Assessment of the Impact of Window Size, Position and Orientation on Building Energy Load Using BIM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In improving energy efficiency of buildings, windows play a significant role as they largely influence the energy load. Although there are many studies about the energy efficient window design, a rigorous study is missing which analyzes the mutual impact of windows’ size, position and orientation on the energy load. This study aims to address this gap through a case study on a single family house. For this aim, 65 different design scenarios are created which vary by window size, position and orientation. Building information models (BIMs) are created for each scenario via Autodesk Revit®, and are used for the calculation of the total energy load conducted by Autodesk Green Building Studio®. In the first analysis stage, window-to-wall ratio (WWR) and the windows’ position are studied to assess their effect on the energy load. The preliminary results at this stage indicate that the total energy load increases when the WWR grows, and the windows’ position has the biggest impact on the load when the WWR is 20. Using these results, in the next stage, the position of windows in different orientation is studied to assess how the energy load changes by windows’ position in each orientation. The results show that the building requires the lowest load when the windows are located in the middle height in all orientations, and the east windows’ positioning affects the total energy load the most.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".