Adam O’Donovan, Theofanis Psomas, Paul D. O’Sullivan
Languages: English | Pages: 11 pp
Bibliographic info:
42nd AIVC - 10th TightVent - 8th venticool Conference - Rotterdam, Netherlands - 5-6 October 2022

The use of the word “resilience” has increased significantly since 2010, however, there is a lack of understanding around 1) how thermal resilience is defined (where some definitions were offered only recently) and 2) what distinguishes it from typical overheating assessments. In addition to this, there is a lack of uptake in the remote monitoring industry (which uses low-cost solutions) when it comes to typical parameters used in thermal comfort studies and there is need to demonstrate how resilience performance can be reported going forward. To address or go towards addressing these gaps in the literature several case study buildings with low-cost measurement solutions are assessed according to both standardised approaches to overheating and regarding emerging resilience metrics in the literature. The aim of the study is to address what differences exist between standardised performance and resilience performance over time for buildings located in temperate climates which represent the best case for passive solutions. In this paper, hourly data from two A-rated residential buildings is analysed over several years with respect to outside conditions. The data logging systems are representative of typical “off-the- shelf” monitoring solutions on the market for residential applications in Ireland. A combination of standardised overheating metrics and emerging ambient warming resilience metrics are used to determine the thermal resilience of these buildings in present day conditions. The data logging solution tested in theory provided sufficient data, however, the use of residential Wi-Fi networks resulted in many dropouts which was found to be unfavourable. Current results indicate overheating incidences in both buildings but in different building zones. Despite these zones overheating, the use of ambient warming resilience metrics indicated that the buildings were able to supress outdoor stress passively (aIOD < 1). The use of ambient warming resilience metrics was therefore found to aid in diagnosing the current suppressibility of the buildings passive systems. In addition to this, more work is needed in comparing low-cost solutions and research grade equipment to determine their suitability going forward. More work is needed in further exploring and refining additional field measurement-based resilience assessment methods and considering other variables and factors outside of ambient warming.