Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Classrooms are long-term environments, in which thermal comfort is essential for a good teaching and learning process. This research presents 16 natural ventilation strategies for classrooms related to energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and the quality of natural ventilation, for regions with a humid subtropical climate, represented by the Brazilian city of Santa Maria. Computer simulations were carried out with the Ansys CFX and EnergyPlus software, in addition to thermal comfort criteria recommended by the adaptive model of ASHRAE 55/2017, where the hours spent in thermal comfort, degree-hours of discomfort, indoor air velocity, air renewal rates, and air humidity were analyzed. The results indicate the most favorable natural ventilation strategies for classrooms located in a developing country in a humid subtropical climate, showing that these can contribute to the improvement of the quality of natural ventilation compared to the conventional constructive solutions used with simple strategies.
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil
Daiana de Oliveira Fauro
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil
Giane de Campos Grigoletti*
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil
*Address all correspondence to: giane.c.grigoletti@ufsm.br
1. Introduction
Natural ventilation aims to exchange air between the internal and external environments without the use of mechanical systems and at the lowest energy consumption. Constant air exchange is an essential bioclimatic architecture parameter and aims to improve users’ thermal comfort and health in indoor environments.
Natural ventilation is fundamental in classrooms, and its importance has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Air renewals are essential for indoor air quality, not only to reduce CO2 concentration but also to avoid the risk of transmission of viral diseases [1, 2, 3, 4]. In addition, the quality of the indoor environment influences children’s interest in learning. All these factors point to the importance of using strategies that provide thermal comfort and adequate air renewal rates [5, 6].
Passive strategies based on natural ventilation must be appropriate to the climate and user’s habits as well as to the economic context. Considering Brazil, a country with a large territory and different climate conditions, passive natural ventilation strategies should be well chosen, both for their suitability to the climate and due to economic restrictions, since frequently public schools do not have air conditioning systems. For example, a large study in Brazilian countryside, which evaluated thermal comfort and natural ventilation in standardized schools located in different climates [7], demonstrated the importance of choosing the appropriate strategies according to the climate context, criticizing the use of standard solutions. Considering a tropical climate in high altitudes, the use of solar chimneys for ventilation in classrooms was adequate as demonstrated by computational simulations and in situ measurements, improving user’s thermal comfort [8]. Regarding equatorial climate, a study demonstrated that window frame designs could improve natural ventilation and children’s thermal comfort through simple solutions. Also, for equatorial climates [9], ventilated sills could increase air velocity and thermal performance in classrooms. All these mentioned studies indicate the difference between solutions according to different contexts in Brazil.
In relation to the evaluation of natural ventilation, in order to guarantee indoor air quality, variables such as suitable air renewal rates are considered. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends, for non-residential buildings such as schools, 10 liters per second per person and a relative humidity between 60 and 80%. This air renewal rate is higher than the Brazilian standardized value that is still not adjusted to new demands from COVID-19 pandemic.
There are several ways to provide natural ventilation from the use of simple windows (one-ventilated or cross-ventilated) to devices that use the temperature difference of the air layers to force its movement, such as chimney effect.
Which strategy is the most recommended is based on other criteria besides the recommended air renewal rates, such as users’ thermal comfort, especially for climates with periods characterized as cold, such as the humid subtropical, in which ventilation can cause great thermal discomfort due to low temperatures. Thermal comfort can be expressed by the number of hours in comfort with respect to the total number of occupied hours, besides the system energy efficiency, since when natural ventilation is not sufficient, artificial air conditioning should be turned on [10]. In this case, the degree-hour method for heating and cooling can be used to assess energy efficiency. In addition, air velocity at the height of users’ body should be considered in order to avoid discomfort and undesirable effects such as flying of papers, important to consider in a classroom environment [11].
Taking in consideration the importance of natural ventilation in school environments in an era of pandemic and the need to find systems with better energy efficiency and thermal comfort according to climate and economic aspects, this chapter presents the evaluation of 16 passive strategies for natural ventilation for a subtropical climate in developing countries such as Brazil. The classroom evaluated is intended for children in the age range 6–14 years and located in a humid subtropical climate with four well-defined seasons, which is represented by a southern Brazilian city, named Santa Maria.
The evaluation was based on computational simulations with CFX and EnergyPlus, as well as air renewal rates and relative air humidity recommended by WHO, thermal comfort expressed by occupied hours in thermal comfort, and ventilation strategies energy efficiency expressed by degree-hours for heating and cooling, according to ASHRAE [10].
Santa Maria, which represents the studied humid subtropical climate, is located 300 km from the seaside, at a latitude of 29.70 S, longitude of 53.82 W, and average altitude of 115 m. The file adopted is TMY2. The city is characterized by mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures of 25.4 and 14.9°C, respectively. The mean annual maximum and minimum relative air humidity is 99 and 32%, respectively. The air velocity presents mean maximum and minimum 7.33 and 0.05 m/s, respectively. The predominant wind directions are east and southeast [12]. Table 1 presents Santa Maria climatological normals. Figure 1 illustrates the wind frequency in Santa Maria.
Month
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Year
Max. temp. (°C)
41.0
41.0
40.0
39.6
34.1
31.2
32.0
35.2
36.8
37.9
40
40.2
41.0
Mean max. temp. (°C)
31.0
30.2
29.1
26.0
22.0
19.8
19.2
21.8
22.5
25.3
28.0
30.4
25.4
Min. temp. (°C)
9.4
9.4
5.9
2.5
0.1
−2.6
−2.9
−2.0
−0.6
3.4
5.2
7.2
−2.9
Mean min. temp. (°C)
20.1
19.7
18.3
15.2
12.1
10.4
9.4
10.8
12.3
15.0
16.5
18.7
14.9
Rainfall (mm)
166
132
142
151
137
133
147
11
155
203
136
162
1.778
Relative humidity (%)
74
77
79
81
84
84
83
79
79
77
71
70
78
Sun hours
243
206
213
179
156
127
147
166
159
181
225
250
2.249
Table 1.
Santa Maria climatological normals, adapted from Ref. [12].
Figure 1.
Wind frequency in Santa Maria, translated from Ref. [13].
2.2 Classroom standard and proposed strategies
The classroom model adopted in the simulations is recommended by the Brazilian government for public schools and is widely used throughout the country, with minor adaptations according to the climate, mainly for walls. The classroom has an area equal to 45.00 m2 and ceiling height 2.80 m. Its maximum capacity is 36 students and 1 teacher (37 users). Figure 2 illustrates the classroom geometry. The roof was represented as transparent for the visualization of the indoor environment.
Figure 2.
Classroom geometry.
The construction technology is based on the concrete slab and ceramic floor, rectangular 6-hole hollow/porotherm clay block for walls (9 cm × 14 cm × 24 cm), single glass for windows, and plywood panel for door. The physical properties of the materials are presented in Table 2, considering thickness (e), thermal conductivity (λ), specific weight (ρ), specific heat (c), thermal emittance (ε), solar absorbance (α), transmissivity (α), and reflectivity.
The standard classroom has a single-sided ventilation, window size 10.96 m2, and sill equal to 1.00 m from floor. Window orientation is east in order to capture the prevailing regional winds. The window is divided into two parts: the bottom is an awning panel, and the top is a maxim-ar panel (with 90° aperture).
In addition to the standard solution described above, 15 window models were proposed as illustrated in Table 3. Windows are oriented east and have a sill height 1.00 m.
Table 3.
Simulated strategies.
2.3 Evaluation criteria
The reference used in order to evaluate the suitability of air velocity is the maximum speed allowed in classrooms (1.20 m/s). Air velocities higher than this cause occupants’ dissatisfaction due to uncomfortable air currents, in addition to unwanted paper flight [17].
Thermal comfort can be evaluated through percentage of hours of occupation in thermal comfort (PHOTC) [18]. ASHRAE Standard 55 presents the procedures in order to establish PHOTC by the adaptative thermal comfort model. The indicated acceptability limit is 80%, which is recommended for typical applications [10].
WHO recommends a minimum natural ventilation rate equal to 10 liters per second per person in the case of non-residential indoor environments and in the COVID-19 pandemic or similar situations [19]. In relation to air humidity, WHO recommends minimum 60% and maximum 80% [20].
2.4 Simulation configuration
Ansys CFX software allows to simulate the natural ventilation provided by the different strategies. Table 4 presents the initial parameters adopted for simulation configurations.
Software configuration
Parameters
Adopted configuration
Geometry
Domain
Circular; height is 5 times building height and distance in the horizontal plane is 10 times the building height
Blockage ratio
<3%
Mesh
Size function
Proximity and curvature
Relevance center
Fine
Smoothing
High
Transition
Slow
Span Angle Center
Fine (36° a 12°)
Inflated boundary
Floor and building surfaces, maximum thickness of 0.4 and 0.2, respectively
Setup
Boundary conditions
The basis of the domain and building surfaces—wall; domain sides—inlet; top—opening
Solver control
Interactions from 600 up to 6000
Table 4.
Specific settings in Ansys CFX.
The adopted model of turbulence is k-ε, which optimizes the relation between the processing time and accuracy of results [21]. This is widely used in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in order to simulate airflow patterns in turbulent conditions, mainly for low-rise buildings.
Air velocity (m/s) and pressure coefficients (Cp) on openings are the output variables. These results are exported to EnergyPlus software, where the model geometry, materials’ physical characterization, and occupation schedule, among other information, are included. Regarding occupation, internal heat gains, 37 users, and a lighting power density equal to 9.90 W/m2, that is, the density for the level maximum of energy efficiency recommended by Brazilian standards [17], are also initial simulation parameters.
For the object simulation, surface mount light is inserted; in this way, radiant fraction is 0.72, visible fraction is 0.18, and air return fraction is zero, according to Brazilian standards [22]. The simulation of natural ventilation is performed through the multizonal Airflow Network model, except for the solar chimney, which is configured as the Thermal Chimney model on EnergyPlus.
The opening factor of the frames for natural ventilation, configured in the input object Airflow Network: Multizone: Surface, depends on the percentage of opening for the ventilation of each type of window: awning has a factor of 0.9 (90% of effective area for ventilation) and maxim-ar has a factor of 0.8 (80% of effective are for ventilation) [23]. Airflow is considered at 0.95 m, which is the average respiration height of sitting children [11], and 1.5 m and 0.95 m, which are the heights of human respiration [24]. The maximum air velocity to guarantee users’ comfort is 1.2 m/s [17].
With reference to windows’ operation, the adopted setpoint is based on the adaptative thermal comfort [10] and on Santa Maria TMY2 [25]. When the internal temperature reaches 22°C, the windows are opened.
In order to simulate the solar chimney, the reference temperature is the same (22°C), the outlet cross section is 0.45 m2, the inlet 0.36 m2, the discharge coefficient is 0.8, and the chimney length is equal to 2.6 m (distance between air inlet and outlet).
Operative temperature (°C), external air temperature (°C), air changes per hour (h−1), and relative air humidity (%) are the output variables obtained by EnergyPlus.
The annual school days considered add up to a total of 1600 hours according to Brazilian laws for education [26].
The analysis is based on the comparison between air velocity, occupied hours in thermal comfort, heating and cooling degree-hours, ventilation rates, air changes per hour, and relative air humidity.
Table 5 illustrates the airflow pattern for the 16 strategies on plans with heights of 0.95 m and 1.5 m and for two airflow directions, azimuths 90° and 135°. Considering the minimum air velocity in order to ensure thermal comfort, 0.10 m/s [17], windows reached by a 90° wind direction are the worst solutions. There is better air distribution when wind hits the windows obliquely (135°). The higher air velocities reached are those with north–south cross-ventilation with two south-facing solar chimneys. For cross-ventilation (strategies 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16), the flow pattern is also more effective for air distribution, as expected. The sill height (1.0 m) ensures that the air velocity at 0.95 does not reach values above 1.2 m/s. Strategies based on stack effect (5, 6, 13, and 14) reach the higher velocities at respiration heights.
Table 5.
Airflow pattern for the 16 strategies on plans with heights of 0.95 m and 1.5 m and for two airflow directions, 90° and 135°.
Air velocity (m/s)
.
3.2 Percentage of hours of occupation in thermal comfort (PHOTC)
Table 6 presents the results for PHOTC. Strategy 1 (single-sided ventilation, east-facing windows) is the best solution, with PHOTC equal to 80.07%. Strategies with better results are those without permanent upper openings. Strategy 4 (cross-ventilation, east–west orientation, and with permanent ventilation) is the worst result, with PHOTC equal to 70.42%. Considering the importance of permanent ventilation during the year, strategy 14 (north–south cross-ventilation and stack effect) presents the best result (73.82%). Strategies with permanent ventilation, which remain opened in the cold period of the year, between May and August, present the worst results. On the other hand, March, April, and October present the best results, as can be seen in Table 6, which shows the results of percentage hours in occupation in cold and heat thermal discomfort.
Strategy
PHOTC (%)
Strategy
PHOTC (%)
1
80.07
9
79.19
2
72.39
10
71.00
3
73.93
11
74.57
4
70.42
12
70.63
5
74.07
13
76.94
6
71.57
14
73.82
7
78.19
15
77.76
8
71.63
16
72.01
Table 6.
Annual PHOTC according to 16 strategies.
Strategy 1 results in the lowest cold discomfort, with 250 hours, or 15.62%, of occupied annual hours, in view of the permanent ventilation absence, whereas strategy 10 produces 404 hours, or 25.25%, of occupied annual hours in cold discomfort. Strategy 10 differs from strategy 1 in window orientation, which indicates the importance of windows exposition to cold wind in order to ensure thermal comfort. Usually, the school period comprises the coldest months of the year; then, it is important for users’ thermal comfort to consider occupied hours in cold thermal discomfort. Results show that children will be more exposed to cold conditions than heat. The maximum hour in heat discomfort is only 81 h, or about 10 days, while the maximum cold discomfort correspond to 51 days.
Considering strategies with up to 20% of hours in cold discomfort, east-facing single-sided ventilation 1 (31 days), west-facing solar chimney 7 (34 days), north-facing single-sided ventilation 9 (34 days), and north-facing solar chimney 15 (37 days) have the best performance.
Figure 3 illustrates the coldest and hottest weeks during the school year. In the coldest week, for all strategies, users will be in cold discomfort practically all the time. Strategies 1 (single-sided ventilation, east orientation), 7 (west-facing solar chimneys), and 9 (single-sided ventilation, north orientation) present the best results, with 15, 14, and 14 h in thermal comfort, respectively, during this week. In this case, window closure is recommended; teachers must have close windows according to users’ cold sensation and the perception of level of ventilation required. In contrast, for the hottest week of the school year, most of the occupied hours are thermally comfortable. The best strategies are 13 and 14 (north–south oriented with stack effect), with 35 and 36 hours in thermal comfort, respectively.
Figure 3.
Operative temperature in the coldest and hottest weeks of the school year.
3.3 Heating and cooling degree hours
In order to analyze annual heating degree hours (HDHr) and cooling degree hours (CDHr), the reference 80% of acceptability is considered [10]. Figure 4 presents the results according to heating or cooling and different analyzed strategies.
Figure 4.
Heating and cooling degree hours for each strategy.
Strategy 1 (single-sided ventilation, east orientation) presents the lowest HDHr (408.37 degree-hours) and for annual heating and cooling (468.67 degrees-hours). Strategy 13 (north–south cross-ventilation, stack effect) presents the lowest CDHr (42 degree-hours). Strategies 7 (west-facing solar chimneys), 9 (north single-sided ventilation), and 15 (south-facing solar chimneys) also present an acceptable performance, with up to 500 degree-hours for heating. Window orientation in relation to wind direction is crucial for the performance of strategies. Although the wind direction of 135° is better for air distribution and level of ventilation required, it causes high cold discomfort due to the school year being predominantly in the coldest months of the year. This result demonstrates the difficulty in solving effective ventilation expressed by ventilation rates and airflow patterns and the users’ thermal comfort.
3.4 Ventilation rate and air changes per hour
Considering that 10 l/s/p is the recommended rate, the ventilation rates reached by different strategies demonstrate the insufficiency of single-sided ventilation. Strategies 1, 2, 9, and 10 present rates lower than 3 l/s/p. On the other hand, strategies 3–6 and 11–14, which are cross-ventilated solutions, present high rates, which exceed 38 l/s/p. Strategies based on solar chimneys (7, 8, 15, and 16) reach 13 l/s/p, presenting the best performance.
In relation to air changes per hour, Table 7 presents results for the 16 strategies considering the annual average. The reference is 10.16 changes per hour [27]. Most of the strategies (69%) present values below that indicated. Strategies that reached the recommended value are those which are based on cross-ventilation and stack effect, east–west oriented, except for 12, which is north–south cross-ventilation with permanent ventilation.
Strategy
Annual average of air changes per hour
1
7.65
2
8.19
3
10.56
4
11.00
5
12.84
6
13.95
7
7.68
8
7.98
9
7.65
10
8.16
11
9.44
12
10.29
13
8.53
14
8.82
15
7.81
16
8.34
Table 7.
Annual hourly air changes for each case.
Considering these results and the percentage of hours in cold discomfort (Table 8), the best results (the lowest percentages) correspond to 1, 7, 9, and 15, as already commented. However, these strategies present the lowest changes per hour, compromising indoor air quality.
Strategy
Percentage of hours in cold discomfort (%)
Percentage of hours in heat discomfort (%)
Total percentage of hours in thermal discomfort (%)
1
15.62
4.31
19.93
2
22.88
4.81
27.61
3
21.31
4.81
26.07
4
24.64
4.94
29.58
5
21.75
4.18
25.93
6
23.37
5.06
28.43
7
16.87
4.94
21.81
8
23.37
5.00
28.37
9
17.19
3.62
20.81
10
25.25
3.75
29.00
11
21.37
4.06
25.43
12
25.06
4.31
29.37
13
20.44
2.62
23.06
14
23.37
2.81
26.18
15
18.62
3.62
22.24
16
24.37
3.62
27.99
Table 8.
Percentages of hours occupied in cold and heat discomfort.
The second set of strategies with lower cold discomfort is represented by 3 (21.31% or 43 days), 5 (21.75% or 44 days), 11 (21.37 or 43 days), and 13 (20.44% or 41 days). For these, air change per hour is equal to 10.56, 12.84, 9.44, and 8.53 c.p.h., respectively. When considering the heating degree-hours, these strategies also have a medium performance, presenting 600 degree-hours, 650 degree-hours, 625 degree-hours, and 600 degree-hours, respectively.
These strategies are based on east–west cross-ventilation, 90° wind direction (3); west-facing stack effect, 90° wind direction (5); north–south cross-ventilation, 90° wind direction (11); and south-facing stack effect, 90° wind direction (13).
The need to achieve thermal comfort in cold periods and the level of ventilation required leads to the adoption of intermediate performance; that is, the strategies will not present the best performance for all criteria but will ensure values as close as possible to all recommended criteria. For extreme situations, a mechanical system for air renewal will be necessary.
3.5 Relative humidity
Considering the range of relative humidity recommended by WHO [10], 60–80%, for monthly average, all strategies reach the criteria. Strategies with cross-ventilation, stack effect or solar chimneys, and permanent ventilation (located near the ceiling) present lower values for relative humidity, as expected since hot humid air (e.g., generated by users’ respiration and sweat) accumulated on the top of classrooms is more easily removed by cross-ventilation than ones with single-sided ventilation or without permanent ventilation.
Regarding cities in subtropical humid climate and developing countries, represented by the Brazilian southern city Santa Maria, results demonstrated that the demand for the required ventilation may compromise users’ thermal comfort mainly in the cold period of school year. In this case, natural ventilation systems must consider the balance between thermal comfort and air exchange efficiency.
Strategies based on cross-ventilation or stack effect and permanent ventilation present lower percentage of hours in thermal comfort for the coldest period of the school year but present air changes in accordance with values recommended by WHO in a pandemic context. On the other hand, satisfactory thermal comfort levels and air change may also be reached with solutions based on cross-ventilation and stack effect when the window orientation relative to wind is 90°; that is not the best orientation for airflow pattern.
In addition, single-sided ventilation is not recommended since natural ventilation rates provided by it does not reach even half criteria (10 l/s/p).
This study presents a contribution to the understanding of the interrelationships between children’s thermal comfort and the need for high ventilation rates in classrooms in the face of a pandemic context. In developing countries, where the use of mechanical or air conditioning systems is limited by economic constraints, passive technologies are important in order to achieve healthy and comfortable environments.
References
1.Jones NR, Qureshi ZU, Temple RJ, Larwood JPJ, Greenhalgh T. Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in COVID-19?. British Medical Journal. 2020;370:m3223. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3223
2.Franceschini PB, Liguori IN, Neves LO. Avaliação da qualidade do ar interior durante a pandemia de COVID-19 em salas de aula naturalmente ventiladas. In: Encontro Nacional de Conforto no Ambiente Construído, 26; Encontro Latino-Americano de Conforto no Ambiente Construído, 22. Palmas, 2021. Anais […] Porto Alegre: ANTAC; 2021
3.Hou D, Katal A, Wang LL. Bayesian calibration of using CO2 sensors to assess ventilation conditions and associated COVID-19 airborne aerosol transmission risk in schools. Medrxiv Preprint. fev. 2021. pp. 1-42
4.Ding E, Zhang D, Bluyssnen PMO. Avaliação da qualidade do ar interior durante a pandemia de COVID-19 em salas de aula naturalmente ventiladas. In: Healthy Buildings Europe 2021 Online Conference. Trondheim, 2021. Proceedings […] Trondheim: ISIAC; 2021
5.Barrett P, Davies F, Zhang Y, Barrett L. The impact of classroom design on pupil’s learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment. 2015;89:118-133
6.Kowaltowski DCCK. Arquitetura escolar: o projeto do ambiente de ensino. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos; 2011
7.Rackes A, Fonseca RW, Beck EO, Scalco VA, Palladini GD, Lamberts R. Avaliação do potencial de conforto térmico em escolas naturalmente ventiladas. In: Proceedings of the National Meeting on Comfort in the Built Environment (ENCAC ‘13); 15–16–17 October 2015; Campinas. Porto Alegre: ANTAC; 2016. pp. 1-10
8.Maciel LF. Brise-chaminé-solar: avaliação experimental e por simulação CFD/Energyplus de um dispositivo de ventilação [thesis]. Viçosa: Federal University of Viçosa; 2016
9.Pagel EC, Gouveia GLO, Martins RS, Cruz MVG. Ventilação natural e desempenho térmico sob diferentes configurações de aberturas em uma sala de aula. Ambiente Construído. 2022;22:133-157. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-86212022000300612
10.ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55–2017 Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers); 2017
11.Dreyfuss H. As medidas do homem e da mulher: fatores humanos em design. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2005
12.INMET. Normais Climatológicas do Brasil. 2021. Available from: https://portal.inmet.gov.br/normais. [Accessed: 05 February 2022]
13.Flores MG. Geração da base climática de Santa Maria-RS—para análise de desempenho térmico e eficiência energética de edificações [thesis]. Santa Maria: Federal University of Santa Maria; 2016
14.Weber FS, Melo AP, Marinoski D, Lamberts R. Elaboração de uma biblioteca de componentes construtivos brasileiros para o uso no programa EnergyPlus. 2017. Available from: https://labeee.ufsc.br/node/714. [Accessed: 05 December 2022]
15.ABNT. NBR 15220-2:2005 Métodos de cálculo da transmitância térmica, da capacidade térmica, do atraso térmico e do fator solar de elementos e componentes de edificações. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards); 2005
16.ABNT. NBR 15220-3:2005 Desempenho térmico de edificações Parte 3: Zoneamento bioclimático brasileiro e diretrizes construtivas para habitações unifamiliares de interesse social. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards); 2005
17.Bayoumi M. Improving indoor air quality in classrooms via wind-induced natural ventilation. Modelling and Simulation in Engineering. 2021;2021:1-14. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6668031
18.BRASIL. Ordinance No. 42, of February 24, 2021. Approves the Inmetro Normative Instruction for the Energy Efficiency Classification of Commercial, Service and Public Buildings (INI-C); 2021
19.WHO. Roadmap to Improve and Ensure Good Indoor Ventilation in the Context of COVID-19. World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO (World Health Organization); 2021. p. 25
20.OMS. Actas Oficiales de La OMS [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/or/s/. [Accessed: 05 December 2022]
21.Bevilaqua CP, Bressianini B, Azuma MH, Lukiantchuk MA. Análise da ventilação natural. PARC Pesquisa em Arquitetura e Construção. 2019;10:e0190221-e01902213. DOI: 10.20396/parc.v10i0.8652835
22.ABNT. NBR 16401-2:2008 Instalações de ar-condicionado—Sistemas centrais e unitários. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards); 2008. p. 7
23.PBE EDIFICA. Manual para a aplicação do RTQ-R. Rio de Janeiro: Eletrobras/Procel (National Electric Energy Conservation Program); 2012. p. 202
24.Morais JMS. Ventilação natural em edifícios multifamiliares do programa “Minha Casa Minha Vida”. Campinas, 2013.211 f. Tese (Doutorado em Arquitetura, Tecnologia e Cidade). Campinas: Faculdade de Engenharia Civil, Universidade Estadual de Campinas; 2013
25.Buligon LB. Comportamento higrotérmico e energético de painéis de vedação vertical externa em madeira para a zona bioclimática 2 [thesis]. Santa Maria: Federal University of Santa Maria; 2021
26.BRASIL. Lei n. 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. 1996. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9394compilado.htm. [Acessoem: 25 jan. 2021]
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
