Daylighting in atrium building: a study of the influence of atrium façade design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrium spaces have the potential to make vital contribution to the sustainable strategy and consequently ecodynamics of a building.The environmental benefi ts in terms of daylight, natural ventilation, and heating that an atrium offers are widely recognised.Daylight availability in an atrium space is generally high; however, this may not necessarily be true for the adjoining spaces.Previous studies indicate that the daylight performance of the adjoining spaces can be improved through the design of atrium facades, whereby there is a progressive increase in the fenestration from the upper to the lower fl oors.Therefore, this paper seeks to systematically investigate the effects of different atrium façades design characterised by varied distribution of fenestrations on daylight (DFs) in an atrium and horizontal penetration of daylight in its adjoining spaces under overcast sky conditions for a four sided, top-lit, square atrium building of Well Index (WI) 1.25.Studies were undertaken using computer simulation software programs ECOTECT and RADIANCE with the objective of understanding the infl uence of facades and providing guidelines for facade design to create optimal daylighting conditions in the adjoining spaces.Three main curves were developed, each of which included fi ve options of 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% openings on top fl oor with a progressive increase in openings and 100% opening on the ground fl oor.Results demonstrate that façade compositions have a very limited infl uence on daylight in the adjoining spaces offering very little benefi ts to the lower fl oors, where daylight is critical.But increase in opening on the top fl oor may increase DFs signifi cantly on the top two fl oors.For this study, the option of 60% opening on top fl oor with progressive increase to 100% opening on ground fl oor provided the best results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".