Research

A comparison of structural and behavioural adaptations to future proofing buildings against higher temperatures


Reference:

Coley, D., Kershaw, T. J. and Eames, M., 2012. A comparison of structural and behavioural adaptations to future proofing buildings against higher temperatures. Building and Environment, 55, pp. 159-166.

Related documents:

[img]
Preview
PDF (author's accepted version) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (208kB) | Preview

    Official URL:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.12.011

    Abstract

    The uncertainty surrounding projections of climate change has left the building design community in a quandary. Should they assume a worst case scenario, and recommend adaptations to designs that might prove to be unnecessary and quite possibly costly? Or should they increase the risk to the occupants by selecting a less pessimistic vision of the future? It is well known that structural adaptations, such as additional thermal mass, can help moderate internal conditions as can behavioural adaptations, such as opening windows. Here the relative magnitudes of structural and non-structural (behavioural) adaptations are reflected upon, with the specific intent of discovering whether non-structural adaptations might have a great enough effect to offset any errors from selecting what proves to be (in 40 years time) an erroneous choice of climate change projection. It is found that an alteration to how a building is used is as equally important as common structural adaptations, and that the risk of choosing what turns out to be an incorrect climate change projection can be dealt with by seeing non-structural adaptations as a way of nullifying this risk.

    Details

    Item Type Articles
    CreatorsColey, D., Kershaw, T. J. and Eames, M.
    DOI10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.12.011
    DepartmentsFaculty of Engineering & Design > Architecture & Civil Engineering
    Publisher StatementColey_Building-Environment_2012_i.pdf: NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Building and Environment. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Building and Environment, 2012, vol 55, DOI 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.12.011; Coley_Building-Environment_2012_i.doc: NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Building and Environment. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Building and Environment, 2012, vol 55, DOI 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.12.011
    RefereedYes
    StatusPublished
    ID Code28878

    Export

    Actions (login required)

    View Item

    Document Downloads

    More statistics for this item...