Futcher, J; Mills, G and Emmanuel, R (2018) Interdependent energy relationships between buildings at the street scale. Building Research & Information, 46(8), pp. 829-844. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Regulated energy loads of buildings are typically explored at the scale of individual buildings, often in isolated (and idealized) circumstances. By comparison, little research currently exists on the performance of building groups that accounts for the interactions between buildings. Consequently, the energy efficiency (or penalty) of different urban configurations (such as a city street) is overlooked. The present paper examines the energy demand of a city street in London, UK, which is comprised of typical office buildings with internal energy gains associated with daytime occupancy. Simulations are performed for office buildings placed in urban canyons that are defined by the ratio of building height (H) to street width (W). The results show the annual energy demand is dominated by the cooling load, which can be significantly reduced through street design that provides shading by increasing H/W. However, the 'best' street design for modern office buildings may be incompatible with that for residences or, for that matter, outdoor climates.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; built form; heating and cooling loads; height-to-width ratio; office buildings; street design; urban canyon; urban climate; urban design; urban microclimate |
| Index terms: | canyons, penalty, office building, building height, interaction, energy demand, microclimate, urban design, building performance, built form, energy efficiency, London, shading, configuration |
| Subjects: | energy systems, behavioral psychology, construction type, Geography, quality assurance, sustainability and energy, urban design, climate science, physical geography and landforms, building performance, urban form and morphology, regulatory law, building design, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Urban Studies, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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