Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents

•A shade net improves thermal performance of the Standard Family Tent (SFT).•The Geodesic Family Tent (GFT) has similar thermal performance to the shaded-SFT.•Practical advantages of the GFT could improve emergency living conditions. Humanitarian tents provide emergency shelter for people displaced...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Energy and buildings 2022-06, Vol.264, p.112035, Article 112035
Hauptverfasser: Ullal, André, Aguacil, Sergi, Vannucci, Riccardo, Yang, Shen, Goyette Pernot, Joëlle, Licina, Dusan, Tombesi, Paolo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 112035
container_title Energy and buildings
container_volume 264
creator Ullal, André
Aguacil, Sergi
Vannucci, Riccardo
Yang, Shen
Goyette Pernot, Joëlle
Licina, Dusan
Tombesi, Paolo
description •A shade net improves thermal performance of the Standard Family Tent (SFT).•The Geodesic Family Tent (GFT) has similar thermal performance to the shaded-SFT.•Practical advantages of the GFT could improve emergency living conditions. Humanitarian tents provide emergency shelter for people displaced by conflict and disaster in diverse climatic conditions. This article compares the thermal performance of two standard humanitarian tents – the Standard Family Tent (SFT) and the Geodesic Family Tent (GFT). The SFT is the most widely used humanitarian shelter, while the GFT was recently introduced as a potential replacement intended to provide, inter-alia, improved thermal performance. The study aims to assess the extent to which this intention is achieved and, in doing so, improve understanding about how tent material and morphology affect thermal performance. Several variables, including internal air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity and air change rates, were measured and compared in hot and cold conditions. Results demonstrate that the GFT performs better than the SFT regarding radiant heat gain, conductive heat loss and increased air tightness. However, performance of the GFT in relation to heat gain and heat loss is similar to that of the SFT with an additional shade net. Other functional advantages of the GFT are improved structural stability and spaciousness, which, together with improved thermal performance, suggest this marginal innovation in shelter design can positively impact emergency shelter living conditions.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112035
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2672768532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378778822002067</els_id><sourcerecordid>2672768532</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-a7cd42a9dd65abf11eb36bfa24eb35009e886eb699836720bd2c1e9b9e8eed283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUE1LxDAUDKLguvoThILn1nxskxQEkcVVYcGLnkM-Xt2U3bYmqeC_N0v37ukNw8w8ZhC6JbgimPD7roLeTH7vKooprQihmNVnaEGkoCUnQp6jBWZClkJIeYmuYuwwxrwWZIEe1sNh1MH3X0XaQTjofTFCaIeMegvF0BYx6d7p4IrdlDmfslj3RYI-xWt00ep9hJvTXaLPzfPH-rXcvr-8rZ-2pWVylUotrFtR3TjHa21aQsAwblpNVxnUGDcgJQfDm0YyLig2jloCjck8gKOSLdHdnDuG4XuCmFQ3TKHPLxXNBsFlzWhW1bPKhiHGAK0agz_o8KsIVsehVKdOQ6njUGoeKvseZx_kCj8egorWQ27vfACblBv8Pwl_QQx0hg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2672768532</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ullal, André ; Aguacil, Sergi ; Vannucci, Riccardo ; Yang, Shen ; Goyette Pernot, Joëlle ; Licina, Dusan ; Tombesi, Paolo</creator><creatorcontrib>Ullal, André ; Aguacil, Sergi ; Vannucci, Riccardo ; Yang, Shen ; Goyette Pernot, Joëlle ; Licina, Dusan ; Tombesi, Paolo</creatorcontrib><description>•A shade net improves thermal performance of the Standard Family Tent (SFT).•The Geodesic Family Tent (GFT) has similar thermal performance to the shaded-SFT.•Practical advantages of the GFT could improve emergency living conditions. Humanitarian tents provide emergency shelter for people displaced by conflict and disaster in diverse climatic conditions. This article compares the thermal performance of two standard humanitarian tents – the Standard Family Tent (SFT) and the Geodesic Family Tent (GFT). The SFT is the most widely used humanitarian shelter, while the GFT was recently introduced as a potential replacement intended to provide, inter-alia, improved thermal performance. The study aims to assess the extent to which this intention is achieved and, in doing so, improve understanding about how tent material and morphology affect thermal performance. Several variables, including internal air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity and air change rates, were measured and compared in hot and cold conditions. Results demonstrate that the GFT performs better than the SFT regarding radiant heat gain, conductive heat loss and increased air tightness. However, performance of the GFT in relation to heat gain and heat loss is similar to that of the SFT with an additional shade net. Other functional advantages of the GFT are improved structural stability and spaciousness, which, together with improved thermal performance, suggest this marginal innovation in shelter design can positively impact emergency shelter living conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-7788</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6178</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112035</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lausanne: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Air temperature ; Airtightness ; Climatic conditions ; Displaced persons ; Heat ; Heat loss ; Heating ; Humanitarian shelter ; Humanitarian tents ; Humanitarianism ; Living conditions ; Relative humidity ; Shelters ; Structural stability ; Surface temperature ; Temperature simulation ; Tents ; Thermal comfort ; Thermal performance</subject><ispartof>Energy and buildings, 2022-06, Vol.264, p.112035, Article 112035</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Jun 1, 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-a7cd42a9dd65abf11eb36bfa24eb35009e886eb699836720bd2c1e9b9e8eed283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-a7cd42a9dd65abf11eb36bfa24eb35009e886eb699836720bd2c1e9b9e8eed283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778822002067$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ullal, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguacil, Sergi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vannucci, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Shen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyette Pernot, Joëlle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Licina, Dusan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tombesi, Paolo</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents</title><title>Energy and buildings</title><description>•A shade net improves thermal performance of the Standard Family Tent (SFT).•The Geodesic Family Tent (GFT) has similar thermal performance to the shaded-SFT.•Practical advantages of the GFT could improve emergency living conditions. Humanitarian tents provide emergency shelter for people displaced by conflict and disaster in diverse climatic conditions. This article compares the thermal performance of two standard humanitarian tents – the Standard Family Tent (SFT) and the Geodesic Family Tent (GFT). The SFT is the most widely used humanitarian shelter, while the GFT was recently introduced as a potential replacement intended to provide, inter-alia, improved thermal performance. The study aims to assess the extent to which this intention is achieved and, in doing so, improve understanding about how tent material and morphology affect thermal performance. Several variables, including internal air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity and air change rates, were measured and compared in hot and cold conditions. Results demonstrate that the GFT performs better than the SFT regarding radiant heat gain, conductive heat loss and increased air tightness. However, performance of the GFT in relation to heat gain and heat loss is similar to that of the SFT with an additional shade net. Other functional advantages of the GFT are improved structural stability and spaciousness, which, together with improved thermal performance, suggest this marginal innovation in shelter design can positively impact emergency shelter living conditions.</description><subject>Air temperature</subject><subject>Airtightness</subject><subject>Climatic conditions</subject><subject>Displaced persons</subject><subject>Heat</subject><subject>Heat loss</subject><subject>Heating</subject><subject>Humanitarian shelter</subject><subject>Humanitarian tents</subject><subject>Humanitarianism</subject><subject>Living conditions</subject><subject>Relative humidity</subject><subject>Shelters</subject><subject>Structural stability</subject><subject>Surface temperature</subject><subject>Temperature simulation</subject><subject>Tents</subject><subject>Thermal comfort</subject><subject>Thermal performance</subject><issn>0378-7788</issn><issn>1872-6178</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUE1LxDAUDKLguvoThILn1nxskxQEkcVVYcGLnkM-Xt2U3bYmqeC_N0v37ukNw8w8ZhC6JbgimPD7roLeTH7vKooprQihmNVnaEGkoCUnQp6jBWZClkJIeYmuYuwwxrwWZIEe1sNh1MH3X0XaQTjofTFCaIeMegvF0BYx6d7p4IrdlDmfslj3RYI-xWt00ep9hJvTXaLPzfPH-rXcvr-8rZ-2pWVylUotrFtR3TjHa21aQsAwblpNVxnUGDcgJQfDm0YyLig2jloCjck8gKOSLdHdnDuG4XuCmFQ3TKHPLxXNBsFlzWhW1bPKhiHGAK0agz_o8KsIVsehVKdOQ6njUGoeKvseZx_kCj8egorWQ27vfACblBv8Pwl_QQx0hg</recordid><startdate>20220601</startdate><enddate>20220601</enddate><creator>Ullal, André</creator><creator>Aguacil, Sergi</creator><creator>Vannucci, Riccardo</creator><creator>Yang, Shen</creator><creator>Goyette Pernot, Joëlle</creator><creator>Licina, Dusan</creator><creator>Tombesi, Paolo</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220601</creationdate><title>Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents</title><author>Ullal, André ; Aguacil, Sergi ; Vannucci, Riccardo ; Yang, Shen ; Goyette Pernot, Joëlle ; Licina, Dusan ; Tombesi, Paolo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-a7cd42a9dd65abf11eb36bfa24eb35009e886eb699836720bd2c1e9b9e8eed283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Air temperature</topic><topic>Airtightness</topic><topic>Climatic conditions</topic><topic>Displaced persons</topic><topic>Heat</topic><topic>Heat loss</topic><topic>Heating</topic><topic>Humanitarian shelter</topic><topic>Humanitarian tents</topic><topic>Humanitarianism</topic><topic>Living conditions</topic><topic>Relative humidity</topic><topic>Shelters</topic><topic>Structural stability</topic><topic>Surface temperature</topic><topic>Temperature simulation</topic><topic>Tents</topic><topic>Thermal comfort</topic><topic>Thermal performance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ullal, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguacil, Sergi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vannucci, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Shen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyette Pernot, Joëlle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Licina, Dusan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tombesi, Paolo</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Energy and buildings</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ullal, André</au><au>Aguacil, Sergi</au><au>Vannucci, Riccardo</au><au>Yang, Shen</au><au>Goyette Pernot, Joëlle</au><au>Licina, Dusan</au><au>Tombesi, Paolo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents</atitle><jtitle>Energy and buildings</jtitle><date>2022-06-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>264</volume><spage>112035</spage><pages>112035-</pages><artnum>112035</artnum><issn>0378-7788</issn><eissn>1872-6178</eissn><abstract>•A shade net improves thermal performance of the Standard Family Tent (SFT).•The Geodesic Family Tent (GFT) has similar thermal performance to the shaded-SFT.•Practical advantages of the GFT could improve emergency living conditions. Humanitarian tents provide emergency shelter for people displaced by conflict and disaster in diverse climatic conditions. This article compares the thermal performance of two standard humanitarian tents – the Standard Family Tent (SFT) and the Geodesic Family Tent (GFT). The SFT is the most widely used humanitarian shelter, while the GFT was recently introduced as a potential replacement intended to provide, inter-alia, improved thermal performance. The study aims to assess the extent to which this intention is achieved and, in doing so, improve understanding about how tent material and morphology affect thermal performance. Several variables, including internal air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity and air change rates, were measured and compared in hot and cold conditions. Results demonstrate that the GFT performs better than the SFT regarding radiant heat gain, conductive heat loss and increased air tightness. However, performance of the GFT in relation to heat gain and heat loss is similar to that of the SFT with an additional shade net. Other functional advantages of the GFT are improved structural stability and spaciousness, which, together with improved thermal performance, suggest this marginal innovation in shelter design can positively impact emergency shelter living conditions.</abstract><cop>Lausanne</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112035</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-7788
ispartof Energy and buildings, 2022-06, Vol.264, p.112035, Article 112035
issn 0378-7788
1872-6178
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2672768532
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Air temperature
Airtightness
Climatic conditions
Displaced persons
Heat
Heat loss
Heating
Humanitarian shelter
Humanitarian tents
Humanitarianism
Living conditions
Relative humidity
Shelters
Structural stability
Surface temperature
Temperature simulation
Tents
Thermal comfort
Thermal performance
title Comparing thermal performance of standard humanitarian tents
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T03%3A40%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20thermal%20performance%20of%20standard%20humanitarian%20tents&rft.jtitle=Energy%20and%20buildings&rft.au=Ullal,%20Andr%C3%A9&rft.date=2022-06-01&rft.volume=264&rft.spage=112035&rft.pages=112035-&rft.artnum=112035&rft.issn=0378-7788&rft.eissn=1872-6178&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112035&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2672768532%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2672768532&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378778822002067&rfr_iscdi=true