Scholarlink

<p>Buildings are not airtight, leading to air infiltration, defined as the uncontrolled flow of outdoor air into indoor spaces. These airflows have a detrimental impact on energy demand and consumption, making their accurate estimation in building energy performance assessment tools essential. In Spain, the current tools allow the use of four infiltration models: N-factor, LBL, AIM-2, and EN 16798–7. This study compares these four approaches using TRNSYS energy simulations applied to a real single-family dwelling. The building envelope was characterized by performing a Blower Door Test, and the analysis was extended to eight cities with different climatic conditions. The maximum difference in the estimated energy impact among the models ranged from 6.1% to 12.2%. In climates with mild winters and higher wind intensity, the differences between models were less pronounced, ranging from 1.29 to 2.57 kWh/m<sup>2</sup>·year. Conversely, in colder climates with lower wind intensity, the differences were substantially higher, ranging from 2.8 to 7.37 kWh/m<sup>2</sup>·year. These results highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate infiltration model based on climatic conditions. For colder climates with low wind intensity, the AIM-2 and EN 16798–7 models are recommended.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of models for estimating air infiltration in dwellings and their impact on heating demand

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月24日

查看全文
  • Í. Vera Alves,
  • M. Romero Rincón,
  • J. Tudela,
  • P. Martínez Beltrán

摘要

Buildings are not airtight, leading to air infiltration, defined as the uncontrolled flow of outdoor air into indoor spaces. These airflows have a detrimental impact on energy demand and consumption, making their accurate estimation in building energy performance assessment tools essential. In Spain, the current tools allow the use of four infiltration models: N-factor, LBL, AIM-2, and EN 16798–7. This study compares these four approaches using TRNSYS energy simulations applied to a real single-family dwelling. The building envelope was characterized by performing a Blower Door Test, and the analysis was extended to eight cities with different climatic conditions. The maximum difference in the estimated energy impact among the models ranged from 6.1% to 12.2%. In climates with mild winters and higher wind intensity, the differences between models were less pronounced, ranging from 1.29 to 2.57 kWh/m2·year. Conversely, in colder climates with lower wind intensity, the differences were substantially higher, ranging from 2.8 to 7.37 kWh/m2·year. These results highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate infiltration model based on climatic conditions. For colder climates with low wind intensity, the AIM-2 and EN 16798–7 models are recommended.