MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286338999 · doi:10.1080/10789669.2013.803400

Tubular daylighting devices—Development and validation of a thermal model (1415-RP)

2013· article· en· W2286338999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHVAC&R Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlazingThermal conductionDaylightSolar gainHeat transferRoofThermalEnvironmental scienceConvectionMaterials scienceMeteorologyMechanicsOpticsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the development and validation of a simplified model to compute the thermal characteristics (solar heat gain coefficient and thermal conductance (U-factor)) and surface temperatures of tubular daylighting devices. The model takes into account the three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and surface-to-surface radiation. A one-dimensional heat conduction model is applied to tubular daylight device glazing layers. The convective heat transfer from tubular daylight device surfaces to their adjacent air spaces uses existing correlations for natural flows in enclosed air cavities and free stream air spaces. A zonal model, in which the pipe air space is divided into a number of thermally stacked zones, is used to predict the vertical average temperature distribution in the air cavity and wall surface of pipe. Thermal radiation exchange among surfaces uses the formulation of the form factor applied to the aforementioned zonal model. An iterative sequential procedure is proposed to solve the temperature distribution in tubular daylight device glazing layers and air cavities. The U-factor predictions of the simplified model are compared with the National Fenestration Rating Council certified product rating measurement data and detailed computational fluid dynamic simulations. Four tubular daylight device products are simulated under the National Fenestration Rating Council standard rating conditions for the residential (insulation at ceiling level) and commercial (insulation at roof level) settings. The temperatures of the tubular daylight device glazing layers and vertical temperature distribution inside the pipe air space are also compared with the computational fluid dynamic simulations. The results show that the U-factor predictions of the simplified model are in good agreement with the measurement data and computational fluid dynamic simulations, within a maximum deviation of 15% for both the residential and commercial rating conditions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it