Experimental study on the performance evaluation of active chilled beams in heating and cooling operation under varied boundary conditions
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".