Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September, 2018; Vol.

14(3):469-477
Copyright © Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

EFFECT OF FENCE DESIGN ON NATURAL VENTILATION IN RESIDENTIAL

SPACES: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

O. M. Idowu1, S. M. Junaid2 and S. Humphrey1

1
Department of Architecture, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria
2
Adamawa State Urban Planning and Development Authority, Yola, Nigeria
Corresponding author’s e-mail address: idowumosegun@gmail.com

Abstract
Fences are often designed as territorial markers to assert defensibility of spaces, and enhance the potentials for
‘prospect-refuge’ in private residential developments. In the tropics where natural ventilation is a critical functional
requirement, fences may be antithetical to air movement around and within enclosed residential spaces. This simulated
experimental study sought to ascertain the effect of fences on natural ventilation in residential spaces. An architectural
model of a 2-bedroom house on (with cross ventilated living room and bedrooms) a rectangular plot enclosed by 2.1m
high fence was the object of the study. Six fences of different porosities (0.0% to 29.4%) and porosity-height (0.2m to
1.6m above ground) on the approach side of the plot, and 6m from the house were exposed to simulated wind
(generated by a solar-powered standing fan) at 30o, 60o and 90o; the other three side-fences were kept solid. These were
in addition to a case of the approach side without fence. Three hot-wire anemometers were deployed to simultaneously
measure wind speeds outside the plot, in the living room (6.0m x 4.2m; 21.4% window area)and a bedroom(3.6m x
3.6m; 27.8% window area) of the house. About thirty readings at ten seconds intervals were taken in each space and
wind direction. Ventilation coefficients for the spaces were computed from mean values of observed wind speeds.
Mean ventilation coefficient values of the seven fencing cases were compared for each space using Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to establish any significant difference (at 0.05 level of significance).Ventilation coefficients
ranged from 0.02 to 0.46 in the living room, and 0.04 to 0.21 in the bedroom across wind directions. The highest
values were obtained from approach side without fence; and contrary to expectation, fence of the highest porosity
produced ventilation coefficients lower than the solid (non-porous) fence.In the three wind directions, significant
differences were found in the ventilation coefficients of the living room; while in the bedroom, two of the wind
directions resulted in significant differences in ventilation coefficients from the fence designs.

Keywords: Wind Direction; Natural Ventilation; Residential Spaces; Fence Porosity; Ventilation coefficient.

1.0 Introduction
A fence has been described as a structure erected to enclose an area or a barrier put round land to
mark a boundary (Webster’s Universal Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2010). Fences are often erected
around clusters of houses (as in mass-housing estates), and around individual buildings within such
clusters or other residential areas. Designed around private residential buildings, fences provide
functions such as demarcation of properties, provision of security, visual and noise barriers, and
aesthetics (Oluigbo, 2004). Fences may enhance the ‘defensibility’ and ‘prospect-refuge’ status of
space by acting as a strong territorial marker, and providing structures for mounting equipment or
elements for surveillance of the enclosed and contiguous spaces (Lidwell et al., 2003). Huang et
al. (2014) also claimed that ground pollutants generated by traffic in residential communities are
hindered from diffusion into buildings by fences in a manner dependent on relative position of
pollutant source to wind direction. The material, height, and position relative to building of such
fences often vary, and are largely influenced by a combination of the design functional
requirements including security, privacy and aesthetics (Oluigbo, 2004).
Concrete, solid and hollow blocks, metals, woven thatch, and live vegetation (hedges and shrubs)
are common materials often deployed singly or in diverse combinations as fences in residential
developments in the study area.
Idowu et al.: Effect of Fence Design on Natural Ventilation in Residential Spaces: An Experimental
Study: AZOJETE, 14(3):469-477. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Fence design has implications for thermal comfort considerations in residential areas around which
they are erected. In the tropics where passive cooling in buildings is desirable for thermal comfort,
heat dissipation through natural ventilation is desirable (Odim et al., 2012). Natural ventilation
may be affected in a manner dependent on the materials, porosity, height and proximity of fence
around buildings (Hawendi and Gao, 2017). An index of natural ventilation is the ventilation
coefficient, a which is considered ‘critical’ and is dependent on the microclimate for attainment of
thermal comfort (Idowu, Okonkwo and Onoh, 2017).Thus, Alozie et al. (2016) recommended
avoidance of high fence walls for thermal comfort in residential buildings in a warm humid micro-
climate in Nigeria. While solid fences higher than window levels and close to buildings are
capable of enhancing solar protection of windows and walls of buildings, they may hamper air
flow into and through the building (Boutet, 1987). Local planning laws or regulations stipulate
minimum distance permissible between building and fence on the front and sides of building
(Adamawa State of Nigeria, 2012); however such regulations are sometimes violated on site.
1.1 Fences as windbreaks
Boutet (1987), Wilson and Flesch (2003), Wilson (2004) and other studies indicated that fences act
as windbreaks reducing wind speeds and altering the microclimate on the leeward space in a
manner dependent on the architecture of the fence, upwind distance from fence, wind magnitude
and direction. For instance, Brandle and Finch (nd) indicated that as wind blows against a
windbreak, air pressure builds up on the windward side (the side towards the wind), and large
quantities of air move up and over the top and around the ends of the windbreak. Li, Wang & Bell
(2003) reported the effect of buildings on air flow regime behind windbreaks as significant due to
the presence of the standing vortex in the space between the fence and the building. For a
comparatively small space between building and fence, the speed-reduction effect of the fence is
dependent more on the relative distance to building than on the porosity of the fence. Space within
less than four times the height of fence seems not to experience significant difference in wind
speed reduction between porous and solid fences (Johnson, 1914; Li et al, 2003).However wind
speed reduction ranging from 25 and 50% may be experienced in spaces beyond four times height
of fence with porosity ranging from 100% (solid) to 25% (porous). Amos-Abanyie et al (2014)
reportedly observed wind differences up to 21% induced by solid and porous fences at the wind-
ward side of a building; though the fence height to proximity ratio was not reported.
The shape and size (form) of the building may also play a pivotal role in altering air flow pattern,
speed and direction around and within the building (Richard, 2007; Amos-Abanyie et al. 2014).
Wind speed reduction ranging from five to 31 per cent at varying points in building interior was
reported by Amos-Abanyie et al (2014) in an computer-simulated experiment involving solid and
porous fences at 3m and 1.5m from the building. The exiting wind from the building was also
reported to be faster than entering wind in to the building by as much as 26 per cent.
2. Materials and Methods
The study involved laboratory experiment using a simulated prototype residential building without
and with six different forms and compositions of fence walls that was exposed to wind at three
different directions. Using strawboards for solid walls and polyvinyl mosquito nets for porous
walls, physical architectural models of the six fences (shown in Figure 1 and Table 1) were made
and mounted in turn in the approach side of a 2-bedroom house at a scale of 1: 25.An additional
scenario of the house without any approach fence was also considered as control in the study.
While the building is six metres from the fence at the approach, the other three sides were solid-
fenced three metres away from the building. Of the simulated house, a bedroom (BR) with a

470
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September, 2018; Vol. 14(3):469-477.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

window and a living room (LR) after a verandah (1.2m deep and 6.0m long) directly opposite to
the approach fence were the subjects of the ventilation study. The bedroom has a floor area
measuring 3.6 x 3.6m with two windows each measuring 1.2 x 1.5m on adjacent walls; the living
room measures 6.0 x 4.2m in floor area with an open (external) door measuring 2.1 x 0.9m and
two windows each also measuring 1.2 x 1.5m on adjacent walls.
Wind was generated by a solar powered standing fan with its rotary axis at angles 30o, 60oand 90o
to the surfaces of each of the fences mounted at the approach elevation. With the aid of three units
of hot-wire anemometer, wind speeds were observed simultaneously before (Street side) and after
(Yard side) the approach fence, and in either the bedroom or living room. A round of observation
involved about thirty readings of wind speeds at an angle in succession at intervals of ten seconds
for a fence design and each of the three spaces.
Ventilation coefficients were calculated for the living room and bedroom using both street (ST)
and yard (YD) wind speeds as denominators. Thus ST/LR ventilation coefficient was derived by
diving wind speed in living room by street wind speed, and YD/LR ventilation coefficient by
diving wind speed in living room by wind speed in approach yard; ST/BR and YD/BR are the
corresponding ventilation coefficients for the bedroom. In addition to isolation of the maximum
and minimum, mean and standard deviation values of ventilation coefficients were computed.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to detect any difference in mean ventilation
coefficients in a room induced by the seven fencing scenarios at a wind direction.

(a) (b)

F1 F2

F3 F4

F5 F6
(c)
Figure 1: Study subjects features: (a) Plan; (b) Section; (c) Fence Elevations.

471
Idowu et al.: Effect of Fence Design on Natural Ventilation in Residential Spaces: An Experimental
Study: AZOJETE, 14(3):469-477. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Table 1: Design Variables of the Study Fences

Fence Parameters F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Porous Area (percent) 0 17.9 28.1 17.1 28.1 28.1
Porous Area spacing 0 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.70
Porous Area height above ground 0 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.6

3.0 Results and Discussion

The area of porosity, and their spacing and height are indicated in Table1. Table 2 shows the
summary of some ventilation coefficients statistics of the living room and bedroom based on both
street and yard outdoor winds and directions of 90o, 60o and 30o to approach fence/building wall
surfaces produced from the various fencing scenarios under consideration. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are
graphical illustrations (Bar Charts) of the relative variation of ventilation coefficients at the
various wind directions with fence designs. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of mean the
ventilation coefficients of the study spaces under the various wind direction and fencing scenarios
are indicated in Table 3.
Mean ventilation coefficients of the rooms computed based on street wind are generally lower than
values computed with yard space wind irrespective of wind direction across fence designs.
Relatively lower values are however observed for wind direction at 60o to fence with the lowest
value of 0.02 in the living room (based on street wind) when fences F1, F5 and F6 were mounted.
Relatively higher values are found for wind direction at 90o to fence as evidenced in the highest
ventilation coefficient of 1.0 for the bedroom (based on street wind) with the approach free of
fence (fence F0). Other relatively high ventilation coefficient values found for wind direction at
90oare 0.81 in the living room (based on yard wind) with approach fence F2, and 0.78 in the
bedroom (also based on yard wind) with approach fence-free (F0). Within the 12 groups of
combination of spaces and wind directions, F0 is found to induce highest ventilation coefficient in
seven cases, F2 and F4 in two cases each, and F6 in one case (0.73 in the bedroom based on yard
wind at 30o).
In six of the 12 cases of fences F2 and F3 with different porosity but comparable spacing and
height above ground, fence F2 of lower porosity (17.9 %) produced lower ventilation coefficients
than F3 with higher porosity (28.1%). The reverse is the case in four of the cases, while the
remaining two are neutral, with F2 and F3 producing equal mean ventilation coefficients. A
comparison the effects of F1 (0% porous) and F3 (28.1% porous) also reveal direct proportional
relationships between fence porosity and ventilation coefficient of the rooms in seven out of the 12
cases considered; but two cases each with inverse and neutral relationships.
The pairs of fences F2 and F4, and F3 and F5 share similar porosities (17.9%; and 28.1%) and
spacing but different height of porous area above ground (1.0m and 1.5m; and 1.0m and 0.2m)
reveal a direct proportional relationship between mean ventilation coefficient of the rooms and the
height of porous of the fence from the ground at the approach (Tables 1 and 2).. This direct
relationship occurred in six of the 12 cases between F2 and F4 (five cases of inverse and one of
neutral relationships), and in seven of the 12 between F3 and F5 (one case of inverse and four
cases of neutral relationships).
Analysis of variance in each of the 12 combination-groups reveal a significant difference in the
mean ventilation coefficients induced by seven fence designs at the approach in 10 groups, but not
significant in the other two (Table 3). These two are the ventilation coefficients in the bedroom

472
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September, 2018; Vol. 14(3):469-477.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

(based on street wind at 60o direction) and those in the bedroom (based on yard wind at 30o
direction).
3.1 Discussion
The ventilation coefficients observed in the study bedroom and living room were found to vary
from 0.02 to 1.0. Given that the openings of the rooms under study were not altered while the
approach fence changed, the variation in ventilation coefficient can reasonably be ascribed to
variation in the architecture of approach fence only. This study suggests that natural ventilation in
a fenced residence is influenced by the fence design. It is also evident from the study that
maximum ventilation coefficients were obtained in the rooms when the approach was fence-free
(without any fence) irrespective of wind direction. A definite pattern of variation of ventilation
coefficients of the rooms and porosity of the fence could not be established in the study. The solid
fence wall produced higher ventilation coefficients in the rooms than the porous ones in some of
the cases. The study further suggests that natural ventilation in rooms is inversely proportional to
the height of the porous area of approach fence above ground. In other words, fences with porous
area closer to the ground generated higher ventilation coefficient in the rooms than fences with
same porous area but farther from the ground.
The study also has different implications for thermal comfort in residential buildings sited in
various climatic regions and microclimatic conditions. Thermal comfort indoors is held to be
dependent on indoor wind speed which is also a function of available wind outdoors. Buildings
sited in microclimates with available low wind in tropical regions are more likely to produce
inadequate natural ventilation for thermal comfort than those in temperate regions. The hot climate
of Yola, Nigeria is reportedly characterized by an average wind speed less than 1.0m/s and
temperature above 35oC. It is desirable for buildings in this climate to generate ventilation close to,
or even higher than 1.0 in order to produce maximum natural ventilation required for thermal
comfort. Whereas in the temperate climate of Jos built spaces with ventilation coefficient
significantly lower than 1.0 would be adequate for thermal comfort ventilation.
4.0 Conclusion
The study sought to ascertain how natural ventilation in a fenced residential building is influenced
by the architecture of the fence at the approach property line at six meters offset. Findings from the
experimental design revealed that natural ventilation in the rooms under study varied significantly
with the relative position (above ground) and area of fence porosity. Highest ventilation
coefficients were obtained at all the wind directions when the approach property line was without
fence. Ventilation coefficients of higher values were also found to be generated by fences with
porous areas closer to the ground.

473
Idowu et al.: Effect of Fence Design on Natural Ventilation in Residential Spaces: An Experimental
Study: AZOJETE, 14(3):469-477. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

F6
YD/BR
F5
YD/LR F4
F3
ST/BR
F2
ST/LR F1
F0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Figure 2: Ventilation coefficient (percent) of spaces for 90o wind angle.

YD/BR F6
F5
YD/LR F4
F3
ST/BR
F2

ST/LR F1
F0
0 20 40 60

Figure 3: Ventilation coefficient (percent) of spaces for 60o wind angle.

YD/BR F6
F5
YD/LR F4
F3
ST/BR
F2
ST/LR F1
F0
0 20 40 60 80

Figure 4: Ventilation coefficient (percent) of spaces for 30o wind angle.

474
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September, 2018; Vol. 14(3):469-477.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Table 2: Fence designs and spaces ventilation coefficients

Spaces and Statistics Fence design
wind angle

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
ST/LR Minimum/ 0.14/ 0.14/ 0.07/ 0.04/ 1.00 0.09/ 0.46 0.00/ 0.07 0.04/
at 90o Maximm 0.46 0.88 0.54 0.24
Mean/ 0.32/ 0.27/ 0.19/ 0.16/ 0.21/ 0.04/ 0.12/
Standard Deviation 0.072 0.136 0.090 0.156 0.094 0.021 0.043
ST/LR Minimum/ 0.14/ 0.01/ 0.00/ 0.01/0.08 0.01/0.08 0.00/0.05 0.00/
at 60o Maximm 0.68 0.06 0.06 0.07
Mean/ 0.46/ 0.02/ 0.03/ 0.05/0.014 0.04/0.017 0.02/0.013 0.02/
Standard Deviation 0.135 0.013 0.016 0.015
ST/LR Minimum/ 0.05/ 0.02/ 0.03/ 0.03/0.07 0.02/0.07 0.03/0.08 0.02/
at 30o Maximm 0.33 0.09 0.07 0.07
Mean/ 0.14/ 0.05/ 0.05/ 0.05/0.010 0.05/0.012 0.05/0.012 0.05/
Standard Deviation 0.071 0.014 0.010 0.011
ST/BR at 90o Minimum/ 0.65/ 0.04/ 0.07/ 0.02/0.35 0.02/0.42 0.02/0.21 0.00/
Maximm 1.39 0.37 0.30 0.15
Mean/ 1.00/ 0.09/ 0.07/ 0.09/0.015 0.08/0.014 0.06/0.010 0.05/
Standard Deviation 0.198 0.015 0.011 0.008
ST/BR at 60o Minimum/ 0.01/ 0.01/ 0.01/ 0.01/0.10 0.01/0.10 0.01/0.09 0.01/
Maximm 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09
Mean/ 0.04/ 0.04/ 0.04/ 0.05/0.022 0.05/0.021 0.05/0.021 0.04/
Standard Deviation 0.018 0.024 0.019 0.019
ST/BR at Minimum/ 0.00/ 0.01/ 0.01/ 0.02/0.13 0.03/0.10 0.02/0.13 0.01/
30o Maximm 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.12
Mean/ 0.05/ 0.05/ 0.08/ 0.06/0.027 0.05/0.019 0.06/0.026 0.05/
Standard Deviation 0.033 0.023 0.033 0.021
YD/LR at Minimum/ 0.18 0.41/ 0.00/ 0.09/1.40 0.38/2.30 0.00/0.17 0.04/
90o Maximm /0.45 1.87 3.40 0.36
Mean/ 0.32/ 0.41/ 0.81/ 0.23/0.039 0.51/0.088 0.05/0.009 0.06/
Standard Deviation 0.058 0.072 0.143 0.010
YD/LR at Minimum/ 0.04/ 0.01/ 0.01/ 0.02/0.12 0.01/0.11 0.00/0.09 0.01/
60o Maximm 1.27 0.08 0.10 0.14
Mean/ 0.19/ 0.04/ 0.05/ 0.08/0.021 0.02/0.004 0.02/0.004 0.03/
Standard Deviation 0.209 0.019 0.026 0.005
YD/LR at Minimum/ 0.05/ - 0.04/ 0.07/0.15 0.03/0.16 0.06/0.17 0.04/
30o Maximum 0.35 0.14 0.16
Mean/ 0.12/ - 0.09 0.10/0.022 0.10/0.030 0.10/0.027 0.10/
Standard Deviation 0.058 /0.027 0.030
YD/BR at Minimum/ 0.39/ 0.05/ 0.07/ 0.04/ 0.02/ 0.06/ 0.00/
90o Maximm 1.26 0.58 0.65 1.61 0.55 0.53 0.42
Mean/ 0.78/ 0.22/ 0.31/ 0.29/ 0.24/ 0.27/ 0.15/
Standard Deviation 0.236 0.132 0.136 0.265 0.110 0.122 0.117
YD/BR at Minimum/ 0.04/ 0.04/ 0.07/ 0.06/ 0.06/ 0.07/ 0.07/
60o Maximm 0.38 0.56 0.50 0.66 0.55 0.56 0.44
Mean/ 0.20/ 0.22/ 0.23/ 0.25/ 0.29/ 0.27/ 0.27/
Standard Deviation 0.085 0.121 0.110 0.132 0.119 0.113 0.105
YD/BR at Minimum/ 0.04/ 0.07/ 0.11/ 0.13/ 0.13/ 0.08/ 0.06/
30o Maximm 0.49 0.48 0.47 1.25 0.47 0.53 18.00
Mean/ 0.27/ 0.25/ 0.30/ 0.30/ 0.25/ 0.26/ 0.73/
Standard Deviation 0.129 0.091 0.091 0.191 0.079 0.101 3.101
BR = Bedroom; LR= Living room; ST = Street; VC = Ventilation coefficient; YD = Yard.

475
Idowu et al.: Effect of Fence Design on Natural Ventilation in Residential Spaces: An Experimental
Study: AZOJETE, 14(3):469-477. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Table 3: Summary of ANOVA of ventilation coefficients

Spaces and Criteria Sum of DF Mean Fcal. Fcrit. Sig. Remark:
Wind angle squares square Difference
in mean
ST/LR Between Groups 1.808 6 0.301 31.62 2.1 0.00 Significant
at 90o
Within Groups 2.163 227 0.010
Total 3.971 233
ST/LR Between Groups 5.073 6 0.845 316.2 2.1 0.00 Significant
at 60o Within Groups 0.607 227 0.003
Total 5.680 233
ST/LR Between Groups 0.250 6 0.042 51.87 2.1 0.00 Significant
at 30o Within Groups 0.182 226 0.001
Total 0.432 232
ST/BR at 90o Between Groups 19.229 6 3.205 333.11 2.1 0.00 Significant
Within Groups 2.174 226 0.010
Total 21.403 232
ST/BR at 60o Between Groups 0.004 6 0.001 1.54 2.1 0.166 Not significant
Within Groups 0.093 215 0.000
Total 0.097 221
ST/BR at 30o Between Groups 0.022 6 0.004 5.313 2.1 Significant
Within Groups 0.154 221 0.001
Total 0.176 227
YD/LR at 90o Between Groups 32.448 6 5.408 34.097 2.1 0.000 Significant
Within Groups 36.004 227 0.159
Total 68.452 233
YD/LR at 60o Between Groups 0.568 6 0.095 14.685 2.1 0.000 Significant
Within Groups 1.463 227 0.006
Total 2.030 233
YD/LR at 30o Between Groups 0.016 5 0.003 2.630 2.1 0.025 Significant
Within Groups 0.228 193 0.001
Total 0.243 198
YD/BR at 90o Between Groups 8.029 6 1.338 47.019 2.1 0.000 Significant
Within Groups 6.432 226 0.028
Total 14.462 232
YD/BR at 60o Between Groups 0.202 6 0.034 2.637 2.1 0.017 Significant
Within Groups 2.746 215 0.013
Total 2.948 221
YD/BR at 30o Between Groups 6.074 6 1.012 0.721 2.1 0.633 Not Significant
Within Groups 310.346 221 1.404
Total 316.420 227
BR = Bedroom; LR= Living room; ST = Street; VC = Ventilation coefficient; YD = Yard.

References
Alozie, GC., Alozie, EN. and Eze, DO. 2016. Thermal comfort study of indoors of residential
buildings in Aba urban, Abia State, Nigeria. J-NIAABSC: Journal of the Nigerian Institute of
Architects Abia State Chapter, 1(1): 93-106
Adamawa State of Nigeria 2012. Adamawa State Urban and Regional Planning Law No. 3, pp.
A1-A48. Yola.
Amos-Abanyie, S., Korannteng, C. and Apeatse, KE. 2014. An evaluation of the effects of external
landscape elements on indoor airflow rate and patterns using computational fluid dynamics.
European Scientific Journal,I0(14): 286-299.
Boutet, TS. 1987. Controlling air movement: A manual for architects and builders, pp. 78-82. Mc-
Graw Hill Book Company, New York.

476
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September, 2018; Vol. 14(3):469-477.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Brandle, JR. and Finch, S. (n.d) How windbreaks work.University of Nebraska Extension, EC 91-
1763-B. Available from: n-s.uni.edu/documents/howwindbreakswork.pdf [Accessed 07/03/2017]
Hawendi, S. and Gao, S. 2017. Impact of an external boundary wall on indoor flowfield and
natural cross-ventilation in an isolated family house using numerical simulations. Journal of
Building Engineering, 10: 109-123.
Huang, Y., He, Q., Shen, H. and Liu, Y. 2014. Effect of the fence of urban residence communities
on the diffusion of ground pollutants. In: Li, A.,Zhu, Y. & Li, Y. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium in Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Lecture Notes in Electrical
Engineering, 261.
Idowu, OM. Okonkwo, MM. and Ono, FE. 2017 Applying ‘critical’ ventilation coefficient to
evaluate thermal comfort effectiveness of a naturally ventilated classroom-design in Nigerian
cities. Journal of The Nigerian Institute of Architects Enugu State Chapter, 7(1): 28-35.
Johnson, D. 1914. Windbreak fences – Iowa Beef Centre. Available from:
www.iowabeefcentre.org/bch/Windbreak Fences [Accessed 07/03/2017].
Li, W., Wang, F. and Bell, S. 2003. Windbreaks sheltering effects on outdoor open space. In:
Proceedings, Eighth International IBPSA Conference, Eindhoves, Netherlands, August 11- 14.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J. 2003. Universal principles of design, pp. 58-59. Rockport
Publishers, Massachusetts
Odim, OO., Okonkwo, MM. and Idowu, OM. 2012. Thermal comfort passive design. AARCHES-
J monographic series, No. 2, 2012: 35-55.
Oluigbo, SN. 2004. Fence-wall design and thermal comfort in hot-humid climates. AARCHES J:
Journal of the Association of Architectural Educators in Nigeria, 3(2): 64-68.
Richard, A. 2007. Natural ventilation in passive design. BEDP Environment Design Guide: Note
Tec. 02: 1-11. Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus 2010. Gedes and Grosset, Glasgow.
Wilson, JD. and Flesch, TK. 2003. Wind measurements in a square plot enclosed by a shelter
fence.Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 109(2): 191-224
Wilson, JD. 2004. Oblique, stratified winds about a shelter fence. Journal of Applied Meteorology,
43(8): 1149-1167

477