Energy Performance of Two 18<sup>th</sup> Century Blocks in Lisbon Pombaline Quarter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 1758 Lisbon Pombaline quarter Reconstruction Plan consists of a homogeneous urban fabric, structured by rectangular shaped residential blocks, built with a system that matches heavy mass construction elements with a light timber structure, called “Gaiola”. Although Pombaline architecture and construction generate consensus among authors about its importance as a historical fact and exceptional construction quality, this kind of buildings experienced several modifications over time with severe consequences to their built fabric properties and architectural elements. However, if we take into consideration both constructive and architectural inherent features of the 18th century Pombaline block, it has the potential to hold and achieve high-energy performances if considered as a “single” unit. In this way, this paper intends to analyse and compare the energy performance of two block units replicating the “original” 18th century Pombaline design and constructive features. The method involves the conception of a Building Energy Model of two case studies with different volumes, form and orientation, loaded with energy parameters related to Pombaline construction, and subsequently simulated with the EnergyPlus dynamic analysis software. In order to calculate the energy demands for heating and cooling, we set the indoor temperature value between 18°C and 25°C. The results show that due to its architectural features, Block T presents a better overall performance compared with Block H, demanding 8% less energy and displaying less time in thermal discomfort. Finally, the blocks east side and the highest story registered the worst energy performance in both case studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".