INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/joc.1092

THERMAL EFFECTS OF BUILDING GEOMETRY AND SPACING ON

THE URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE IN A HOT-HUMID
CLIMATE IN SUMMER
LIMOR SHASHUA-BAR, YIGAL TZAMIR and MILO E. HOFFMAN*
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
Received 16 February 2004
Revised 17 July 2004
Accepted 17 July 2004

ABSTRACT
A quantitative analysis is presented for evaluating the diurnal thermal impact of proposed building arrangements on the
urban canopy layer (UCL) air temperature, in summer in a hot-humid region. Building configuration along an urban
street is quantitatively specified in this study by the building dimensions, by the spacing of the units and by the width
of the street. The generic model described here is representative of the actual form of residential buildings found mostly
along urban streets in Israel’s cities. Sixty different building configurations were studied. The diurnal air temperature
pattern in summer was calculated for each configuration using the analytical Green CTTC model, and compared with that
of a nearby representative meteorological station at an open site. The results indicate significant thermal effects in the
UCL due to the building form. The extent of the maximum impact is about 6.8 K at 1500h, namely ranging from 4.7 K
above the value measured at the reference meteorological station (for shallow open spaces with wide spacing), to 2.1 K
below this (for deep open spaces with narrow spacing). The statistical analysis of the results indicates the feasibility of
assessing the expected maximum thermal effect of building designs of the generic form studied here, through a general
linear relationship. This, thereby, provides a useful tool in judging the expected climatic impact of a proposed building
design. Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society.

KEY WORDS: hot-humid climate; urban microclimate; urban geometry; generic building forms; Green CTTC model; Israel

1. INTRODUCTION

Microclimatic conditions in the urban canopy layer (UCL: the open street space between the buildings, below
roof level) of open spaces of urban streets and courtyards may differ significantly even in the same overall
climatic context. They can be affected by a variety of factors under the control of the building designer, such
as the geometry of the adjoining buildings, the albedo of walls and roofs, vegetation and anthropogenic heat
release (mainly from vehicle traffic; Swaid, 1993).
In contrast to private concerns, whose interest in building design centres on function and appearance, the
public interest in urban planning usually takes into consideration the climatic effect of a proposed design of
buildings on the related open spaces. The urban open spaces in question, i.e. urban streets and courtyards,
typically cover about two-thirds of the city’s total area (excluding attached parks); thus, their microclimate
plays an important role in the city’s overall climate. The environmental approach in this respect concerns
mitigation of the microclimatic variations (especially in hot regions) by means of a set of control variables.
The most important variable in this set is vegetation, especially the shade provided by trees. Apart from
providing shade for pedestrians, the evaporative cooling of trees in parks and streets accounts for about
3–4 K at midday in summer, in temperate and hot regions (e.g. Bernatzky, 1982; Oke, 1989; Jauregui,

* Correspondence to: Milo E. Hoffman, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
32000, Israel; e-mail: mhoffman@ftx.technion.ac.il

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society

1730 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

1990–91; Ca et al., 1998; Potcher et al., 1999; Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2000). Dense building, mostly
emphasized in vernacular architecture, is also an important control variable whose contribution to the cooling
effect depends on the building geometry and may even surpass that of vegetation (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman,
2004). The third important control variable is the albedo of walls and roofs of the adjoining buildings, the
thermal effect of which is relatively small, of the order of 1 K (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2004). These
three factors, among others, have been recommended by Rosenfeld et al. (1995), in their report on President
Clinton’s Climate Change Action Plan, for offsetting the heat load in modern cities.
Besides the effect of the urban geometry on microclimate features of the UCL (e.g. Oke, 1981; Swaid and
Hoffman, 1990–91), the building form has also been found to have a significant effect on the microclimate
behaviour, as shown in pavilion and enclosed courtyards (Mills, 1997; Dimoudi and Nikolopoulou, 2000;
Ratti et al., 2003). The results of these studies refer to individual cases and were not intended to provide a
general solution for any specific generic form.
The purpose of this paper is to study quantitatively the UCL microclimate effect of a proposed configuration
of buildings, namely the thermal effects of the building dimensions and spacing as related to the UCL
geometry. The building configurations chosen for this analysis are derived from a generic form representative
of the types of residential building found mostly along urban streets in cities in Israel (regarding generic
studies, see Martin and March (1972) and Ratti et al. (2003)). Sixty cases were studied. The diurnal air
temperature values for each configuration were generated using the analytical ‘Green CTTC model’ developed
by Shashua-Bar and Hoffman (2002). Summer data (where the heat is the greatest) were used for generating
the simulations in a hot-humid urban region near the Mediterranean Sea coast (31–32 ° N). Following the
simulation analysis, a statistical analysis was conducted to examine the interrelationships among the various
thermal effects, and to assess the expected potential extent of the thermal impact at midday. The statistical
relationship provides a general solution for the building effect on the UCL microclimate related to a specific
generic form.

2. THE RESEARCH SET-UP

2.1. The generic building form

Apartment blocks in Israel, usually of three to six storeys, are built mostly on plots of about 600 m2 (or
multiples of such) along the urban streets, with an attached open courtyard at the rear of the building. The
maximum built site coverage allowed is 35–40%, with a minimum spacing of 6 m between the buildings’
walls. The generic form studied in this paper is representative of this type. The radiative effects of a similar
model structure of buildings have been studied by Mills (1997). A schematic plan of this generic model is
shown in Figure 1.
Four residential sites in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area representing this building types generic form are
shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. Sites (a) and (b) illustrate the situation in Tel Aviv city centre: Rothschild
Boulevard and Dizengoff Street respectively. The number of storeys is usually three to five, as indicated by
the average height of the buildings (12 m), and the plot size is about 600 m2 . Site (c), Recanati Street in
Ramat-Aviv (a northern suburb of Tel Aviv), illustrates the case of large, high-rise buildings. Site (d), Ben
Zvi Street in Givataim (an inland town near Tel Aviv), also illustrates a case of high-rise buildings, with a
slight deviation from the generic form shown in Figure 1.
The analysis of the climatic effects due to the various geometric elements was conducted on buildings
generated by the proposed generic form. The form contains similar geometric elements to the method of
Allon and Tzamir (1971) in classifying typology in residential projects. In this paper, the buildings along the
streets under study are specified quantitatively by the following three generic variables, defined by geometric
ratios:

1. Spacing to frontal length (spacing ratio L1 : L2), relating the distance between adjacent buildings L1 to
the frontal length L2.
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1731

L2 L2

D H H D
L1

W STREET

D H H D
L1

COURTYARD

L2 L2

H H

Figure 1. Plan representation of the generic building form and definition of length components. H , D, L2 refer to the height, depth,
frontal length of each unit, L1 refers to the spacing between the units and W refers to the width of the street

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Diagrammatic illustration of four sites in Tel Aviv metropolitan area. (a) Rothschild Blvd: H = 12 m, W = 48 m, L1 = 6 m,
L2 = 14 m, D = 15 m; (b) Dizengoff Street: H = 12 m, W = 24 m, L1 = 6 m, L2 = 11 m, D = 20 m; (c) Recanati Street: H = 50 m,
W = 50 m, L1 = 20 m, L2 = 30 m, D = 30 m; (d) Ben Zvi Street: H = 30 m, W = 30 m, L1 = 22 m, L2 = 75 m, D = 15–30 m.
(See Figure 1 for definition of length components)

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1732 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

2. Building depth to frontal length (building depth ratio D : L2), relating the building depth D to the frontal
length L2.
3. Height-to-width ratio of the UCL (aspect ratio H : W ), relating the building height H to the width of the
street’s open space W .

Using these three ratios, various building configurations were generated for the thermal analysis. The thermal
analysis studies the climatic effect on air temperature on the front side of the building (facing the street’s open
space), including the spacing areas. The analysis on the rear side with an open attached courtyard follows
the same procedure. Inner courtyards, attached-closed (patio) and semi-closed courtyards, are not considered
in this study, as they do not fit the plan of the generic form shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Generating data for the analysis

The analysis considers the case of a hot-humid climate where the heat in summer is most noticeable. The
Tel Aviv metropolitan area, near the Mediterranean Sea coast, fits the case. Climate data for the month of
July 1996 on solar radiation, wind velocity, ground surface temperature and humidity were obtained from a
nearby representative open site meteorological station at Beit-Dagan.
The levels of the generic variables considered cover the geometric relations found mostly in residential
building configurations in modern cities:

1. Spacing ratio (L1 : L2), 0.33, 0.5, 0.66, 0.83, 1.0 (five levels).
2. Building depth ratio (D : L2), 0.67, 1.0, 1.34 (three levels).
3. Aspect ratio (H : W ), 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 (four levels).

Altogether, 60 cases were analysed. These were arranged in 12 groups of five levels of spacing, according
to the three building depth levels and four aspect ratio levels. In the statistical analysis, the groups were
numbered 0 to 11, where group 0 contains the configurations with the smallest building depth ratio and aspect
ratio (see Table A.I). The average air temperature pattern in the frontal open spaces along a north–south-
oriented urban street was simulated, using the climatic summer data average for July for the meteorological
station at Beit-Dagan.
The simulation tool is the analytical Green CTTC model for estimating the diurnal urban air temperature
pattern (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2002), an extension of the cluster thermal time constant (CTTC) model
developed by Swaid and Hoffman (1990–91). It incorporates design principles related directly to the physical
structure and properties of the building forms. The following variables and parameters are included in the
model:

• Climatic variables of the region studied (including base regional temperature, direct, diffuse and reflected
radiation, net longwave radiation, wind velocity, vapour pressure and cloudiness).
• Thermodynamic properties of building surfaces (including CTTC, surface solar radiation absorptivity,
surface emissivity).
• Geometry of building forms (including building density, partially shaded areas, open-space geometry and
sky-view factor at ground and roof levels).
• Properties of trees (including tree number density, solar radiation transmissivity through the tree canopy
and convective heat exchange between the tree canopy and the ambient air).
• Anthropogenic heat release factors (including heat release owing to transportation and fuel consumption
for domestic use).

The predicted air temperature of an urban open space is calculated through the contribution of the heat
received from external sources, mainly the net solar radiation, anthropogenic heat release, and vegetation
effects. It has been applied successfully in various climatic regions.
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1733

(a) 32 (b) 20
18
30 16
Air Temperature [°C]

Air Temperature [°C]

14
28
12
26 10
8
24 6
4
22
2
20 0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4
Time [h] Time [h]
Measured values at meteorological station Simulated values

Figure 3. Simulated and measured patterns of diurnal air temperature at the meteorological station for (a) 21 July and (b) 15 January
1996 (Source: Shashua-Bar and Hoffman (2004))

In this study, the reliability of the simulated diurnal air temperature values was verified by the validity of
the analytical model used, as demonstrated in previously published studies (discussed below).

2.3. On the validation of the Green CTTC model

The validity of the analytical CTTC model as first formulated by Swaid and Hoffman (1990–91) was
confirmed using measured data in Essen (Germany) and Jerusalem (Israel), and by further tests in studies by
their colleagues (Mosseri, 1990; Aizenberg, 1992; Swaid, 1993). The predictions using the CTTC model were
found to be in good agreement with in situ measurements. The extended version, the Green CTTC model,
has also been validated for an open space using data for the meteorological station at Beit-Dagan, for both
summer and winter (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2004).
The diurnal estimates of the air temperature values simulated for Beit-Dagan for July (maximum heat) and
January (maximum cold) are shown in Figure 3 against the measured values. The close fit in the summer and
the winter data enhances the validity of the Green CTTC model.
The Green CTTC model has also been validated on actual values measured in situ at 0600, 0900, 1500,
1800 and 2400h at 11 urban green areas with trees. The data used were taken from a previous study carried
out on calm days in summer of July–August 1996 in the Tel Aviv metropolitan, near the Mediterranean
Sea coast (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2000). At all the 11 wooded sites studied the root-mean-square errors
(RMSEs) of the cooling effect at the times measured were less than 0.5 K (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2002).

3. ANALYSING THE SIMULATION RESULTS

3.1. Graphic representation

The simulated diurnal patterns of air temperature over the daily course of 24 hours were calculated using
climatic data from the meteorological station at Beit-Dagan. The calculations are illustrated using average
data over the month of July 1996.
The Green CTTC model was used for estimating the simulated air temperature pattern, along a north–south-
oriented urban street, for each of the 60 building configurations studied. The effect of orientation (east–west
case) is discussed in Section 3.2. The urban anthropogenic heat release and the effect of vegetation were not
considered in this study.
The following parameter values, as estimated at experimental sites (Shashua-Bar and Hoffman, 2002), were
used in calculating the 60 simulations:
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1734 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

• The surface solar radiation absorptivity, m was 0.55 for the ground and 0.5 for walls.
• The overall surface heat transfer coefficient h (W m −2 K−1 ), which is related to wind velocity, was 18, 16,
14 and 12 for H : W 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 respectively.
• The effective atmospheric emissivity Br (Brunt, 1952), which is related to vapour pressure and cloudiness
of the climatic region, was, on average, 0.74.
• The ground surface thermal emissivity e was 0.92.
• The CTTC was 8 hours, for the ground and 6 hours for walls.

3.1.1. Diurnal patterns. The simulated air temperature patterns in the north–south-oriented street show
significant diurnal variation among the various building configurations. To illustrate, the diurnal patterns of
two simulations with extreme differences in the generic variables defined by geometric ratios are shown
in Figure 4, with the diurnal course of air temperature at the meteorological station for comparison. Case
(a) represents a street with shallow UCL (H : W = 0.25) and wide spacing, as wide as the front side of
the building (L1 : L2 = 1.0), with a small building depth ratio (D : L2 = 0.67). The diurnal simulated air
temperature values are noticeably higher than those at the Beit-Dagan station, by about 4.7 K at 1500h.
By contrast, case (b) represents a street with deep UCL (H : W = 2.0) and relatively narrow spacing ratio
(L1 : L2 = 0.33) with a large building depth ratio (D : L2 = 1.34). The result is a cooler UCL than that at
the Beit-Dagan station, by as much as 2.12 K at 1500h. The range of the impact on the UCL microclimate
between these two extreme cases is significant: about 6.8 K (ranging from 4.7 K in case (a) to −2.12 K in
case (b)) at 1500h.

3.1.2. Maximum thermal effects. The analysis focuses on the maximum simulated potential thermal effect
of the configuration, which occurs at 1500h (14 : 10 solar time), the time at which air temperature reaches its
maximum in summer in the region studied. To facilitate the comparison among the various simulations, the
thermal effect
T is defined here as the difference between the simulated air temperature and that measured at
the Beit-Dagan meteorological station. The average values for July air temperature and relative humidity (RH)
at this meteorological station were: max. 30.2 ° C with RH = 60% at 1500h and min. 22.9 ° C with RH = 90%
at 0600h.
A graphical representation of the potential thermal effects (
T ) for the 60 simulations is shown in
Figures 5–8 for the four aspect ratios (H : W = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 respectively). Each figure for a particular
H : W level represents three relative depth levels (D : L2 = 0.67, 1.0, 1.34) and each relation (line) represents

36

34
Air Temperature [°C]

32

30

28

26

24

22
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4
Time [h]

: shallow-built form with wide spacing;

: deep-built form with narrow spacing;
: Meteorological station data for July

Figure 4. Diurnal pattern of average July air temperature, illustrating the potential thermal impact of building geometry

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1735

five simulations corresponding to the five spacing levels (L1 : L2 = 0.33, 0.5, 0.66, 0.83, 1.0). The numerical
values of
T are given in Table A.I for each group of the generic variables.
The 12 curves in Figures 5–8 indicate linear relationships. Inspection of the 12 curves leads to the following
conclusions concerning the expected estimate of the quantitative impacts:

1. Spacing ratio L1 : L2. The wider the relative spacing between the buildings, the warmer the UCL
microclimate. For example, increasing the relative spacing ratio from a level of 0.33 to a level of 1
warms the related UCL by about 2 K in the case of H : W = 0.25 (see Figure 5).

1.8
D:L2 = 0.67
1.6
1.4 D:L2 = 1.00
Air Temperature Difference [K]

1.2
D:L2 = 1.34
1.0
0.8
0.6 L1
0.4 L2
0.2
0.0
D W
-0.2 H

-0.4 Perspective view from above

-0.6
H:W = 1.0
-0.8
0.33 0.50 0.66 0.83 1.00
L1:L2

Figure 7. The impact of geometry on the air temperature, in north–south-oriented streets, in configurations with H : W = 1.0, for 1500h
in summer. (Air temperature differences are based on July climatic data at Beit-Dagan meteorological station)

0.0
D:L2 = 0.67
-0.2
-0.4 D:L2 = 1.00
Air Temperature Difference [K]

-0.6 D:L2 = 1.34

-0.8
-1.0
-1.2 L1
-1.4
L2
-1.6
-1.8
D W
-2.0 H
-2.2 Perspective view from above
-2.4
H:W = 2.0
-2.6
0.33 0.50 0.66 0.83 1.00
L1:L2

Figure 8. The impact of geometry on the air temperature, in north–south-oriented streets, in configurations with H : W = 2.0, for 1500h
in summer. (Air temperature differences are based on July climatic data at Beit-Dagan meteorological station)

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1736 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

4.8 D:L2 = 0.67

4.6 D:L2 = 1.00
4.4 D:L2 = 1.34
Air Temperature Difference [K]

4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6 L1
3.4
L2
3.2
3.0
H D W
2.8
2.6 Perspective view from above
2.4
H:W = 0.25
2.2
0.33 0.50 0.66 0.83 1.00
L1:L2

Figure 5. The impact of geometry on the air temperature, in north–south-oriented streets, in configurations with H : W = 0.25, for
1500h in summer. (Air temperature differences are based on July climatic data at Beit-Dagan meteorological station)

3.6
3.4 D:L2 = 0.67
3.2 D:L2 = 1.00
Air Temperature Difference [K]

D:L2 = 1.34
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4 L1
2.2
L2
2.0
1.8
H D W
1.6
1.4 Perspective view from above
1.2
H:W = 0.5
1.0
0.33 0.50 0.66 0.83 1.00
L1:L2

Figure 6. The impact of geometry on the air temperature, in north–south-oriented streets, in configurations with H : W = 0.5, for 1500h
in summer. (Air temperature differences are based on July climatic data at Beit-Dagan meteorological station)

2. Building depth ratio D : L2. In each of Figures 5–8, the lower line corresponds to a higher level of relative
depth, indicating a cooling effect. However, the impact is small, of the order of −0.5 to −1 K.
3. Aspect ratio H : W . The deeper the open space (high H : W ), the cooler the UCL. This finding is well
known and, as estimated here, the impact is very noticeable. At its maximum, the cooling effect is of the
order of 4.5 K for configurations with H : W = 2.0 (see Figure 8) compared with those with H : W = 0.25
(see Figure 5).
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1737

3.2. Orientation effect

The analysis of the simulated data described in Section 3.1 relates to the thermal impact of various building
configurations along an urban street with north–south axis. Orientation is known to have a distinct distribution
effect with regard to solar radiation access to the surfaces of walls and the street floor. It does not follow,
however, that this effect would make a difference for the UCL average air temperature, as the same amount
of solar radiation is received by the open-space unit depending on the extent of its openness to the sky,
irrespective of the orientation. To test the truth of this statement, the two extreme simulations in Figure 4
were recalculated along an urban street with an east–west axis. It is assumed that both the north–south and
east–west orientations have the same wind regime, and each is symmetric with regards to the height of its
flanking buildings.
The results show no noticeable differences from the north–south-oriented cases. The thermal effects at
1500h were 4.8 K and −2.16 K in the east–west orientation in group 0 and group 11 respectively as against
4.7 K for group 0 and −2.12 K for group 11 in the north–south orientation.

3.3. Statistical analysis

3.3.1. Regression analysis. The quantitative thermal effects of the generic variables at 1500h are determined
by regression analysis. The statistical analysis could be done by fitting a regression line to each of the 12
curves in Figures 5–8; each curve corresponds to one of the 12 groups. However, pooling of all the data
from the 60 simulations would be more efficient and more informative. The discussion in Section 3.1 on the
thermal effects suggests use of the following independent variables in a multiple linear regression:
X1 Spacing ratio (L1 : L2), a continuous variable
X1 X2 Depth–spacing interaction, an interaction variable for estimating the effect of building
depth X2 (building depth ratio, D : L2) on the spacing effect of X1 , a continuous variable
X1 X3 Aspect ratio–spacing interaction, an interaction variable for estimating the effect of the
aspect ratio X3 (aspect ratio, H : W ) on the spacing effect of X1 , a continuous variable
D1 , D2 Dummy variables for the effects of building depth ratio (D : L2), where



1 if D : L2 = 1.0 1 if D : L2 = 1.34
D1 = D2 =
0 otherwise 0 otherwise

D3 , D4 , D5 Dummy variables for the effects of aspect ratio (H : W ), where

1 if H : W = 0.5 1 if H : W = 1.0 1 if H : W = 2.0
D3 = D4 = D5 =
0 otherwise 0 otherwise 0 otherwise

The regression relation to be estimated is


i=5

T = a + (ci Di ) + b1 X1 + b2 X1 X2 + b3 X1 X3 (1)
i=1

where
T is the dependent variable. It is the thermal effect defined as the UCL simulated air temperature
deviation from the respective meteorological air temperature at midday. a is a constant term, which includes
the effect of the base levels of the dummy variables. ci and bi are the regression coefficients of the D and X
variables respectively. D1 , D2 , D3 , D4 , D5 , X1 , X1 X2 and X1 X3 are independent variables.
The effects of the base levels of D : L2 = 0.67 and of H : W = 0.25 are included in the constant term and are
not estimated explicitly. This is characteristic of the dummy variables estimation procedure. The coefficients
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1738 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

c of the dummy variables represent differential effects relative to the base level, e.g. the coefficient c 1 of D1
is c1 units more than the effect at the base level (regarding the use of dummy variables, see Johnston and
Dinardo (1996)). Equation (1) was estimated by a multiple linear regression. The regression set-up plan is
given in Table A.I. The regression coefficients, their standard errors and the multiple correlation coefficient
R are given in Table I.
The thermal effect of individual components can be predicted separately besides the total effect
T , using
the regression coefficient estimate listed in Table I. As an example, case 3 in group 7 is used, where the
geometric relations are X1 = 0.66, D1 = D : L2 = 1.0, D4 = H : W = 1.0. Predicted effects:
Spacing effect = a1 X1 = 2.114 × 0.66 = 1.395 K
Depth–spacing interaction = b2 X1 X2 = 0.611 × 0.66 × 1 = 0.404 K
Aspect ratio–spacing interaction = b3 X1 X3 = −0.289 × 0.66 × 1 = −0.191 K
Building depth effect = c1 D1 = −0.436 × 1.0 = −0.436 K
Aspect ratio effect = c4 D4 = −3.169 × 1.0 = −3.169 K
Constant term =a × 1 = 2.538 × 1.0 = 2.538 K
Total predicted thermal effect
T = 0.541 K
Total simulated thermal effect
T = 0.60 K
using the Green CTTC model
The constant term a = 2.538 K is an estimate of the thermal effect indicated by the difference between a
site’s air temperature and that at the meteorological station at 1500h in summer. The site being considered is
a continuous canyon-type street, with an aspect ratio and building depth ratio of 0.25 and 0.67 respectively
and with no spacing between the building units (L1 = 0).

3.3.2. The fit and the extent of the building thermal effects. A graphic representation of the simulated
T
versus those predicted using regression is shown in Figure 9. The fit, as indicated by the multiple correlation
coefficient R = 0.99, is very close. The RMSE for the predicted
T is 0.08 K. The graph indicates the
extent of the potential thermal impact on microclimate due to the building geometry. The extent is significant,
about 6.8 K at 1500 h for the types of geometry studied here, ranging from 4.7 K warmer than the related
meteorological station in a shallow open space with wide spacing to −2.12 K in a deep open space with
narrow spacing.

3.3.3. Extrapolation of predicted thermal effects. Use of the dummy variables in multiple regressions
obviates the need for specifying its form, i.e. whether the relationship in question is linear or non-linear.
However, for extrapolation purposes, it is important to assert its correct form in the relationship in question.
In the present case, the dummies are continuous variables that were considered here as categories. Hence,
for extrapolation, they have to be reconsidered as continuous and whether they are linear or not. Figure 10
shows the relationship of the dummy effects (building depth ratio D : L2 and aspect ratio H : W ), as given
in Table I, in relation to their levels. The building deepness relationship is found to be linear, whereas the
aspect ratio effects are non-linear. The effects of these two relations at 1500 h are estimated for extrapolation
purposes as for the building depth ratio

T = 0.8 − 1.2 × (D : L2) (2)

Table I. Regression results: pooled data of 60 simulations of building configurations. Time: 1500h, July data

Independent variables Constant X1 X1 X2 X1 X3 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Regression coefficient a b1 b2 b3 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5

Regression coefficient estimate 2.538 2.114 0.611 −0.289 −0.436 −0.808 −1.440 −3.168 −4.626
Standard error 0.072 0.016 0.190 −0.777 −0.051 −0.090 −0.037 −0.052 −0.097
Multiple correlation R 0.999, significant over 99% for n = 60 observations with nine variables

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1739

Thermal effects from simulations [K]

5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thermal effects predicted by linear regression [K]

Figure 9. Simulated thermal effects according to the Green CTTC model versus the predicted effects according to the regression relation
at 1500h

1
Air temperature difference [K]

-1
D:L2
-2

-3

-4
H:W
-5

-6
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Levels of the ratios

Figure 10. The effects of the building depth ratio (D : L2) and the aspect ratio (H : W ) on the UCL air temperature at 1500h

for the aspect ratio effect.

T = −3.03 − 2.233 ln(H : W ) (3)

For H : W = 2.5, for example, the thermal effect of the aspect ratio using Equation (3) is expected to be
−5.076 K compared with −4.626 K for H : W = 2.0.
Extrapolation in the case of the continuous variables, the spacing ratio X1 and the interaction variables
X1 X2 and X1 X3 , is straightforward and the thermal effect is calculated directly from the regression relation
in Equation (1).

4. CONCLUSIONS

This study deals with the UCL microclimatic effect of building design, namely the thermal effects of building
dimensions and spacing and UCL geometry. The analysis is applied on simulated summer air temperature
data in a hot-humid urban region near the Mediterranean Sea coast. Building configurations were generated
according to a generic form representing the residential buildings found mostly along urban streets in Israel.
Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1740 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

Sixty different building configurations were assessed by the ‘Green CTTC model’. The analysis focuses on the
potential maximum diurnal thermal effect, at 1500h (14 : 10 solar time) in July. The thermal effects are related
to those at the Beit-Dagan meteorological station representing the climatic region near the Mediterranean Sea
coast.
The main findings are:

• The extent of the thermal impact due to the various building configurations studied is significant, about
6.8 K at 1500h, ranging from 4.7 K above the reference meteorological station, in shallow open spaces
with wide spacing, to 2.1 K below it in deep open spaces with narrow spacing. Recall that the cited cooling
effect of vegetation seldom exceeds 3–4 K at midday, whereas the building effect in deep open spaces
may surpass this, as shown in this study.
• Each of the three generic variables specifying the building form in this study has a distinct impact on
the UCL microclimate: wide spacing has a warming effect, whereas UCL deepening (high H : W ) has
a strong cooling effect. The built-up depth ratio has a relatively weak cooling effect, but has a positive
interactive influence on the spacing effect. The statistical analysis indicates the feasibility of assessing the
total expected maximum thermal effect of a proposed building of the generic form studied here, through
use of a linear relationship.
• The thermal impact on the UCL air temperature of the building configuration studied does not depend on
the street orientation.
• The quantitative analysis described in this paper provides a useful tool for assessing the expected thermal
effect on the UCL microclimate at 1500h of a proposed building design. Assessing the expected thermal
effect of each building’s geometric element separately may also be important in judging the climatic impact
of a proposed building.
• The results obtained in this paper relate to a hot-humid region in summer. For practical use, the methodology
of this study may be extended to cover cases in different seasons and in various urban climates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to E. Goldberg for editorial assistance and comments.

APPENDIX
Table A.I. Multiple regression set-up. Time: 1500h, July data

Group y,a
T D : L2 H :W X1 X1 X2 X1 X3 Constant y

,b
T

(K) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 (K)

(0) D : L2 = 0.67 3.23 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.221 0.083 1 3.35

3.72 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 0.335 0.125 1 3.76
H : W = 0.25 4.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.66 0.442 0.165 1 4.16
4.45 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0.556 0.208 1 4.57
4.70 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.670 0.250 1 4.99
(1) D : L2 = 1.00 2.94 1 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.330 0.083 1 2.98
3.52 1 0 0 0 0 0.50 0.500 0.125 1 3.43
H : W = 0.25 3.97 1 0 0 0 0 0.66 0.660 0.165 1 3.85
4.33 1 0 0 0 0 0.83 0.830 0.208 1 4.30
4.63 1 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.000 0.250 1 4.75
(2) D : L2 = 1.34 2.70 0 1 0 0 0 0.33 0.442 0.083 1 2.67
3.34 0 1 0 0 0 0.50 0.670 0.125 1 3.16
H : W = 0.25 3.84 0 1 0 0 0 0.66 0.884 0.165 1 3.62
4.24 0 1 0 0 0 0.83 1.112 0.208 1 4.10
4.58 0 1 0 0 0 1.00 1.340 0.250 1 4.59

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
 ISRAELI URBAN CANOPY LAYER MICROCLIMATE 1741

Table A.I. (Continued )

Group y,a
T D : L2 H :W X1 X1 X2 X1 X3 Constant y

,b
T

(K) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 (K)

(3) D : L2 = 0.67 1.81 0 0 1 0 0 0.33 0.221 0.165 1 1.88

2.32 0 0 1 0 0 0.50 0.335 0.250 1 2.29
H : W = 0.5 2.76 0 0 1 0 0 0.66 0.442 0.330 1 2.67
3.14 0 0 1 0 0 0.83 0.556 0.415 1 3.07
3.44 0 0 1 0 0 1.00 0.670 0.500 1 3.48
(4) D : L2 = 1.00 1.38 1 0 1 0 0 0.33 0.330 0.165 1 1.51
1.97 1 0 1 0 0 0.50 0.500 0.250 1 1.95
H : W = 0.5 2.45 1 0 1 0 0 0.66 0.660 0.330 1 2.37
2.86 1 0 1 0 0 0.83 0.830 0.415 1 2.80
3.21 1 0 1 0 0 1.00 1.000 0.500 1 3.24
(5) D : L2 = 1.34 1.05 0 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.442 0.165 1 1.21
1.68 0 1 1 0 0 0.50 0.670 0.250 1 1.68
H : W = 0.5 2.21 0 1 1 0 0 0.66 0.884 0.330 1 2.13
2.66 0 1 1 0 0 0.83 1.112 0.415 1 2.60
3.04 0 1 1 0 0 1.00 1.340 0.500 1 3.08
(6) D : L2 = 0.67 0.11 0 0 0 1 0 0.33 0.221 0.330 1 0.11
0.52 0 0 0 1 0 0.50 0.335 0.500 1 0.49
H : W = 1.0 0.98 0 0 0 1 0 0.66 0.442 0.660 1 0.84
1.36 0 0 0 1 0 0.83 0.556 0.830 1 1.22
1.67 0 0 0 1 0 1.00 0.670 1.000 1 1.60
(7) D : L2 = 1.00 −0.35 1 0 0 1 0 0.33 0.330 0.330 1 −0.26
0.15 1 0 0 1 0 0.50 0.500 0.500 1 0.15
H : W = 1.0 0.60 1 0 0 1 0 0.66 0.660 0.660 1 0.54
0.99 1 0 0 1 0 0.83 0.830 0.830 1 0.95
1.34 1 0 0 1 0 1.00 1.000 1.000 1 1.37
(8) D : L2 = 1.34 −0.70 0 1 0 1 0 0.33 0.442 0.330 1 −0.57
−0.17 0 1 0 1 0 0.50 0.670 0.500 1 −0.12
H : W = 1.0 0.30 0 1 0 1 0 0.66 0.884 0.660 1 0.31
0.72 0 1 0 1 0 0.83 1.112 0.830 1 0.76
1.09 0 1 0 1 0 1.00 1.340 1.000 1 1.20
(9) D : L2 = 0.67 −1.45 0 0 0 0 1 0.33 0.221 0.660 1 −1.45
−1.08 0 0 0 0 1 0.50 0.335 1.000 1 −1.12
H : W = 2.0 −0.74 0 0 0 0 1 0.66 0.442 1.320 1 −0.80
−0.41 0 0 0 0 1 0.83 0.556 1.660 1 −0.47
−0.13 0 0 0 0 1 1.00 0.670 2.000 1 −0.14
(10) D : L2 = 1.00 −1.84 1 0 0 0 1 0.33 0.330 0.660 1 −1.82
−1.44 1 0 0 0 1 0.50 0.500 1.000 1 −1.45
H : W = 2.0 −1.08 1 0 0 0 1 0.66 0.660 1.320 1 −1.11
−0.74 1 0 0 0 1 0.83 0.830 1.660 1 −0.74
−0.43 1 0 0 0 1 1.00 1.000 2.000 1 −0.38
(11) D : L2 = 1.34 −2.12 0 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.442 0.660 1 −2.12
−1.71 0 1 0 0 1 0.50 0.670 1.000 1 −1.72
H : W = 2.0 −1.33 0 1 0 0 1 0.66 0.884 1.320 1 −1.34
−0.98 0 1 0 0 1 0.83 1.112 1.660 1 −0.94
−0.65 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 1.340 2.000 1 −0.54

ay =
T simulated using the analytical ‘Green CTTC model’.

b y

=
T predicted by multiple linear regression.

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)
1742 L. SHASHUA-BAR, Y. TZAMIR AND M. E. HOFFMAN

REFERENCES
Aizenberg A. 1992. Development of climatic urban design guidelines based on the analytical CTTC model for prediction of air
temperature variations. MSc thesis, Technion, Israel (in Hebrew, English summary).
Allon Y, Tzamir Y. 1971. Conception of built-up environment. Research of Town and Region, Technion, Israel (in Hebrew).
Bernatzky A. 1982. The contribution of trees and green spaces to a town climate. Journal of Energy and Buildings 5: 1–10.
Brunt D. 1952. Physical and Dynamical Meteorology. Cambridge University Press.
Ca VT, Asaeda T, Abu EM. 1998. Reduction in air conditioning energy caused by a nearby park. Journal of Energy and Buildings 29:
83–92.
Dimoudi A, Nikolopoulou M. 2000. Vegetation in the urban environment: microclimate analysis and benefits. Journal of Energy and
Buildings 35: 69–76.
Jauregui E. 1990–91. Influence of a large urban park on temperature and convective precipitation in a tropical city. Journal of Energy
and Buildings 15–16: 457–463.
Johnston J, Dinardo J. 1996. Econometric Methods, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Press.
Martin L, March L. 1972. Urban Space and Structures. Cambridge University Press.
Mills G. 1997. The radiative effects of building groups on single structures. Journal of Energy and Buildings 25: 51–61.
Mosseri A. 1990. The inner courtyard as a climatic component in a residential area. MSc thesis Technion, Israel (in Hebrew, English
summary).
Oke TR. 1981. Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of
Climatology 1: 237–254.
Oke TR. 1989. The microclimatology of the urban forest. Journal of Phil. R. Sec. Land, B 234: 335–349.
Potchter O, Yaakov Y, Bitan A. 1999. Daily and seasonal climatic behavior of a small urban park in a Mediterranean climate: a case
study of Gan-Meir park, Tel-Aviv Israel. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Biometeorological and International
Conference on Urban Climatology, Australia.
Ratti C, Raydan D, Steemers K. 2003. Building form and environmental performance: archetypes, analysis and arid climate. Journal of
Energy and Buildings 35: 49–59.
Rosenfeld AH, Akbari H, Bretz S, Fishman BH, Kurn DM, Sailor D, Taha H. 1995. Mitigation of urban heat islands: materials, utility
programs, updates. Journal of Energy and Buildings 22: 255–265.
Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. 2000. Vegetation as a climatic component in the design of an urban street: an empirical model for
predicting the cooling effect of urban green areas with trees. Journal of Energy and Buildings 31: 221–235.
Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. 2002. The Green CTTC model for predicting the air temperature in small urban wooded sites. Journal
of Building and Environment 37: 1279–1288.
Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. 2004. Quantitative evaluation of passive cooling of the UCL microclimate in hot regions in
summer — case study: urban streets and courtyards with trees. Journal of Building and Environment 39: 1087–1099.
Swaid H. 1993. Urban climate effects of artificial heat sources and ground shadowing by buildings. International Journal of Climatology
13: 797–812.
Swaid H, Hoffman ME. 1990–91. Climatic impacts of urban design features for high and mid-latitude cities. Journal of Energy and
Buildings 14: 325–336.

Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 24: 1729–1742 (2004)