Are simple models for natural ventilation suitable for shelter design?
dc.contributor.author | Conzatti, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Fosas de Pando, D | |
dc.contributor.author | Chater, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Coley, D | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-04-10T09:32:09Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025-04-08 | |
dc.date.updated | 2025-04-10T07:51:54Z | |
dc.description.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. | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | McIntyre Scholarship in Healthy Housing | en_GB |
dc.format.extent | 158–181 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 6(1), pp. 158–181 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.497 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/140771 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Ubiquity Press | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-01450 | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dc.subject | indoor environmental quality | en_GB |
dc.subject | natural ventilation | en_GB |
dc.subject | public health | en_GB |
dc.subject | shelter design | en_GB |
dc.subject | window design | en_GB |
dc.subject | building modelling | en_GB |
dc.subject | airflow models | en_GB |
dc.title | Are simple models for natural ventilation suitable for shelter design? | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2025-04-10T09:32:09Z | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available on open access from Ubiquity Press via the DOI in this record | en_GB |
dc.description | Data accessibility: Data are accessible via https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-01450 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2632-6655 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Buildings and Cities | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2025-03-20 | |
dcterms.dateSubmitted | 2024-09-13 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2025-04-08 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2025-04-10T09:26:57Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2025-04-10T09:32:20Z | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2025-04-08 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/