Comparative Analysis of Thermal Performance of Painted, Finned, and Plain Roofs in Arid and Temperate Climates: Insights from Kuwait City and Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the thermal performance of three common roofing types - painted, finned, and plain for buildings with customary materials without insulationin- two contrasting climatic contexts: Kuwait City and Vancouver. Experimental data were collected on hourly basis for the surface temperatures for 4 months in winter of Kuwait. Utilizing ASHRAE methods, we simulated the dynamic thermal behaviour of these roofing materials to assess their suitability for mitigating energy demands and enhancing indoor thermal comfort of a building with 127 m2rooftop surface area. Our findings reveal distinct thermal characteristics associated with each roofing type in the respective climates. In Kuwait City’s arid environment, the painted roof emerges as the optimal choice, demonstrating superior performance in reducing thermal loads during hot months while posing challenges related to increased heating demand in cooler seasons with 4.5°C reduction by painted roof. Conversely, in Vancouver’s temperate climate, the painted roof exhibits continuous outward conduction of heat, contributing to elevated heating demands throughout the year despite its effectiveness in maintaining lower temperatures compared to the indoor environment. This study highlights the importance of considering climatic factors and seasonal variations in selecting roofing materials to achieve optimal energy efficiency and indoor comfort. These findings can assist decision-making processes for architects, engineers, and policymakers aiming to enhance building performance and sustainability across diverse climatic regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".