MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403465518 · doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2024.102991

Enhancing building energy efficiency: Innovations in glazing systems utilizing solid-solid phase change materials

2024· article· en· W4403465518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hossein Arasteh, Wahid Maref, Hamed H. Saber

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal Science and Engineering Progress · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlazingPhase (matter)Phase changeMaterials scienceSolid surfaceProcess engineeringArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineering physicsComposite materialEngineeringChemistryChemical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the energy efficiency of a double-glazing window (DGW) integrating a solid–solid phase change material (SSPCM) with limited thickness, applied to the inner glass pane within the air gap. Numerical model, validated against experimental data, is developed using a finite volume method in ANSYS Fluent. In this model, the Discrete Ordinates (DO) model is applied to simulate radiation, while the enthalpy-porosity approach is used to capture the solidification and melting processes in the phase change material . With this model, the energy performance of the system is analyzed under various transient temperature values (10 to 30 °C) and ranges (1 to 5 °C) during the coldest and hottest days of the year, as well as during cloudy and sunny days in Montreal (Dfb), Vancouver (Cfb), and Miami (Aw). According to the obtained results in Montreal, the DGW-SSPCM system consistently saves energy under summer sunny conditions, with optimal performance when the SSPCM remains transparent. However, it incurs energy losses in cloudy days, where the energy lost is 2.3 times greater than the energy saved in sunny days. In Vancouver, the system shows consistent energy savings, particularly at T c = 30 °C, with average savings of 20.5 kJ (23 %) under summer sunny conditions. The system is most beneficial in Vancouver, where winter energy savings in cloudy days (50.6 kJ) are 7.1 times greater than the losses in sunny days (7.1 kJ). In Miami, the system results in energy losses by 60 % and 5 % (at T c = 30 °C) under both summer sunny and cloudy conditions, respectively, indicating unsuitability for its climate. During winter sunny conditions, all three cities experience energy losses, with Vancouver showing the lowest of 7.1 kJ (3 %) and Montreal the highest of 64.4 kJ (19 %) at T c = 30 °C. In winter cloudy conditions, the system saves energy in all cities, with the highest savings in Miami of 54.5 kJ (26 %) at T c = 30 °C. Overall, the SSPCM-DGW system has proven to be beneficial in Vancouver across various conditions in terms of energy and visual performance. These findings highlight the necessity of considering localized climate factors when designing and implementing energy-efficient glazing systems. Finally, the SSPCM-DGW system has provided complete visual clarity during office hours, making it more suitable for commercial 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal Science and Engineering ProgressSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207