Abstract

The school building sector has a pivotal role to play in the transition to a low carbon UK economy. School buildings are responsible for 15% of the country’s public sector carbon emissions, with space heating currently making up the largest proportion of energy use and associated costs in schools. Children spend a large part of their waking life in school buildings. There is substantial evidence that poor indoor air quality and thermal discomfort can have detrimental impacts on the performance, wellbeing and health of schoolchildren and school staff. Maintaining high indoor environmental quality whilst reducing energy demand and carbon emissions in schools is challenging due to the unique operational characteristics of school environments, e.g. high and intermittent occupancy densities or changes in occupancy patterns throughout the year. Furthermore, existing data show that 81% of the school building stock in England was constructed before 1976. Challenges facing the ageing school building stock may be exacerbated in the context of ongoing and future climate change.In recent decades, building stock modelling has been widely used to quantify and evaluate the current and future energy and indoor environmental quality performance of large numbers of buildings at the neighbourhood, city, regional or national level. Building stock models commonly use building archetypes, which aim to represent the diversity of building stocks through frequently occurring building typologies.The aim of this paper is to introduce the Data dRiven Engine for Archetype Models of Schools (DREAMS), a novel, data-driven, archetype-based school building stock modelling framework. DREAMS enables the detailed representation of the school building stock in England through the statistical analysis of two large scale and highly detailed databases provided by the UK Government: (i) the Property Data Survey Programme (PDSP) from the Department for Education (DfE), and (ii) Display Energy Certificates (DEC). In this paper, the development of 168 building archetypes representing 9,551 primary schools in England is presented. The energy consumption of the English primary school building stock was modelled for a typical year under the current climate using the widely tested and applied building performance software EnergyPlus. For the purposes of modelling validation, the DREAMS space heating demand predictions were compared against average measured energy consumption of the schools that were represented by each archetype. It was demonstrated that the simulated fossil-thermal energy consumption of a typical primary school in England was only 7% higher than measured energy consumption (139 kWh/m2/y simulated, compared to 130 kWh/m2/y measured). The building stock model performs better at predicting the energy performance of naturally ventilated buildings, which constitute 97% of the stock, than that of mechanically ventilated ones. The framework has also shown capabilities in predicting energy consumption on a more localised scale. The London primary school building stock was examined as a case study.School building stock modelling frameworks such as DREAMS can be powerful tools that aid decision-makers to quantify and evaluate the impact of a wide range of building stock-level policies, energy efficiency interventions and climate change scenarios on school energy and indoor environmental performance.

Highlights

  • This paper presents a novel stock-modelling framework - Data dRiven Engine for Archetype Models of Schools (DREAMS) - that is capable of offering a detailed representation of the English primary school building stock

  • Building on existing archetype building stock modelling approaches outlined in the previous section, this paper presents a theoretical archetype stock model for primary school buildings in England

  • The analysis starts with a wide overview and performs a stock-level analysis, describing each archetype and the number of schools they represent across the country

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The top-down approach is easy to apply as it requires a limited set of inputs for model development [12], while it considers the building stock as an energy sink and does not provide detailed energy results of individual buildings or end-uses [11]. This may lead to limitations in identifying specific policy measures for improving energy efficiency of different building types

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call