The Optimal Tuning, within Carbon Limits, of Thermal Mass in Naturally Ventilated Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What proportions should a thermally massive building have? How should the thermal mass be distributed? Should the "massing" change with the choice of material? This paper shows how to optimize the physical proportions of a building so that it synchronizes ambient heat exchanges in a natural feedback cycle. An internal mass is thermally coupled with buoyancy ventilation; the cycle is driven by the daily swing of outdoor temperature. Tripling up functions in this way—so that structural materials can reliably cool and power the ventilation for buildings—could help decarbonize the construction industry and provide an effective strategy for adapting to life-threatening heatwaves. Based on harmonic analysis, the method allows designers to thermally tune the form and mass of a building to meet chosen targets for temperature and ventilation in free-running mode. Once the optimal balance of exchange rates is known, design teams can proportionally vary the building height and ventilation openings against the surface area and thickness of an internal thermal mass. The possible permutations are infinite but parametrically constrained, allowing teams to fairly compare the functional and environmental credentials of different construction materials while they produce and evaluate preliminary options for organizing the exterior form and interior spaces of a building. An example study suggests that thin-shell structures of minimum weight, and even timber buildings, may be optimally tuned to produce ample ventilation and temperature attenuation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".