MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322774095 · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01969

Developing light transmitting concrete for energy saving in buildings

2023· article· en· W4322774095 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danial Navabi, Zahra Amini, Alireza Rahmati, Mansooreh Tahbaz, Talib E. Butt, Sarvenaz Sharifi, Amir Mosavi

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Construction Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaylightGLAREArchitectural engineeringElectricityEnergy consumptionPhoenixDaylightingComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy consumption is constantly increasing all around the world, and one of the substantial energy consumption fields is the electricity required for lighting in buildings. There are various approaches to tackle this problem, among which the use of transparent facades is the common method to reduce electrical energy consumption in modern buildings such as museums; However, these solutions have many problems, such as space security, heat gains during summer, and glare; The main problems related to transparent facades are energy loss through light transmitting seams and visual discomfort. Hence, it is necessary to develop a new method that can pass natural light to enhance visual comfort without damaging the thermal insulation of the building's exterior walls. One solution that can be given to this issue is using light transmitting concrete. In this study, five high-performance light transmitting concrete samples, including the different amounts of optical fiber were made, and their performances in terms of daylight and electricity saving have been analyzed based on simulation with Diva for Rhino software. For a better comparison between different studies, the analysis was done based on the reference office, which had been used in previous relevant studies. As a result, the reference office was modeled in 6 cities (Tehran, Houston, Phoenix, San Francisco, Vancouver, & Chicago). It was found that using this material along with using lighting sensors resulted in 45.7%, 31.5%, and 38.8% electricity saving for offices in Tehran, Vancouver, and Phoenix, respectively, and also can increase UDI (Useful Daylight Illuminance) by about 39% in Tehran.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Construction MaterialsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207