4.2 Article

Overheating risk in Passivhaus dwellings

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0143624419842006

关键词

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers TM59; overheating; Passivhaus

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/L016869/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly insulated and airtight homes designed to reduce energy consumption are perceived as having a greater summer overheating risk than less insulated homes. If true, dwellings built to the well-known low-energy Passivhaus (PH) standard could be at greatest risk due to the use of superinsulation, especially as the climate warms. Existing studies are inconclusive and even contradictory, mainly due to small sample sizes. Hence, this paper presents the first large-scale overheating risk analysis of UK Passivhaus dwellings using high-resolution internal temperature data from 82 homes across the UK. Both the Passivhaus and the recently published Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers TM59 criteria are analysed. Results show that the whole-dwelling Passivhaus standard, which uses a fixed temperature threshold, is met more frequently (83%) than when applied on a room-by-room basis (e.g. only 60% of bedrooms in houses meet the standard). TM59-1A, which uses an adaptive temperature threshold, is easier to meet with 100% of flats and 82% of houses in compliance. However, 55% of bedrooms assessed under TM59-1B fail, with little difference between flats and houses. This is a remarkable finding given that the summers under consideration were either typically mild or cooler than average, and that sleep impairment can significantly affect both physical and mental health. These results suggest that highly insulated dwellings such as Passivhaus should consider overheating in individual rooms, rather than at whole-dwelling level. Analysis should be undertaken throughout the year with particular attention to bedrooms, using either the good-practice PH-5% exceedance threshold which maps well to TM59-1B, or TM59-1B itself.

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

4.2
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