探索评价方法对全球南方建筑设计的影响--巴西案例研究

IF 6.1 1区 工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
Vítor Freitas Mendes, Alexandre Santana Cruz, Adriano Pinto Gomes, Júlia Castro Mendes
{"title":"探索评价方法对全球南方建筑设计的影响--巴西案例研究","authors":"Vítor Freitas Mendes, Alexandre Santana Cruz, Adriano Pinto Gomes, Júlia Castro Mendes","doi":"10.1007/s12273-024-1160-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Energy simulation is a valuable tool for evaluating and improving the thermal performance and energy efficiency of buildings during the design phase. Common evaluation methods are thermal load (TL), degree-hour (DH), and design days (DD). The choice of method and its settings may vary depending on regional factors and researchers’ preferences, leading to diverse and often incompatible metrics and results. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of these evaluation methods on the assessment of buildings’ performance and, consequently, on design choices. For this purpose, this study compared the results of the 3 evaluation methods and different settings for 3 different wall systems, 4 ranges of comfort temperature, and 2 residential models located in the 8 Brazilian bioclimatic zones. As result, the best and worst wall systems varied depending on the evaluation method and the threshold / setpoint temperature range considered. Warmer regions showed greater variability in the results. We noticed that it is not possible to compare and interpret results from different evaluation methods, and that the variation of only 1 °C in the setpoint temperatures can lead to entirely different practices being considered the best for a given building model. In conclusion, the most suitable evaluation method is the one that best portrays the operation and dynamic reality of the building to be designed, and building regulations and standards can occasionally lead to unrealistic assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":49226,"journal":{"name":"Building Simulation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the impact of evaluation methods on Global South building design—A case study in Brazil\",\"authors\":\"Vítor Freitas Mendes, Alexandre Santana Cruz, Adriano Pinto Gomes, Júlia Castro Mendes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12273-024-1160-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Energy simulation is a valuable tool for evaluating and improving the thermal performance and energy efficiency of buildings during the design phase. Common evaluation methods are thermal load (TL), degree-hour (DH), and design days (DD). The choice of method and its settings may vary depending on regional factors and researchers’ preferences, leading to diverse and often incompatible metrics and results. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of these evaluation methods on the assessment of buildings’ performance and, consequently, on design choices. For this purpose, this study compared the results of the 3 evaluation methods and different settings for 3 different wall systems, 4 ranges of comfort temperature, and 2 residential models located in the 8 Brazilian bioclimatic zones. As result, the best and worst wall systems varied depending on the evaluation method and the threshold / setpoint temperature range considered. Warmer regions showed greater variability in the results. We noticed that it is not possible to compare and interpret results from different evaluation methods, and that the variation of only 1 °C in the setpoint temperatures can lead to entirely different practices being considered the best for a given building model. In conclusion, the most suitable evaluation method is the one that best portrays the operation and dynamic reality of the building to be designed, and building regulations and standards can occasionally lead to unrealistic assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Building Simulation\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Building Simulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-024-1160-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Building Simulation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-024-1160-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在设计阶段,能源模拟是评估和改进建筑物热性能和能源效率的重要工具。常见的评估方法有热负荷 (TL)、度小时 (DH) 和设计日 (DD)。由于地区因素和研究人员的偏好不同,方法的选择和设置也会不同,从而导致指标和结果的多样性,而且往往是不兼容的。因此,本研究旨在探讨这些评估方法对建筑物性能评估的影响,以及由此对设计选择的影响。为此,本研究针对巴西 8 个生物气候区的 3 种不同墙体系统、4 个舒适温度范围和 2 个住宅模型,比较了 3 种评估方法和不同设置的结果。结果显示,最佳和最差的墙体系统因评估方法和所考虑的阈值/设定点温度范围而异。温暖地区的结果差异更大。我们注意到,对不同评估方法得出的结果进行比较和解释是不可能的,设定点温度仅相差 1 °C,就会导致完全不同的做法被认为是特定建筑模型的最佳做法。总之,最合适的评估方法是最能反映待设计建筑的运行和动态实际情况的方法,而建筑法规和标准有时会导致不切实际的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the impact of evaluation methods on Global South building design—A case study in Brazil

Energy simulation is a valuable tool for evaluating and improving the thermal performance and energy efficiency of buildings during the design phase. Common evaluation methods are thermal load (TL), degree-hour (DH), and design days (DD). The choice of method and its settings may vary depending on regional factors and researchers’ preferences, leading to diverse and often incompatible metrics and results. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of these evaluation methods on the assessment of buildings’ performance and, consequently, on design choices. For this purpose, this study compared the results of the 3 evaluation methods and different settings for 3 different wall systems, 4 ranges of comfort temperature, and 2 residential models located in the 8 Brazilian bioclimatic zones. As result, the best and worst wall systems varied depending on the evaluation method and the threshold / setpoint temperature range considered. Warmer regions showed greater variability in the results. We noticed that it is not possible to compare and interpret results from different evaluation methods, and that the variation of only 1 °C in the setpoint temperatures can lead to entirely different practices being considered the best for a given building model. In conclusion, the most suitable evaluation method is the one that best portrays the operation and dynamic reality of the building to be designed, and building regulations and standards can occasionally lead to unrealistic assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Building Simulation
Building Simulation THERMODYNAMICS-CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
16.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Building Simulation: An International Journal publishes original, high quality, peer-reviewed research papers and review articles dealing with modeling and simulation of buildings including their systems. The goal is to promote the field of building science and technology to such a level that modeling will eventually be used in every aspect of building construction as a routine instead of an exception. Of particular interest are papers that reflect recent developments and applications of modeling tools and their impact on advances of building science and technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信