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

Stephen Oliver, Farzad Rahimian

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

148 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCreative Construction Conference 2018 - Proceedings
ISBN (Electronic)9786155270451
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2018
EventCreative Construction Conference 2018 - Ljublana, Slovakia
Duration: 30 Jun 201830 Jun 2018

Conference

ConferenceCreative Construction Conference 2018
CountrySlovakia
CityLjublana
Period30/06/1830/06/18

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this