Conzatti, A; Fosas De Pando, D; Chater, B and Coley, D (2025) Are simple models for natural ventilation suitable for shelter design? Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 158-181. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Many competing airflow models are available to aid designers size windows for natural ventilation, but their complexity in terms of computation and the required expertise needed has limited their application in shelter design. Shelters house over 8 million people worldwide, and the prevalent inadequacy of indoor air quality exacerbates health risks. This study examines the use of simplified airflow models to guide the shelter design process to deliver adequate natural ventilation schemes and window dimensions. The classic Warren equations for natural ventilation are compared with airflow network models in Contam and EnergyPlus to contrast design outcomes from a practical perspective. Five natural ventilation mechanisms are tested across a representative single-zone shelter, based on those at Hitsats refugee camp (northern Ethiopia), using indoor CO2 concentrations as the key performance indicator. Results for opening sizes and ventilation layouts derived from Warren are in close agreement with those from airflow network models in Contam and EnergyPlus. Wind-driven scenarios feature the same window size for 99% of the time, while buoyancy-driven scenarios are for 94–97% of the time. These results prove that simplified modelling approaches would lead to the same design decisions as more complex models, making them as suitable and as reliable for the design of single-zone shelters.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | airflow models; building modelling; indoor environmental quality; natural ventilation; public health; shelter design; window design |
| Index terms: | design process, health risk, ventilation, Ethiopia, computation, natural ventilation, window, indoor air quality, design decision, complexity, key performance indicator, designer, public health, energyplus, refugee, indoor environmental quality, modelling, dimension |
| Subjects: | design practice, environmental health, environmental engineering, systems engineering, profession, air quality, computational methods, design methods, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics, architectural elements, Geography, demography, environmental science, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here