4.7 Article

Effectiveness of passive design strategies in responding to future climate change for residential buildings in hot and humid Hong Kong

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110469

关键词

Climate change; Passive design; Building energy simulation; Sensitivity analysis; Adaptive thermal comfort

资金

  1. ''Vice-Chancellor's Discretionary Fund'' of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  2. ''Research Impact Fund of Research Grants Council, Hong Kong [R4046-18F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of passive design strategies is crucial at the early architectural design stage for building energy use minimization. However, the time-varying effectiveness of passive design strategies in responding to future climate change in hot and humid climates are rather limited in the literature. This paper aims to examine the dynamic effectiveness of passive design strategies for residential buildings in Hong Kong under the context of future climate change. Using the newly developed hourly weather data and adaptive comfort standard model, the dynamic effectiveness of viable passive design strategies for residential buildings are evaluated over time in the 21st century by plotting Givoni building bio-climatic charts (BBCC) and simulation-based sensitivity analyses in a validated EnergyPlus model. Results show that solar protection strategies are still the highly sensitive strategies for building energy performance and the effectiveness of external windows' airtightness is expected to increase up to 329% by the end of this century, whereas the cooling potential of ventilation utilization will significantly decrease over time. When the different combination of sensitive passive design parameters is implemented onto the baseline residential building model for different climate scenarios, the annual and peak cooling load can be reduced up to 56.7% and 64.5%, respectively. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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