Content uploaded by Zoe De Grussa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zoe De Grussa on Mar 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Case Study assessing the impact of Shading Systems
combined with Night-Time Ventilation strategies on
Overheating within a Residential Property.
Zoe De Grussa1*, Dr Deborah Andrews1, Dr Gordon Lowry1,
DrElizabeth.J. Newton1, Kika Yiakoumetti1, Andrew Chalk2* and David Bush2
1. London South Bank University
103 Borough Road, London
SE1 0AA, United Kingdom
*degrussz@lsbu.ac.uk
2.The British Blind and Shutter Association
*andrew@bbsa.org.uk
ABSTRACT
Overheating in domestic homes, specifically in built up urban areas, has become a pressing problem throughout
the UK.It is likely to become a costly energy problem in years to come if passive design strategies are not fully
understood and integrated. This research looks to investigate how internal and external solar shading systems
impact on operative temperatures when differing blindstogether witha night time natural ventilation strategy are
adopted within a renovated block of flats inNorth London. Although shading and ventilation were overlooked at
the initial stage of the building design, the implementation of solar shading has been found to be beneficial in
maintaining thermal comfort within the building when external temperatures were recorded both above and
below 20-
During the study shading was combined with a night-time natural ventilation strategy which enabled most rooms
to cool when external temperatures were at their lowest. However, nighttime ventilation may not be desirable to
the occupants due to external traffic noise and security issues in relation to the intended design use of the rooms
such as those in this case study. The authors believe lower indoor temperatures could be achieved if the areasof
opening were increased in size cross-ventilation was not
possible leading to significant overheating issues and the retrofitting of mechanical ventilation. This highlights
the need fo that considers the inter-relationship betweenglazing,
shading and ventilation collectively at the design stage.
KEYWORDS
Overheating, Night-Time Ventilation, Internal Blinds, External Blinds, Shading.
1 INTRODUCTION
The UK is a predominantly heating reliant nation and it has been identified that the
and specifically the glazing system, is the main cause for fabric thermal losses within
domestic buildings,improvements of which could lead to substantial energy savings resulting
in lower CO2emissions (IEA, 2013). The UK government has worked towards energy
efficient building standards, Building Regulation - Part L1A, which have reduced unwanted
air infiltration and have improved the insulation standard of new homes.Schemes such as the
Green Deal in conjunction with Building Regulation Part L1B have encouraged
homeowners to refurbish existing homes to a similar standard. However, through these
improvements the number of reported thermal discomfort issues relating to overheating in
summer has risen.
The Zero Carbon Hub (2015) has found that up to 20% of the housing stock is subject
to overheating alone and in the healthcare sector 90% of hospitals are susceptible to
overheating (Seguro and Palmer, 2016).The Good Homes Alliance (2014) identified that
urban apartments tend to overheat most frequently. Overall, they identified 90 instances of
overheating in domestic buildings in the UK and 73% of these were located in urban
locations. 78% (of the 90) of these occurrences were reported in apartments, 48% (of the 90)
were new builds (30% had been built post 2000) and 30% were buildings repurposed/refitted
into apartments. Within research literature a recent paper by Lomas and Porritt, (2017)reviews
12 studieswhere overheating has been evidenced across the UK in domestic homes in a mix of
building typesthat vary in age and construction type. However, these studies conducted by
different research teams vary in scale, methodologies in defining overheating and data
collection procedures which makes comparisons between them problematic.
The for post-occupancy
evaluations.Recommended operative temperatures for different room purposes are given
within CIBSE Guide A (2015), ASHRAE Standard 55 and BS EN 15251:2007 (BSI, 2008).
These recommend bedrooms and living areas should remain between 23- in summer and
between 17- in winter. It is important to realise that these temperatures represent the
upper and lower limits of thermal comfort and are not representative of long-term
temperatures that may cause serious health issues for vulnerable groups. The World Health
Organisation (1990) recommended that air temperatures between 18 -
healthy sedentary people but for vulnerable groups air temperatures should be maintained at
on excess heat and
creases and there is an increase
highlighted in 2003, when 2,000 premature deaths occurred in relation to a 10-day heatwave
experienced in the UK. ures are likely to become common summer
temperatures as early as 2040 (Public Health England, 2015).
Increased ventilation and solar shading are the recommended strategies for combatting
overheating (Zero Carbon Hub, 2015, Serguro & Palmer, 2016, Public Health England, 2015,
BRE, 2016, Lomas and Porritt, 2017).However, the barriers to these solutions are those of
human behaviour. It has been suggested in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017
that people lack a basic understanding of the risks to health from indoor high
temperatures, and are therefore less likely to take measures to safeguard their and their
Natural ventilation in urban areas can be problematic due to issues
arising from external noise and security concerns. In a survey given to 89 householders in
London windows were also found to be infrequently used with more than half of respondents
stating they were unable to open windows due to security reasons and one third asserting they
were unable to open them due to high external noises. Furthermore, over the course of a very
hot day one in five respondents would not tend to open any windows at night and one in ten
would keep all windows closed all day. In total 70% of respondents suggested they would
either open one or no windows at night, which limits the potential for night-time ventilation
(Mavrogianni et al., 2016).
It is well documented that blinds and shutters are used infrequently and the
motivations to instigate blind movements are often related to a number of factors inclusive of
lighting conditions, exposure to glare, preference for a view and the associated thermal affects
which are then defined by the priorities of the user (Paule et al., 2015, Van Den
Wymelenberg, 2012). Within the previously mentioned studyconducted in London, even on
seemingly hot days one quarter of occupants reported that they did not close blinds during the
day (Mavrogianni et al., 2016).
In the UK air conditioning systems are still rarely used within domestic homes
however this may change with the increasing frequency of heat waves (BRE, 2016) and
the -East of England by the
end of the century (Hulme et al., 2002). The Energy Performance Building Directive has
identified overheating as a concern across Europe and a cause for increasing energy
consumption in relation to air conditioning costs. Passive measures, such as solar shading, are
recommended to reduce the need and size of air conditioning units which will subsequently
reduce energy consumption (Publications Office, 2010, Wouter et al., 2010).
There is little to encourage the requirement for shading systems to be put in place through
Part L building regulations, and compliance tools such as BREEAM are ineffective in
capturing the benefits solar shading can offer as they are based on averaged weather data sets
that pay little attention to the solar heat gains within a building (Seguro and Palmer, 2016).
However as 75- 90% of the buildings have already been built and will still be standing in
2050 (International Energy Agency, 2013),it is also important for industry to understand the
impact re-fit options have on the energy consumption, comfort of occupants and the building
fabric.
In this study, we aim to investigate the impact that shading and natural ventilation
strategies combined can have on a newly refitted, urban apartment taking into consideration
user behaviours.
2 FIELD STUDY METHODOLOGY
The case study building is situated in the centre of Camden, London less than a 5-minute walk
away from Camden High Street Underground Station. The building was originally
constructed for the manufacture of aircraft parts but has now been renovated for residential
purposes whilst maintaining the aesthetic of a commercial building. The top part of the
building has been transformed from a commercial premises into twenty loft apartments and
two penthouse suites on the top floor. Therest of the apartments are spread over three floors
above ground and one floorat lower ground (basement) level. The building is south-west
orientated (241.58 with heavily glazed fa ades on the south-west and north-east face of the
building. Overall the building has a medium thermal mass as the walls are constructed from
brick with a mix of concrete and timber flooring throughout the building.
The south-w tuated on a busy main road in the heart of
Camden with a 24-hour use bus stop directly in front of the property. A communal garden
area has been created between the front of the building and the pedestrian footpath which
consists of a 1.8m wooden fenced surround containing newly planted young evergreen oak
trees which will provide privacy from passers-by to the ground floor and provide shading for
the ground floor and potentially first floor of the building in years to come (Figure 1.).
In the original building specification, no shading was specified, however during the
construction it was reported how some of the apartments appeared to be overheating above
acceptable comfort levels. This was causing issues for workers carrying out the re-fit,
affecting materials and methods during construction and subsequently created issues with the
plumbing system.For example, when the building was left unoccupied for 5-6 weeks,the
building manager found that the waste pipe water had evaporated leaving no protection
against odour ingress from the sewage system. A member of the British Blind and Shutter
Associationwas approached to give further recommendations of the impact differing shading
strategies could have on comfort levels within the building.
The comfort boundaries in this study have been defined by operative temperature
recommended by CIBSE Guide A (2015), ASHRAE Standard 55 and BS EN 15251:2007
(BSI, 2008) where bedrooms should remain between 23- in summer and between 17-
in winter.
For this case study, we have modelled the real-time behaviour of an occupant who
leaves their home vacant between 8am and 4pm, keeping the windows closed for security
reasons during the day whilst assessing the thermal impact of closing a blind either internally
or externally for the duration of 24-hours. We examined what effect thishas on the operative
temperature increaseof a room during the day. This is then statistically compared with the
operative temperature increase ofan almost identical room without solar shading, the control
room, toidentify and quantify the temperature reduction achieved through the use of internal
and external blinds. It is hypothesised that the operative temperature increasewillbe
reducedwhen shading is used and this would lead to a positive impact onthe level of
comfortwhen an occupant returns to the property in the afternoon.
Figure 1. South-West facing building close to Camden High Street Underground Station (Photograph taken with
a wide-angled lens).
2.1 Room Specification
Four bedrooms in two apartments were identified within the building to be evaluated. All the
rooms selected were identical in orientation, finish and the amount of glazed area. The
bedrooms within apartments 13 and 18 were chosen to be compared (apartment 13 situated on
the 1stfloor and apartment 18 directly above on the 2ndfloor). These two units have identical
room layouts (see Figure 2.) with each apartment containing a living room, kitchen, bathroom
and two rooms designed as bedrooms.
Figure 2. Building floor layout and Unit 13 and 18 layouts with sensor positions.
Thebedrooms only differ in room depth; Room A extends to 4.5m andRoom B extends to
3.5m.Both Room A and B are 3.5m wide.There was no furniture in either apartment and the
walls and floors were finished and painted to the same standard-matt white paint on the walls
and oak wood flooring (Figure3.).
2.2
To allow the building to be used for residential purposes,it has been refitted with double
low-e argon filled glazing (4-16-4) with a black/grey spacer which fits into steel window
mullions. Both bedrooms(Room A and Room B) have a glazed -west wall;
the glazed areas are of equal size covering 3.2m x 1.85m and each window is split into three
columns which is segmented into four rows. There are two areasof opening which are
approximately 850mm x 450mm situated in the centre column with the first (from bottom)
and third segment (from bottom) openable (Figure 3.) The glazing sits 1.1m above floor level
in all rooms and has been specified to have a U-value of 1.1 W/m2K.No g-value was given by
the building developer but the glazing specifier advised that the glazing alone would be
adequate to control the solar gains on all fa ades.
2.3 Solar Shading Selection
We evaluated the impact of three internal and two external solar shading products; an internal
80mm aluminium venetian blind, an internal screen fabric roller blindand an internal
reflective screen fabric roller blind. The 80mm aluminium venetian blind and screen fabric
roller were also used externally. All types of blinds were tested when fully closed for the
period of 8 hoursand in addition the external venetian blind wasalso tested with louvres at an
The solar properties of each blind type are presented below calculated to BS EN
14501:2005 (BSI, 2005). Even though gtotcould not be calculateddue to lack of glazing data,
this has not compromised the studyas the same type and size of glazingwas used in each of
the rooms.
Table 1: Blind Fabric Specifications according to BS EN 14501.
2.4 Data Collection Procedure and Measurements
Before each day of data collection, the windows and joining room doors in all bedrooms and
the living area were left open overnight to allow for night-time cooling. Blinds were also
installed the day previous and positioned fully closed or closed at a 45 angle, for the
Venetian blinds. A different shading strategy was installed in each room except for the control
room where no blind was installed. The readings were taken manually which required a
researcher to enter each room and record the readings on the sensors; each time this was done
in the same way; the door was opened and closed as the individual entered and exited the
room being monitored and the instrumentation was left in the same position throughout
testing.
The data collection procedure was conducted as follows:
8am Windows and Doors Closed, Measurements Start.
Measurements taken every 10 minutes.
4pm Windows and Doors Opened, Measurements Stopped.
Blind Fabric Material
Composition
Solar
Transmission
(Ts or e)
Solar
Reflectance
(Rs or
Solar
Absorptance
(As or
Screen Fabric 42% Fibreglass / 58% PVC 0.10 0.20 0.70
Reflective Screen Fabric 36% Fibreglass / 64% PVC 0.05 0.76 0.19
Aluminium Venetian (80mm) Aluminium 0.00 0.50 0.50
Aluminium Venetian (80mm) at 45 Aluminium 0.08 0.38 0.55
Internal Operative Temperature A black globe thermometer (40mm )was used with a
mercury thermometer as the temperature probe. The sensor was set up on a tripod and
evel within all four rooms
being monitored (Figure 3.). The size of the globe used closely correlateswith measurements
of operative temperature within the indoors, which relates to the temperature humans feel
when clothed (Humphreys, 1977).
Room A: No Blind Installed Room B: 80mm Aluminium Venetian Blind
Figur
e 3.
Room
A and
B in
Unit
18
with
senso
r
setup.
External Air Temperature An air temperature sensor was situated on the ground floor
outside. The handheld air temperature sensor was positioned away from direct solar radiation
to prevent the metal probe being affected by radiant heat.
3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Data collection took place over a period of twenty days between August and October 2016.
Out of these,data from sixteen of the twentydays met the quality requirements and wereused
for analysis. On six days(of the sixteen) the peak external air temperature was above 25 n
five days,the external air temperature peaked between 20 - onthe remaining five
days the temperature peaked .Overall external wind velocities were considered
calm and the weather conditions were considered typical for summer in London.
3.1 Operative Temperature Increase
The operative temperature increase (range -the difference between lowest and highest
operative temperature values recorded in one day) was statistically analysed as the starting
temperatures in each room were found to fluctuate due to differentthermal retention between
different rooms (as different blinds were kept closed) andthere were potential differences in
air leakage. The rangeswere calculated foreach individual day and the results are presented in
Table 2. alongside the minimum (min) and maximum (max) operative temperatures and the
external air temperatures (min, max and range).
The peak operative temperature in the non-blind room
days monitored. Internal blinds were monitored on 21 occasions, on 13 of these occasions the
On 18 of the occasions where external blinds
It is also noted that on several occasions the minimum operative temperature exceeded
vernight, due to the small area of opening
and lack of cross-ventilation. If the minimum operative temperatures were lower then shading
would have been able to maintain temperatures within the comfort threshold.
Table2. Data collectionof indoor temperatures over 16 days across four rooms between 8am and 4pm. The solar shading specified were fixed in either at closed/ lowered position or at a
angle for the entirety of the day.
No Blind
Internal Blind External Blind
Aluminium
Venetian Screen Fabric Reflective Screen
Fabric
Aluminium
Venetian
Aluminium
Venetian at 45 Screen Fabric
External Air
Temperature (
Operative
Temperature (
Operative
Temperature(
Operative
Temperature(
Operative
Temperature (
Operative
Temperature (
Operative
Temperature (
Operative
Temperature (
Testing Day Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Min Max
Range
Day 1 22.4 34.2 11.8 26.5* 45.0* 18.5 23.5 31.0* 7.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Day 2 22.5 31.1 8.6 25.0 40.0* 15.0 - - - 28.0* 31.0* 3.0 - - - 28.0* 28.0* 0.0 - - - - - -
Day 3 20.8 27.9 7.1 27.0* 47.5* 20.5 28.5* 34.5* 6.0 27.0* 32.0* 5.0 - - - - - - 27.0* 29.5* 2.5 - - -
Day 4 17.3 28.3 11.0 - - - 27.5* 34.0* 6.5 27.0* 32.0* 5.0 - - - - - - 26.0* 29.0* 3.0 - - -
Day 5 16.7 28.4 11.7 - - - 26.0* 30.0* 4.0 - - - 27.0* 32.0* 5.0 - - - - - - 26.0* 28.0* 2.0
Day 6 19.7 25.5 5.8 27.0* 36.0* 9.0 21.0 26.0* 5.0 - - - 27.0* 31.0* 4.0 - - - - - - - - -
Day 7 14.3 23.2 8.9 23.0 39.0* 16.0 - - - 21.5 27.0* 5.5 21.0 26.5* 5.5 - - - - - - - - -
Day 8 16.9 20.4 3.5 23.0 33.5* 10.5 - - - - - - 22.5 25.0* 2.5 21.0 22.5 1.5 - - - 22.0 24.0 2.0
Day 9 13.2 20.1 6.9 22.5 42.0* 19.5 - - - - - - 21.0 26.5* 5.5 20.0 21.5 1.5 - - - 20.5 23.0 2.5
Day 10 10.5 21.4 10.9 22.0 45.0* 23.0 - - - - - - 20.5 28.0* 7.5 20.0 22.5 2.5 - - - 19.0 26.0* 7.0
Day 11 13.0 20.5 7.5 23.0 44.0* 21.0 - - - - - - - - - 20.0 21.0 1.0 - - - 20.0 22.0 2.0
Day 12 13.5 18.7 5.2 22.5 39.0* 16.5 - - - - - - - - - 20.0 20.5 0.5 - - - 19.5 21.0 1.5
Day 13 9.9 18.2 8.3 19.5 38.0* 18.5 18.5 24.0 5.5 18.0 23.0 5.0 - - - - - - 19.5 21.5 2.0 - - -
Day 14 12.3 16.4 4.1 21.0 37.0* 16.0 19.5 24.0 4.5 18.5 22.5 4.0 - - - - - - 20.0 21.5 1.5 - - -
Day 15 11.1 16.0 4.9 20.0 32.5* 12.5 - - - 18.0 21.5 3.5 - - - - - - 19.0 21.0 2.0 - - -
Day 16 4.5 15.3 10.8 20.5 24.5 4.0 - - - 19.0 20.0 1.0 - - - - - - 20.0 20.5 0.5 - - -
* Operative Temperature higherthan 25
3.2 Impact of Blind Position on Operative Temperature Range
The operative temperature increases between 8am and 4pm were statistically compared using
a Paired T-Test in SPSS to observe whether:
a) Internal blinds have a significant impact on the operative temperature increase in
comparison to the control room.
b) External blinds have a significant impact on the operative temperature increase in
comparison to the control room.
c) Whether there is a significant difference on the operative temperature increase between
rooms with internal and external blinds.
Table 3. Paired T-Test of no blind operative increase (range) values vs internal blind and external blind operative
temperature increase (range) and internal blind operative increase (range) vs external operative temperature
increase (range).
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Pair No.
of Paired
Samples
Mean
(
Std. dev
(
Lower
(
Upper
(
t - statistic
(
Degrees of
Freedom
Sig.
(2 tailed)
No Blind vs Internal Blind 14 10.71 3.75 8.54 12.88 10.68 13 <0.05
No Blind vs External Blind 10 14.25 5.11 10.60 17.90 8.82 9 <0.05
Internal Blind vs External Blind 12 3.13 1.74 2.02 4.23 6.23 11 <0.05
* Level of Significance 0.05
Table 3. and Figure 4. represent the findings from the statistical review.These indicate that in
all cases there was a significant impact on operative temperature increase when both internal
and external blinds were used and compared to the control room. It was found that there was a
significant relationship between the operative temperature increase between rooms with
internal blinds and rooms with external blinds.
Figure 4. 95% Confidence interval and mean values of internal blind rooms and external blind rooms operative
temperature increase (range) compared with a room with no blind.
If the experiment was to be carried out again in the same location, with external conditions
within the same parameters and with the same window and blind opening and closing actions,
we can say with 95% confidence that:
a) Internal Blinds will reduce the operative temperature increase by between 8.54 -
. The room with an internal blind would therefore be cooler
than a room without a blind.
b) External Blinds would reduce the operative temperature increase in the room by
between 10.60 17.90 room with an external blind would therefore be
17.90
c) The difference in operative temperature increase between a room with an internal
blind and an external blind installed would be between 2.02 4.23 .In effect
the external blind room would be 2.02 4.23 an internal
blind.
External blinds, ashypothesised, have been found to reduce operative temperature increase
more than internal blinds.
3.3 Impact of different blind types on Operative Temperature Range
To understand how different blind types and their properties impact the operative
temperature, a paired T-Test was carried out comparing the operative temperature increaseof
thecontrol room to that of a room with a specific blind type installed at a closed position or in
the case of external aluminium venetians with louvres at a
Table 4. Paired T-Test of no blind operative increase (range) values vs specific blind types operative temperature
increase (range).
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Pair
No. of
Paired
Samples
Mean
(
Std.
dev
(
Lower
(
Upper
(
t - statistic
(
Deg. of
Freedom
Sig.
(2 tailed)
No Blind vs Int. Aluminium Venetian 5 10.30 3.07 6.48 14.12 7.49 4 < 0.05
No Blind vs Int. Screen Fabric 7 10.79 4.01 7.08 14.49 7.12 6 < 0.05
No Blind vs Int. Reflective Screen Fabric 5 10.60 4.29 5.27 15.93 5.52 4 < 0.05
No Blind vs Ext. Aluminium Venetian 6 16.42 4.22 11.98 20.85 9.52 5 < 0.05
No Blind 5 12.60 5.81 5.38 19.82 4.85 4 < 0.05
No Blind vs Ext. Screen Fabric 5 15.10 3.97 10.16 20.04 8.49 4 < 0.05
* Level of Significance 0.05
The results of the T-Test are presented in Table 4.Once again, all blinds were found to have a
statistically significant relationshipwith the operative temperature increase. The mean, lower
and upper confidence intervals vary depending on the properties of the blind type and the
location of the products (internal or external).
Figure 5. 95% Confidence interval and mean values of all blind types operative temperature increase (range)
compared with a room with no blind.
From Figure5. we observe how the external blindsprovide the largest mean difference in
operative temperature increase indicating that they limit solar gain effectively.
It is important to recognise the extent of the impact that the internal blindshave on the
operative temperature. They have also been able tosignificantly reduce the operative
temperature increase - by 68 - 73%when compared to the operative temperature reduction
achieved by external blinds. This means that internal blinds are almost three quarters as
effective as external blindswithin this building scenario.
4 DISCUSSION
In the design stage of the building external shading was discouraged by the planning authority
on the basis it would not be a necessity and therefore would not justify the impact on the
aesthetics of the building. This was further supported by the glazing specifier where the
developer was informed the glazing alone would obviate the requirement for solar shading.
This only proves that there are a number of design decisions during the refit of a building
that may contribute to issues of overheating which are not fully understood.
Solar shadingcombined with night-time ventilation in this case has been evidenced to
reduce operative temperature increase. Thereare several other design factorsthat can also
contribute to overheatingand these need to be considered and evaluated before construction or
re-fit. These are: the location and orientation of the building, ceiling height, room depth,
insulation and potential for air leakage, thermal mass of the building, fa ade design layout,
hot water distributionlayout and the ability to cross ventilate the building.
5 CONCLUSION
The study conducted has demonstrated how solar shading when combined with night-time
ventilation can be an effective method in reducing operative temperature increase in an urban
flat. Although external shading is observed to be most efficient, internal shading in this study
demonstrated that it can achieve as much as 73% of the operative temperature reduction as
that of as external shading. The use of external shading is not widespread practice in the UK
as windows are often outward opening. This would prevent opening of the windows when
external shading is extended and situated close to the building fa ade.
The behaviour behind opening and closing of windows and blinds has been
documented to be poorly understood and underutilised.Initiation of movements can be
confounded by a number of behavioural factors, particularly in urban areas, where
noisepollution, security and availability of daylight are often prioritised over thermal comfort.
Within unoccupied rooms changes in solar shading and window opening behaviour couldhave
a beneficialimpact on the thermal conditions experienced in a living space later in the day and
over a period of time also on the building fabric of a building.The benefits of improved
thermal comfort could also considerably reduce the energy requirement from mechanical
ventilation systems,especially if users are educated on the best window opening and blind
movement strategies and apply these to their daily lives.
Lastly, appropriate specification of glazing systems is vital in combatting the issues of
overheating. Increasingthe area of openings is essential for night-time
ventilation of buildings particularly in single aspect designed buildings. Also, clarity is
needed on the importance of g-value specification at the design stage to ensure buildings are
designed so they do not overheat.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authors would like to thankRupert Cain, Alex Gutteridge, Harry Ketley, Diana Csilla
Toth, NickTeixeiraand Senez Oznacarfrom London South Bank University for their support
in conducting measurements during such warm conditions.
7 REFERENCES
BRE (2016) Overheating in dwellings - Assessment protocol. Available from:
https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Briefing%20papers/117106-Assessment-Protocol-v2.pdf
BRE (2016) Study on Energy Use by Air- Conditioning: Annex A Literature Search. Available
from: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/projects/aircon-energy-
use/A_AirConditioningEnergyUseAnnexAFinal.pdf
BSI (2005) BS EN 14501: 2005 - blinds and shutters Thermal and visual comfort
Performance characteristics and classification. BSI. Available from:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030100403
BSI (2008) BS EN 15251: 2007 Indoor environmental input parameters for design and
assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
environment, lighting and acoustics. BSI. Available from:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030133865
BSI (2014) BS 8233: 2014 - guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings
BSI British standards. Available from:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030241579 [Accessed 26
September 2016].
CIBSE (2015) CIBSE Guide A: Environmental design. 8th ed. CIBSE.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Housing health and safety rating
system (HHSRS): Guidance for landlords and property-related professionals.
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-health-and-
safety-rating-system-guidance-for-landlords-and-property-related-professionals
[Accessed 21 December 2016].
Good Homes Alliance (2014) Preventing Overheating. London. Available from:
http://www.goodhomes.org.uk/downloads/members/gha-preventing-overheating.pdf
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J., Mitchell, T. and Jones, R. et al. (2002)
Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report.
p. 120pp. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. Available from:
http://danida.vnu.edu.vn/cpis/files/Papers_on_CC/CC/Climate%20Change%20Scenari
os%20for%20the%20United%20Kingdom.pdf
Humphreys, M. (1977) The optimum diameter for a Globe Thermometer for use Indoors,
Annals Of Occupational Hygiene, 20 (2), pp. 135-140. DOI:10.1093/annhyg/20.2.135.
International Energy Agency (2013) Technology Roadmap energy efficient building
envelopes. Available from:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapEn
ergyEfficientBuildingEnvelopes.pdf
Kevin J. Lomas, Stephen M. Porritt. (2017) Overheating in buildings: lessons from
research. Building Research & Information 45:1-2, pages 1-18.
Mavrogianni, A., Pathan, A., Oikonomou, E., Biddulph, P., Symonds, P. and Davies, M.
(2016) Inhabitant actions and summer overheating risk in London dwellings, Building
Research & Information, 45 (1-2), pp. 119-142.
DOI:10.1080/09613218.2016.1208431.
Paule, B., Boutillier, J. and Pantet, S. (2015) Global Lighting Performance. ESTIA. Available
from:
http://static.wm3.se/sites/45/media/29281_ESTIA_Study_English_ver_3_0.pdf?14266
75541
Public Health England (2015) Heatwave plan for England. London.
Publications Office (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European parliament and of the
council of 19 may 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. Available from:
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF
Seguro, F. and Palmer, J. (2016) Solar Shading Impact Report. National Energy Foundation.
Van Den Wymelenberg, K. (2012)Patterns of occupant interaction with window blinds: A
literature review, Energy And Buildings, 51, pp. 165-176.
DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.05.008.
World Health Organization (1990) Indoor environment: Health aspects of air quality, thermal
environment, light and noise. Available from:
http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/62723 [Accessed 21 December 2016].
Wouter, W., Dolma Solar
shading: How to integrate solar shading in sustainable buildings Guidebook No 12.
Brussels, Belgium: REHVA, Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning
Associations.
Zero Carbon Hub (2015) Overheating In Homes - The Big Picture. United Kingdom: Zero
Carbon Hub. Available from:
http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/reports/ZCH-
OverheatingInHomes-TheBigPicture-01.1.pdf
