Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[17] Dührkop H., Saretok V., Sneck T., Svendsen S.D. Mørtel - Mur - Puss (Mortar - Masonry – Rendering, in Norwegian). Handbook 20. Oslo: Norwegian Building Research Institute, 1966. [18] Norwegian Standard NS 3473:2003. Prosjektering av betongkonstruksjoner. Beregnings- og konstruksjonsregler (Concrete structures. Design and detailing rules, in Norwegian), 6 th edition. Oslo: The Norwegian Standards Association, 2003. [19] <strong>Lisø</strong> K.R., Kvande T., Thue J.V. Climate 2000 - Building enclosure performance in a more severe climate. In: Jòhannesson G. editor. Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Building Physics in the Nordic Countries. Reykjavik: the Icelandic Building Research Institute, 2005. p. 211-218. [20] <strong>Lisø</strong> K.R. Integrated approach to risk management of future climate change impacts. Building Research & Information (accepted). Page 12 of 13
Table 2. Weather data for the thirteen example stations (reference 30-year period 1961-1990). FPC = Annual average number of days with freezing point crossings (from plus to minus). FDEI = Frost decay exposure index, average year total (for 2-day, 3-day and 4-day sums of rainfall prior to days with freezing events). The calculated annual climate indices, averaged over the reference period, are presented in a ranking from highest to lowest index values. Annual average precipitation totals (P, in mm/year) are provided for information. Location FPC FDEI Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec P (mm/year) FDEI for accumulated 2-day sums of rainfall Kristiansand (Kjevik) 52,9 292,0 68,9 36,5 39,1 10,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 8,6 52,2 80,0 1299 Bodø 64,6 286,1 47,6 34,6 36,8 21,8 3,8 0,6 0,0 0,0 3,2 29,5 47,3 60,2 1020 Trondheim (Værnes) 72,6 283,2 40,0 32,0 44,4 24,6 3,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 20,9 44,1 71,7 892 Ørland 53,6 242,9 37,2 33,9 38,1 21,6 1,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 11,1 40,0 61,5 1048 Bergen 41,1 237,9 44,0 38,3 49,1 18,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,2 20,8 66,5 2250 Tromsø 49,8 231,9 32,9 25,6 22,0 23,0 5,8 0,7 0,0 0,0 6,2 44,2 40,8 33,5 1031 Stavanger (Sola) 55,9 210,0 41,0 31,0 29,7 15,5 2,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,0 35,1 48,7 1180 Fruholmen 62,8 200,5 33,5 24,8 17,9 18,8 9,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,3 19,4 42,2 35,2 830 Ålesund (Vigra) 32,3 197,9 32,9 25,2 29,3 20,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 26,6 59,6 1310 Lyngdal 74,0 124,3 9,6 6,6 16,4 13,3 1,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 6,9 31,9 31,2 8,1 797 Oslo 48,1 112,2 14,8 11,0 23,1 11,2 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 8,1 24,1 20,3 763 Røros 94,6 97,9 3,6 3,4 6,0 10,2 10,3 4,4 1,1 1,5 15,6 23,5 11,6 6,2 504 Karasjok 77,6 70,1 0,9 1,1 0,7 8,5 9,5 1,3 1,1 2,2 14,9 19,2 8,5 1,7 366 FDEI for accumulated 3-day sums of rainfall Kristiansand (Kjevik) 52,9 483,0 102,8 62,3 66,5 25,3 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 20,1 93,8 118,6 1299 Bodø 64,6 470,2 78,0 51,4 59,7 39,9 7,4 0,6 0,0 0,0 6,7 50,1 81,3 94,4 1020 Bergen 41,1 460,8 79,2 80,8 100,6 36,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,1 45,7 122,1 892 Trondheim (Værnes) 72,6 445,7 60,5 49,8 67,3 39,5 6,6 0,1 0,0 0,0 3,1 40,3 69,7 108,3 1048 Ørland 53,6 390,4 60,6 55,0 59,9 36,1 2,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 19,3 64,5 94,5 2250 Stavanger (Sola) 55,9 369,8 68,3 55,4 48,7 27,9 3,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 17,5 67,0 81,8 1031 Tromsø 49,8 329,1 43,8 37,3 32,3 35,1 8,7 0,8 0,0 0,0 8,7 67,1 60,8 46,0 1180 Ålesund (Vigra) 32,3 311,8 51,9 39,9 47,7 31,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,9 45,8 90,2 830 Fruholmen 62,8 289,6 46,6 34,0 27,9 27,5 13,6 1,5 0,0 0,0 1,9 30,7 60,9 49,9 1310 Lyngdal 74,0 199,8 15,0 10,3 24,2 23,7 2,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 13,4 55,7 50,5 10,7 797 Oslo 48,1 178,9 21,9 17,5 38,4 19,4 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 15,5 37,2 30,3 763 Røros 94,6 155,5 3,8 4,5 7,7 15,0 17,0 8,4 2,6 2,7 29,2 39,8 16,7 7,6 504 Karasjok 77,6 112,7 1,3 1,2 0,9 12,9 16,1 3,2 1,1 4,0 28,8 29,1 11,2 2,3 366 FDEI for accumulated 4-day sums of rainfall Kristiansand (Kjevik) 52,9 672,6 133,0 86,4 97,2 42,1 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 33,3 132,5 157,0 1299 Bergen 41,1 670,0 118,4 125,5 153,2 51,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,9 71,5 157,8 1020 Bodø 64,6 651,8 109,5 69,1 82,4 58,0 10,8 0,6 0,0 0,0 8,8 72,7 114,6 124,6 892 Trondheim (Værnes) 72,6 598,9 82,2 66,3 87,2 56,4 9,1 0,4 0,0 0,0 4,0 60,5 91,2 140,8 1048 Ørland 53,6 531,8 84,1 74,6 79,5 52,5 4,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 26,6 88,0 124,6 2250 Stavanger (Sola) 55,9 528,8 95,8 77,5 70,3 39,5 4,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 27,6 96,4 118,1 1031 Ålesund (Vigra) 32,3 432,8 74,0 55,9 66,7 42,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,8 62,4 124,9 1180 Tromsø 49,8 423,1 57,0 48,2 41,2 46,1 11,8 1,0 0,0 0,0 12,6 92,2 77,7 56,2 830 Fruholmen 62,8 380,3 59,5 42,9 37,3 36,7 18,1 2,2 0,0 0,0 2,3 43,9 79,9 63,4 1310 Lyngdal 74,0 276,7 17,4 13,2 34,4 33,6 3,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,5 80,2 74,2 12,8 797 Oslo 48,1 242,5 28,8 22,3 52,9 25,6 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 23,0 52,5 38,7 763 Røros 94,6 216,3 4,7 5,7 10,0 20,7 24,0 11,7 3,3 4,6 43,2 56,3 22,2 8,5 504 Karasjok 77,6 152,2 1,4 1,5 1,0 16,8 22,0 5,4 1,1 5,9 41,5 38,8 12,9 2,7 366 Page 13 of 13
Page 1 and 2:
Building envelope performance asses
Page 3 and 4:
Lisø, K.R./ Building envelope perf
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
BUILDING RESEARCH &INFORMATION (200
Page 43 and 44:
LisÖ et al. on how to cope with an
Page 45 and 46:
LisÖ et al. the exposure to contin
Page 47 and 48:
LisÖ et al. business premises. The
Page 49 and 50:
LisÖ et al. construction industry
Page 51 and 52:
Research in Building Physics, Carme
Page 53 and 54:
4 CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS FOR NORW
Page 55 and 56:
with large amounts of precipitation
Page 57 and 58:
will most likely be worse, even wit
Page 59:
Graves, H.M. & Phillipson, M.C. 200
Page 62 and 63:
766 Nordvik and Lisø The topic of
Page 64 and 65:
768 Nordvik and Lisø into the futu
Page 66 and 67:
770 Nordvik and Lisø climate chang
Page 68 and 69:
772 Nordvik and Lisø 0 Â Â = p d
Page 70 and 71:
774 Nordvik and Lisø probably to a
Page 73 and 74:
BUILDING RESEARCH &INFORMATION (200
Page 75 and 76:
cost of repairing process-induced b
Page 77 and 78:
change in quality (Mehus et al., 20
Page 79 and 80:
on the impacts of different climati
Page 81 and 82:
different strategies: risk-based, p
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Learning from experience - an analy
Page 87 and 88:
An important aspect of the programm
Page 89 and 90:
Concrete walls 32 % LECA masonry 10
Page 91 and 92:
construction industry, and academic
Page 93 and 94:
BUILDING RESEARCH &INFORMATION (JAN
Page 95 and 96: greater variations (Lisø et al., 2
Page 97 and 98: Typical problem areas and recommend
Page 99 and 100: Figure 3b Recommended design of win
Page 101 and 102: Figure 7 Example showing the recomm
Page 103 and 104: Figure 11a Poor solution for a £as
Page 105 and 106: Acknowledgements This paper was wri
Page 107 and 108: Climate adapted design of masonry s
Page 109 and 110: 2. Masonry defects in Norway 2.1. S
Page 111 and 112: Fig. 2. Example illustrations of th
Page 113 and 114: The presented results are in good a
Page 115 and 116: appropriate in a more severe type o
Page 117 and 118: screen in a two-stage weatherproofi
Page 119 and 120: INCREASED SNOW LOADS AND WIND ACTIO
Page 121 and 122: The hurricane (Beaufort number 12)
Page 123 and 124: The extensive revisions of the code
Page 125 and 126: The number of buildings investigate
Page 127 and 128: As is apparent from the values in t
Page 129 and 130: climate change is now dominated by
Page 131: TABLE 3. Summary of findings Struct
Page 134 and 135: Lisø, K.R./ Building envelope perf
Page 136 and 137: temperature of -4°C or less. See F
Page 138 and 139: Today, frost resistance of brick, c
Page 140 and 141: degree of saturation, freezing will
Page 142 and 143: accelerated frost damage or frost d
Page 144 and 145: A possible objection to the present
Page 149 and 150: Decay potential in wood structures
Page 151 and 152: Wood decaying fungi will only be ac
Page 153 and 154: to promote decay prevails. Two of t
Page 155: Acknowledgements This paper has bee
Page 158 and 159: (a driving rain gauge), however, is
Page 160 and 161: Fig. 1. Map of Norwayshowing the lo
Page 162 and 163: Frequency 25 20 15 10 5 0 highest p
Page 164 and 165: interesting to compare those result
Page 167 and 168: Effects of wind exposure on roof sn
Page 169 and 170: In ISO 4355 ”Bases for design of
Page 171 and 172: variety of roofs and wind exposures
Page 173 and 174: Li and Pomeroy [13] evaluated hourl
Page 175 and 176: Fig. 5. Exposure coefficients for 3
Page 177 and 178: meteorological stations are expecte
Page 179 and 180: Many of the meteorological stations
Page 181 and 182: the ground with return period of 30
Page 183: References [1] Standards Norway. De
show all

Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?