Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling

Oliver, Stephen and Pour Rahimian, Farzad (2019) Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling. In: Creative Construction Conference 2018, 2018-06-30 - 2018-07-03, Radisson Blu Plaza.

[img]
Preview
Text (Oliver-Rahimian-CCC-2018-Considering-the-implication-of-classifying-computers-as-occupants-on-energy-consumption)
Oliver_Rahimian_CCC_2018_Considering_the_implication_of_classifying_computers_as_occupants_on_energy_consumption.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 logo

Download (1MB)| Preview

    Abstract

    Non-ancillary equipment makes significant contribution to building energy demand, consuming as much as half of total energy consumption and three quarters of consumption during inoccupancy. Current proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling does not reflect physical or social complexities of mediating equipment, failing to suitably represent equipment and seemingly incompatible with inoccupancy scheduling. This paper draws comparison between computers and conventional occupants attempting to identify the extent which it is applicable to energy modelling. It concludes with the concession of its lack of relevance in inoccupancy equipment scheduling, though inherently convenient and suggests partial decoupling of agents and non-ancillary equipment during occupancy. Proximity-as-utility is herein defined as equipment scheduling defining utility as a Boolean-state power density necessitating the presence of a proximal agent, accommodating short periods where equipment and agent do not cohabit a discrete space.