Experimental study on the performance evaluation of active chilled beams in heating and cooling operation under varied boundary conditions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the thermal comfort, airspeed and temperature distribution, air change effectiveness and importance of the boundary conditions on the selection and performance of Active Chilled Beams (ACB). Many past studies in cooling confirm that the thermal comfort is satisfactory because the temperature gradient and airspeeds are acceptable at the occupant level without addressing the local discomfort. Similarly, no known study was found to address thermal comfort in heating. This paper reports the results of an experimental study that addresses such issues. A laboratory experiment, simulating a multi-occupant open office with an ACB subjected to different boundary conditions, was conducted. The heating test results demonstrate that there is a risk of discomfort due to radiant temperature asymmetry. It also shows no airspeed in the occupied zone, which reduces the air change effectiveness. The cooling test results demonstrate that discomfort draft risk at the ankle level is higher in ACB parallel to window configuration. The results suggest that shape and throw of ACB affect air distribution and emphasize the importance of properly selecting, orienting, and designing ACB, not just to offset the room loads, but to match the proportions and boundary conditions of the space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it