|
AUTHOR(S): Reza Rezaeifar, Seyedehzahra Mirrahimi
|
TITLE |
 PDF |
ABSTRACT Double-skin façades (DSFs) are widely used to regulate heat transfer and support natural ventilation in warm climates, yet their airflow behaviour differs significantly between hot–dry and hot–humid regions. A clear comparative understanding of how climate-specific drivers influence DSF ventilation is still limited. This study aims to determine how environmental conditions in these two contrasting climates affect airflow dynamics, ventilation rates, and the overall effectiveness of natural ventilation. The research compares quantitative findings from validated Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses, full-scale measurements, and numerical–experimental datasets, using a unified analytical framework focused on airflow behaviour, ventilation performance, and climatic responsiveness. Results demonstrate two distinct operating regimes: in hot–dry climates, DSFs operate mainly as buoyancy-driven thermal buffers, achieving modest cavity velocities and enabling winter preheating, with enhanced performance in narrow cavities. In hot–humid climates, suppressed buoyancy shifts ventilation to primarily wind-driven behaviour, producing substantially higher airflow velocities; adaptive louvers and solar-chimney features further improve ventilation intensity and uniformity. The study concludes that DSF ventilation strategies must be climate-specific and cannot be generalized across warm regions. Remaining research gaps include limited large-scale validation, inadequate consideration of life-cycle impacts, and a lack of integrated analyses linking airflow and energy performance. |
KEYWORDS Double-skin façade (DSF), Airflow Performance, Natural Ventilation, Hot–Dry Climate, Hot–Humid Climate, Ventilation Performance |
|
Cite this paper Reza Rezaeifar, Seyedehzahra Mirrahimi. (2025) Comparative Study on the Impact of Double-Skin Façade Ventilation Mechanisms on Airflow and Natural Ventilation in Hot– Dry and Hot–Humid Climates. International Journal of Environmental Science, 10, 171-177 |
|
