand allocator tool will automatically assign demands based on the GIS fields. • Allocating update water demands throughout the entire water system. • Developing diurnal curves for the full water system representing maximum day conditions. • Creating hydraulic profile drawings of the complete water system. • Conducting operational data review to complete an extended period calibration of system facilities. SEH will request data for one (1) historical maximum demand week including system demand, tank levels, and pumping flow rates on an hourly basis (minimum). • Performing an evaluation of the full distribution system using the updated and calibrated water model. − 10-day extended period simulations will be used for scenario evaluations. − Time periods for consideration will include the current system (2020 data), 10-year (2030), and 20-year (2040). • Developing a hydraulic analysis plan to include the following: − System configuration and pressure management. − Water supply capacity analysis. − Storage volume capacity analysis. − Fire flow capacity analysis. − Emergency operations analysis. − S...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Model Evaluation. The evaluation of the model was done by comparing the measured data with the simulated temporal variations of Ta, RH, WS, Tmrt and the physiological equivalent temperature index (PET) for thermal comfort assessement. Initially, the analysis involved calculation of mean values for the whole period the mobile sensor was measuring in each site. However, results for Tmrt were affected by the adaptation time required by the sensor when changing from one site to another. This was noticed specially when moving from sunshine to shadow sites and vice versa. With the aim of having representative data, 10 minute mean values were calculated for the data collected in each site (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2007). During the first 10 minutes, mean Tmrt was calculated with the last minute value of the period considering the measurement at this moment was already reliable. For the following 10 minutes at the same site, mean Tmrt was calculated with the 1-minute Tmrt values. In the case of Ta, RH, WS, 10-minute mean values were always calculated with 1 minute values. Tmrt values were derived from Tg measurements following the equation (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2007): To evaluate model performance, at each site every 10-minute mean measurement of Ta, RH, WS and Tmrt was compared with the temporally closest modelled data (i.e. every 30 minutes). Comparison was made with ENVI-met output values at 1 meter height. Thermal comfort was determined using the PET index (Xxxxx, 1999). It assesses thermal comfort (Table 15) by taking into account Ta and RH conditions as well as radiation and wind data (i.e. Tmrt and WS). Additionally, the human metabolic heat rate and other personal parameters need to be considered (e.g. age, gender, clothing, weight and height). For this study, PET index was calculated with standardized data (age: 35 years, height: 1.75; metabolic rate: 80 W/m2; clothing: 0.9; weight: 75 kg; sex: man). Table 15. Assessment of PET index, thermal perception and grade of physiological stress (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx, 1996). To analyze the most relevant variables that explain the differences between measured and modelled data, regression analyses (stepwise method) was used. In this case, the PET differences (measured-modelled) were considered as the dependent variable while the independent variables were the differences in Tmrt, WS, T and RH. In the stepwise regression, variables can be entered or removed depending on the model significance (probability) of the F-value or the eigenvalue of F. ...
Sample 1
Model Evaluation. The numerical accuracy of the UTCHEM model has been evaluated through a series of tests including comparisons with analytical solutions and experimental data. The numerical accuracy of UTCHEM model was evaluated by comparison with analytical solutions for problems such as the 1-D water tracer, 2-D tracer, and polymerflood examples given in Fig. 1.3 (Xxx et al., 1994) and by comparison with 2-D laboratory column data of Xxxxxxx et al. [1996]. The experiment involved a 2-D horizontal sandpack contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE). A mixture of surfactant solution was injected under both mobilization and solubilization conditions for PCE removal from the column. The UTCHEM model with the recently added trapping number (Xxx, 1995; Xxxxxxx et al., 1996) was used to model this experiment. The column was packed with 40-270 mesh Ottawa sand with a permeability of 16.3 darcies and porosity of 0.3509. Table 1.2 gives the physical properties. The surfactant solution was a 4% 1:1 mixture of sodium dihexyl sulfosuccinate and sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (Aerosol AY/OT) in 500 mg/L CaCl2. The measured phase behavior and fluid properties such as viscosity, density, and desaturation data were used to obtain the UTCHEM input parameters. The injection rate was at 4.95 cc/min (0.0488 ft3/day). Xxxxxxx et al.
Sample 1
Model Evaluation. This allows the data scientist to decide if the performance of the model is good enough (proceed to the deployment step) or not (back to step 5 or 3).
Sample 1
Model Evaluation 
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3

Related to Model Evaluation

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.