4.6 Article

Hygrothermal Characteristics of Cold Roof Cavities in New Zealand

期刊

BUILDINGS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings11080334

关键词

roof space; roof ventilation; WUFI; mechanical ventilation; hygrothermal

资金

  1. New Zealand Building Research Levy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper discusses durability issues with New Zealand roofs and proposes methods for addressing roof failures using hygrothermal simulation software and guideline documents. Metal roof claddings are common in New Zealand, and the lack of ventilation is sometimes a contributing factor to problems.
The New Zealand Building Code contains minimum durability requirements for components. For roof structures the requirement is 50 years if the component is structural or 15 years if it is not. Metal roof claddings are very common in New Zealand, and roof spaces are typically not deliberately ventilated. Recently, a number of roofs are failing to meet their durability requirement, and the lack of deliberate ventilation is a contributory factor in some cases. In this paper, we consider roof failures and analyse them using the hygrothermal simulation software WUFI(R) 2D (version 4.1). Using the National Research Council of Canada's Guideline on Design for Durability of Building Envelopes, we evaluate to what extent the guideline can be used for such more complex models. Experimental data from a residential dwelling where excessive roof moisture issues were discovered shortly after occupancy are presented. A novel remedial solution using daytime-only ventilation to the roof cavity was trialled, and the data were used to benchmark a two-dimensional numerical simulation of the roof space using WUFI(R) 2D. A larger hygrothermal data set for 71 dwellings is presented together with relevant climatic conditions. The study works towards evidence-based building code changes for roof ventilation and is an example of using the guideline document for more complicated building envelope assemblies.

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

4.6
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