4.5 Article

uhuMEB: Design, Construction, and Management Methodology of Minimum Energy Buildings in Subtropical Climates

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en11102745

关键词

minimum-energy building (MEB); nearly zero energy building (nZEB); zero energy building (ZEB); net energy generator building ( plus ZEB); energy efficiency; building information modeling (BIM); passive architecture; subtropical climate building; building instrumentation; data analysis

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [DPI2017-85540-R]
  2. European Union Regional Development Fund
  3. University of Huelva (Spain) [TEP192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of buildings energy efficiency has advanced thanks to research carried out in recent years. Many of the discoveries in this field have recently been incorporated into mandatory construction regulations for each country. However, not many of the architects and engineers involved in the construction industry clearly know how to achieve those goals in their designs. This document is based on the extensive experience in architectural design, the integration of renewable energies, the energy simulation of buildings and data acquisition, and analysis of the research team involved. It is presented in a practical and holistic approach and focused in subtropical climates. A structured methodology for the proper decision-making process during all the different stages of a minimum energy building (MEB) is likewise presented. The proposed methodology depicted aims at providing architects and engineers with a systematic and orderly step-by-step procedure and incorporates the instrumentation/control and data analysis as essential elements that support the validation of the expected results from the design, the construction, and the operation phase of the building. The paper develops a case study that illustrates the proposed methodology. This new methodology for MEB in subtropical climates constitutes an innovation in this field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据