Baborska-Narozny, M; Bandurski, K and Grudzinska, M (2025) Understanding shading through home-use experience, measurement and modelling. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 466-489. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Insufficient application of the socio-technical influences on residential energy ‘optimisation’ exacerbates the energy performance gap. This is evident in the modelling of energy and thermal performance. Shading control has the potential to optimise energy demand. This research explores inhabitants’ shading practices across the seasons in occupied low-energy homes. It identifies, describes and quantifies the contextual drivers that underpin individual preferences and triggers for shading activity and their impact on the thermal– energy nexus. In-depth building performance evaluations of five homes built to the same specifications were used to inform dynamic thermal modelling. Simulation scenarios were developed based on inhabitants’ lived experiences. A comparison of two airflow network modelling approaches was conducted, and tailored shading usage models were compared with a default TRNSYS model. A calibrated simulation, representing observed shading practices, quantified the impacts on heating energy and overheating mitigation. The process and findings can be used to improve modelling approaches by reflecting inhabitants’ actual experiences and informing decisions about shading strategies. These findings challenge the current approach used in energy codes and static models which use values based on average inhabitant practices. More appropriate tools with increased sensitivity are needed to account for varied and alternative usage scenarios and assumptions. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Window treatments that enable shading control in housing are typically considered an interior design feature, beyond the scope of building design and construction. The significant impact of shading on annual energy balance needs attention as a design issue. Passive and active measures (curtains, blinds, shutters, window opening, etc.) need consideration at the design stage, and particularly in modelling. This study demonstrates why practitioners should aim to better understand and account for the variability of user actions involving the use of shading and window opening. In terms of policy, energy codes should prescribe shading options in new dwellings. This would help to limit the proliferation of energy-consuming technologies such as air-conditioning.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; building simulation; energy models; human- building interaction; occupant behaviour; overheating; performance gap; shading; thermal comfort models |
| Index terms: | option, variability, occupant behaviour, building performance evaluation, building simulation, modelling, interaction, thermal comfort, energy model, energy demand, socio-technical, building design, housing, shading, preference, design stage, thermal performance, practitioner, network modelling, mitigation, window, performance gap, energy performance gap, thermal modelling, strategy, overheating, residential energy, building performance, specification, static model, default, energy code, interior design |
| Subjects: | modelling and simulation, sustainability and energy, energy systems, dispute resolution, decision analysis, environmental engineering, statistical analysis, thermal systems, performance management, building design, management, contractual condition, architectural design, analytical methods, professional practice, construction type, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, environmental law, building performance, networking, specialized design, quality assurance, behavioral psychology, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, architectural elements, financial risk |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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