Optimum envelope design toward zero energy buildings in Iran
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
Buildings, commercial and residential combined, account for around 40% of total energy consumption in Iran. Energy consumption in buildings is predicted to increase in the the coming decades decades and immediate actions are required to meet the needs of future generations. Zero energy building (ZEB) is an important concept that can help nations to have a sustainable future. An important step for building a ZEB is to minimize the energy lost from the building, and the envelope of buildings plays a vital role in achieving minimal energy losses. In this paper, a life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is adopted to find the optimum insulation thickness for the common wall structure in Iran. Then, the Iranian standard (Chapter 19) for building envelopes have been reviewed and compared with the minimum requirements of the ASHRAE standard 90.2. The comparison shows that the Iranian standards for buildings envelopes are comparable with the ASHRAE standard 90.2 for the external wall, while ASHRAE requires higher minimum thermal resistance for ceiling compare to chapter 19. The optimization results suggest smaller minimum thermal resistance compare to chapter 19; this is mainly resulting from the characteristic of the Iranian economy (high inflation rate) and subsidized energy sector. Therefore, energy policy in the country needs to be reformed to promote energy conservation in buildings and hence zero energy buildings.
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