The impact of simplified window and exhaust fan assumptions on indoor air quality in multifamily buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In residential buildings, the indoor air quality can be significantly affected by ventilation measures initiated by occupants, including the operation of windows and in-unit exhaust fans in kitchens and bathrooms. Many simulations simplify these factors by disregarding window opening behaviors and using fixed schedules for exhaust fan operation across all residential units. To estimate the impact of these simplifications in the U.S. context, this study used coupled CONTAM and EnergyPlus models to simulate airflow and contaminant transport in multifamily buildings. The coupled models parametrically varied climate zone, building airtightness, and mechanical ventilation system types. The study conducted a sensitivity analysis on two key occupant behaviors: (1) operating kitchen and bathroom exhausts on different schedules in individual dwelling units, and (2) scheduling open windows on ground and top floors. The simplified assumptions (i.e. uniform in-unit exhaust fan operation and window operation) had a minimal impact on inter-unit air flow and contaminant transport simulations across a broad range of building air leakage and mechanical ventilation system types. These findings suggest that for buildings with tight construction it is reasonable for most modelling and simulation efforts to ignore the effects of non-uniform exhaust fan operation and window opening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".