Effects of different architectural solutions on the thermal behaviour in an unconditioned rural building. The case of an Italian winery

Submitted: 1 September 2017
Accepted: 1 December 2017
Published: 27 February 2018
Abstract Views: 1188
PDF: 661
Appendix: 195
HTML: 115
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Referring to the wine sector, in the Mediterranean area, most of the wine farms make use of unconditioned above-ground buildings constructed without a specific attention to temperature control, where indoor temperatures easily show trends in disagreement with correct wine-ageing and conservation. Moreover the suitable temperature ranges can differ from wine to wine, and are considerably different from ideal temperatures for human comfort. This study aimed at testing the effectiveness of different architectural elements in improving the thermal behaviour of unconditioned farm buildings, by means of energy simulations validated on an Italian case-study, comparing the data provided by the simulations with different temperature ranges. Results showed the building thermal performance depends on the chosen intervals, some solution played negative or positive role according to the analysed range and in general roof and wall interventions were more effective than orientation and solar shading, and the combination of more strategies allow to achieve improved results.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Torreggiani, D., Barbaresi, A., Dallacasa, F. and Tassinari, P. (2018) “Effects of different architectural solutions on the thermal behaviour in an unconditioned rural building. The case of an Italian winery”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 49(1), pp. 52–63. doi: 10.4081/jae.2018.779.