7 Citations (Scopus)
20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

As the 2003 Paris heatwave showed, elevated temperatures in buildings can cause thousands of deaths. This makes the assessment of overheating risk a critical exercise. Unfortunately current methods of creating example weather time series for the assessment of overheating are based on a single weather variable, and hence on only one driver of discomfort or mortality. In this study, two alternative approaches for the development of current and future weather files are presented: one (pHSY-1) is based on Weighted Cooling Degree Hours (WCDH), the other (pHSY-2) is based on Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET). pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 files were produced for fourteen locations. These were then compared with the existing probabilistic future Design Summer Year (pDSY) and the probabilistic future Test Reference Year. It was found that both pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 are more robust than the pDSY. It is suggested that pHSY-1 could be used for assessing the severity and occurrence of overheating, while pHSY-2 could be used for evaluating thermal discomfort or heat stress. The results also highlight an important limitation in using different metrics to compare overheating years. If the weather year is created by a ranking of a single environmental variable, to ensure consistent results assessment of the building should be with a similar single metric (e.g. hours >28°C or WCDH), if however the weather year is based upon several environmental variables then a composite metric (e.g. PET or Fanger’s PMV) should be used. This has important implications for the suitability of weather files for thermal comfort analysis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)56-68
JournalBuilding and Environment
Volume105
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

Risk assessment
risk assessment
weather
summer
Cooling
Thermal comfort
Temperature
Time series
cause of death
cooling
heat
time series
ranking
building
mortality
temperature
driver
Composite materials
Hot Temperature

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • overheating risk
  • thermal comfort
  • probabilistic future hot summer year
  • weighted cooling degree hours
  • physiologically equivalent temperature

Cite this

Future probabilistic hot summer years for overheating risk assessments. / Liu, C.; Kershaw, T.; Eames, M. E.; Coley, D. A.

In: Building and Environment, Vol. 105, 15.08.2016, p. 56-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{38841d36042040348259efbf17499510,
title = "Future probabilistic hot summer years for overheating risk assessments",
abstract = "As the 2003 Paris heatwave showed, elevated temperatures in buildings can cause thousands of deaths. This makes the assessment of overheating risk a critical exercise. Unfortunately current methods of creating example weather time series for the assessment of overheating are based on a single weather variable, and hence on only one driver of discomfort or mortality. In this study, two alternative approaches for the development of current and future weather files are presented: one (pHSY-1) is based on Weighted Cooling Degree Hours (WCDH), the other (pHSY-2) is based on Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET). pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 files were produced for fourteen locations. These were then compared with the existing probabilistic future Design Summer Year (pDSY) and the probabilistic future Test Reference Year. It was found that both pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 are more robust than the pDSY. It is suggested that pHSY-1 could be used for assessing the severity and occurrence of overheating, while pHSY-2 could be used for evaluating thermal discomfort or heat stress. The results also highlight an important limitation in using different metrics to compare overheating years. If the weather year is created by a ranking of a single environmental variable, to ensure consistent results assessment of the building should be with a similar single metric (e.g. hours >28°C or WCDH), if however the weather year is based upon several environmental variables then a composite metric (e.g. PET or Fanger’s PMV) should be used. This has important implications for the suitability of weather files for thermal comfort analysis.",
keywords = "Climate change, overheating risk, thermal comfort, probabilistic future hot summer year, weighted cooling degree hours, physiologically equivalent temperature",
author = "C. Liu and T. Kershaw and Eames, {M. E.} and Coley, {D. A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.028",
language = "English",
volume = "105",
pages = "56--68",
journal = "Building and Environment",
issn = "0360-1323",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Future probabilistic hot summer years for overheating risk assessments

AU - Liu, C.

AU - Kershaw, T.

AU - Eames, M. E.

AU - Coley, D. A.

PY - 2016/8/15

Y1 - 2016/8/15

N2 - As the 2003 Paris heatwave showed, elevated temperatures in buildings can cause thousands of deaths. This makes the assessment of overheating risk a critical exercise. Unfortunately current methods of creating example weather time series for the assessment of overheating are based on a single weather variable, and hence on only one driver of discomfort or mortality. In this study, two alternative approaches for the development of current and future weather files are presented: one (pHSY-1) is based on Weighted Cooling Degree Hours (WCDH), the other (pHSY-2) is based on Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET). pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 files were produced for fourteen locations. These were then compared with the existing probabilistic future Design Summer Year (pDSY) and the probabilistic future Test Reference Year. It was found that both pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 are more robust than the pDSY. It is suggested that pHSY-1 could be used for assessing the severity and occurrence of overheating, while pHSY-2 could be used for evaluating thermal discomfort or heat stress. The results also highlight an important limitation in using different metrics to compare overheating years. If the weather year is created by a ranking of a single environmental variable, to ensure consistent results assessment of the building should be with a similar single metric (e.g. hours >28°C or WCDH), if however the weather year is based upon several environmental variables then a composite metric (e.g. PET or Fanger’s PMV) should be used. This has important implications for the suitability of weather files for thermal comfort analysis.

AB - As the 2003 Paris heatwave showed, elevated temperatures in buildings can cause thousands of deaths. This makes the assessment of overheating risk a critical exercise. Unfortunately current methods of creating example weather time series for the assessment of overheating are based on a single weather variable, and hence on only one driver of discomfort or mortality. In this study, two alternative approaches for the development of current and future weather files are presented: one (pHSY-1) is based on Weighted Cooling Degree Hours (WCDH), the other (pHSY-2) is based on Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET). pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 files were produced for fourteen locations. These were then compared with the existing probabilistic future Design Summer Year (pDSY) and the probabilistic future Test Reference Year. It was found that both pHSY-1 and pHSY-2 are more robust than the pDSY. It is suggested that pHSY-1 could be used for assessing the severity and occurrence of overheating, while pHSY-2 could be used for evaluating thermal discomfort or heat stress. The results also highlight an important limitation in using different metrics to compare overheating years. If the weather year is created by a ranking of a single environmental variable, to ensure consistent results assessment of the building should be with a similar single metric (e.g. hours >28°C or WCDH), if however the weather year is based upon several environmental variables then a composite metric (e.g. PET or Fanger’s PMV) should be used. This has important implications for the suitability of weather files for thermal comfort analysis.

KW - Climate change

KW - overheating risk

KW - thermal comfort

KW - probabilistic future hot summer year

KW - weighted cooling degree hours

KW - physiologically equivalent temperature

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.028

U2 - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.028

DO - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.028

M3 - Article

VL - 105

SP - 56

EP - 68

JO - Building and Environment

JF - Building and Environment

SN - 0360-1323

ER -