Comparison of the Performance of a Forced-Air and a Radiant Floor Residential Heating System Connected to Solar Collectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed building energy analysis tool is used to model the performance of a forced-air system and a radiant floor system. These two systems use a low-temperature tank to store solar energy from a solar collector array. An electrically heated tank at a higher temperature is used to provide any additional heat needed to meet the space heating load. The simulation models developed are then used to compare the performance of the forced-air and radiant floor systems based on maintaining the same operative temperature inside the space. It is found that the portion of the heating load that comes from solar energy is higher in the case of the radiant system. This portion from solar energy increases even further when the operating temperature of the radiant floor is lowered. The results also show that the energy performance of the radiant floor relative to the forced-air system improves for houses with higher envelope R-values and infiltration rates. Given the many different interacting factors that influence the performance of the solar-assisted systems studied, it is very important to use detailed simulation models to help assess which system is more energy efficient for a particular application.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".