A Comparative Study of Leakage Characteristics between an Under Floor Air Distribution System and an Over Head Air Distribution System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims at quantifying the leakage occurring in Under Floor Air Distribution (UFAD) systems and Over Head Air Distribution (OHAD) systems. The study also classifies the leakage occurring in the different systems into Category 1 leakage and Category 2 leakage. The study was performed between a plenum supply UFAD system (having a maximum flow rate of 1272 m3/h), a ducted supply UFAD system (having a maximum flow rate of 286 m3/h) and an OHAD system (having a maximum flow rate of 2004 m3/h). Results show that in plenum supply UFAD systems, 5.9% and 14.8% of the volume of air supplied by the Air Handling Unit (AHU) is attributed to leakage when the AHU is running at 50% and 100% fan speeds respectively. In ducted supply UFAD systems however, the leakage drops to 2.1% and 5.6% respectively at 50% and 100% AHU fan speeds. A ducted supply UFAD system in comparison to a plenum supply UFAD system lowers leakage by 62.2% when the AHU is operating at 100% fan speed and by 64.4% when the AHU is operating at 50% fan speed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".