Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

A novel quantitative assessment framework of the IAQ resilience

performance of buildings: The resilience score metric
Douaa Al Assaad *, Abantika Sengupta , Hilde Breesch
KU Leuven, Department of Civil Engineering, Building Physics and Sustainable Design, Ghent and Aalst Technology Campuses, Gebroeders De Smetstraat 1, 9000, Gent,
Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Resilience performance in building design has emerged as a critical consideration in the face of increasing un­
IAQ resilience certainties or ‘shocks’ posed by natural disasters, climate change & excessive pollution. To evaluate and optimize
Quantitative assessment framework building design decisions, holistic performance metrics are needed. This work defines a novel quantitative
Resilience score
assessment framework of indoor air quality (IAQ) resilience which output is the resilience score (RS) metric that
Degree of shock
Indoor air quality
integrates all resilience aspects and building-relevant pollutants. The framework was demonstrated via simula­
tions on a validated model of a case study educational building in Belgium for 3 ventilations systems: constant air
volume (CAV), demand-controlled ventilation (DCV), DCV without filters, and 3 shock types (mechanical MS,
internal IS, outdoor shocks OS). Results showed that OS was the least critical shock type, followed by IS and MS.
With increasing degree of shock, RSMS decreased for all 3 systems linearly by 64% until 2.8 h of power outage,
beyond which the rate of decrease slowed down considerably. CAV & DCV had the same RSMS and that of DCV
w/o filters was 13% lower. The RSIS for CAV & DCV deteriorated by 38.8% & 46% before plateauing at values of
0.45 & 0.36 respectively. CAV had better resilience against IS. The effect of filters did not reflect in the RSIS. The
RSOS for CAV & DCV deteriorated by 51% & 26% before plateauing at values of 0.49 & 0.73 respectively. DCV
had the best resilience against OS, followed by DCV w/o filters & CAV.

withstand its effects within an acceptable degradation range, and

1. Introduction
Over the past decades, the concept of “resilience” has gained
attraction among researchers and practitioners in organizational [1],
economic [2], social [3], and engineering domains (e.g., technical sys­
tems, built environment, structures) [4]. While classic risk management
tries to reduce the likelihood of disruptive scenarios and their conse­
quences on wellbeing of societies, resilience assessment aims to evaluate
the risks associated with undesirable events that cannot be predicted nor
prevented; thus, denoted as “shocks”. Examples include power outages
and blackouts [5], natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, floods) [6] or
man-made catastrophes (e.g., bomb attacks, fires) [7], climate change
(e.g., heatwaves, cold snaps) and excessive pollution (e.g., sudden sys­
tem failures, smog, wildfires) [8]. Such events can disrupt the welfare of
populations for prolonged periods of time. This makes resilience an
important aspect to consider when designing and conceptualizing sys­
tems and processes.
Across disciplines, resilience was defined as “a performance char­
acteristic that describes the extent to which a system can absorb a shock,
recover from it back to its designed performance within a suitable time”
[9]. There has been much discussion and research regarding resilience
assessment frameworks. These frameworks were either qualitative or
quantitative and were motivated by the need to support design, decision
making, guide planning and eventually inform policy makers, which
enables resilience to be considered as an essential performance char­
acteristic in a system [10]. Qualitative frameworks offer a conceptual
insight into resilience. They break it down into a set of characteristics or
aspects, specific to the studied domain, identifying barriers, dependent
factors, and outputs allowing for risk-informed planning [11]. Recently,
efforts have been made to conceptualize the resilience of the built
environment against shocks that have detrimental consequences on the
wellbeing of occupants. This includes the framework of: (i) thermal
resilience against extreme overheating (due to heatwaves, power cuts)
that threaten the lives of occupants by causing heat stress and impacting
basic bodily functions [12] and (ii) IAQ resilience against excessive in­
door pollution risks causing acute exposure to multiple hazardous air
pollutants, increasing the burden of disease [13,14]. Zhang et al. [15]
identified the four thermal resilience characteristics of cooling systems

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: douaa.al-assaad@kuleuven.be (D. Al Assaad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110669
Received 23 June 2023; Received in revised form 24 July 2023; Accepted 26 July 2023
Available online 27 July 2023
0360-1323/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Al Assaad et al. Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669

Nomenclature kdecay Particle decay rate (h− 1)

MS Mechanical shock
AHU Air handling unit OS Outdoor shock
CAV Constant air volume ventilation system PM Particulate matter
Co Initial PM concentration (ppm) Q̇a Total airflow rate supplied by the AHU (m3/s)
CHAP Arithmetic mean of median concentrations of HAPs in each Q̇a,req Required air flow rate supplied by the AHU (m3/s)
zone (ppm)
Q̇a,z Airflow rate supplied to a zone z (m3s)
Cp,oa Ambient outdoor air concentration of species p (ppm)
RS Resilience score (− )
Cp,oa,expected Expected ambient outdoor air concentration of species p
RSCO2 CO2 resilience score (− )
(ppm)
RSHAPs HAPs resilience score (− )
Cp,sup Concentration of species p in supply air (ppm)
t time (h)
Cp,sup,expected Expected concentration of species p in supply air (ppm)
tocc Total occupied hours in one day (h)
Cp,z Concentration of species p in a zone z (ppm) TRV Threshold reference value (ppm)
CPM Concentration of particulate matter (ppm) tshock Shock duration (h)
DCV Demand controlled ventilation system VOCs Volatile organic compounds
doS Degree of shock (− )
doMS Degree of mechanical shock (− ) Greek symbols
doIS Degree of internal shock (− ) φ IAQ influencing variable (− )
doOS Degree of outdoor shock (− ) ε Effectiveness
Δtabs Absorptivity time (h) Δ Difference
Δtrec Recovery time (h) ω Weighting factor
ERp Actual emission rates of species p in each classroom (kg/h)
Subscripts
ERp,expected Expected emission rates of species p in each classroom
a air
(kg/h)
i HAP index
εabs Absorptivity effectiveness (− )
oa outdoor air
εrec Recovery effectiveness (− )
occ occupied
εres Resilience effectiveness (− )
p pollutants (CO2, VOCs, PM)
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
ref reference case
HQ Hazard quotient (− )
sup supplied
IAQ Indoor air quality
z zone
IDEAS Integrated district energy assessment by simulation
IS Internal shock

in buildings i.e., absorptive, adaptive, restorative capacity and recovery
speed. The resilience capacities can be evaluated into 3 categories: high
(i.e., can increase or maintain its cooling capacity during shock), mod­
erate (i.e., can only maintain its cooling capacity during shock), and low
(i.e., decrease in cooling capacity). Recovery speed was classified as
either high (i.e., system recovers within several hours), and low (i.e.,
system recovery takes one or more days). Al Assaad et al. [16] identified
three IAQ resilience aspects for indoor air quality (IAQ) management
systems i.e., absorptive and recovery times and shock impact.
While qualitative frameworks are useful in gaining a deeper under­
standing into resilience, they do not quantify resilience aspects. Thus,
they cannot be applied to all disciplines where quantification of conse­
quences is essential to gain understanding of the shock scale. Semi-
quantitative approaches improved conceptual frameworks by assessing
resilience characteristics on individual scales (0–100, 0–10) based on
expert observations or surveys, and combining them all into one index.
Pettit et al. [17] measured vulnerability and capabilities of industrial
supply chains against shocks, by conducting surveys targeted at policy
makers. A weighted-sum approach based on experts’ opinions was
conducted to aggregate the two resilience factors.
A further improvement on semi-quantitative frameworks are fully
quantitative approaches that measure the system performance during a
shock and benchmark it with respect to the design system performance
during normal operation. Quantitative frameworks can be deterministic
or probabilistic, neglecting or considering the probability of shock
occurrence. They can also be either dynamic or static, accounting for
time dependence in resilience aspects [18]. Using a deterministic static
approach, Rose [19] calculated the resilience of economies through the
0 to 1 ratio of expected over worst-case degraded performance levels. A
dynamic approach was also developed where the dynamic resilience
index was calculated as the difference in recovery capacities with and
without interventions. In the framework of thermal resilience, using a
deterministic static approach, Ji et al. [20] proposed the thermal resil­
ience index to quantify the resilience performance of buildings during
heatwave shocks. The unmet cooling ◦ C.hours index was extracted from
the temporal temperature profiles and penalized with weighting factors
based on degree of violations of standard effective temperature thresh­
olds. The index was calculated for multiple cooling strategies and was
used to classify and rate them into different classes. A similar approach
was adopted by Homaei et al. [21] for cold snap events. In the same
framework and using a similar type of performance-based approach,
Sengupta et al. [22] classified and quantified shocks causing overheating
using the normalized degree of shock (doS). This approach allows to
compare shocks and rate cooling strategies based on their impact on the
thermal environment through determining the total ◦ C.hours and occu­
pied hours above acceptable thresholds. Other metrics based on
indoor-outdoor temperature gradients were also developed [23–26]. In
the framework of IAQ resilience, Al Assaad et al. [16], classified shocks
into mechanical, internal, an outdoor and quantified them using the
normalized doS combining severity and duration. The degree of impact
of the shock was quantified using the total ppm.hours above acceptable
IAQ thresholds and used to compare smart and conventional ventilation
systems in educational buildings.
While existing quantitative frameworks can measure and thus eval­
uate the resilience level of a system – especially when resulting metrics
are bounded, they are often used to quantify only one aspect of resilience
(recovery capacity [19], degree of shock impact [16,20,22]). However,
as agreed upon by multiple disciplines [4,16,17,23], resilience is a
multi-faceted construct with interdependent aspects (e.g., absorptivity,
recovery, and degree of shock impact), each having a different type of

2
D. Al Assaad et al.
influence on the system performance and in some cases, on human
wellbeing. Consequently, to get a full insight on the resilience perfor­
mance of systems, there is a need for a holistic resilience quantitative
assessment framework that combines and visualizes simultaneously the
different identified aspects of resilience.
The current presented work will build upon previous research con­
ducted by the authors [16], where the concept of “IAQ resilience” was
introduced for the first time. The aim of the present work is to develop a
holistic quantitative assessment framework of IAQ resilience against
different shock types that cause excessive pollution in buildings equip­
ped with any ventilation system(s) or IAQ management strategy. The
output of this framework is the resilience score (RS) – a bounded metric
that varies between 0 (i.e., worst resilience) and 1 (i.e., best resilience)
and accounts simultaneously for the different aspects of IAQ resilience
defined in Ref. [16]. The RS accounts for different contaminants (CO2
and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and particulate matter (PM)) weighted objectively based on
combined quantitative and qualitative evidence of disease. The frame­
work will be demonstrated on a virtual model of a real-use educational
building. This case study is the same one used by the authors in
Ref. [16], where the corresponding model was validated experimentally
Fig. 1. Quantitative assessment framework of IAQ resilience performance of any building typology.
3
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
under both normal and extreme shock conditions.
The manuscript will be structured as follows: Section 2 showcases
the full framework and details the different steps. Section 3 presents the
case study building, corresponding validated model in Modelica, and the
simulation scenarios conducted to demonstrate the framework. Section
4 discusses the results of applying the framework on the case study.
Section 5 lists the scope of RS and applicability in other disciplines as
well as its limitations and directions for future research. Section 6
concludes the work and its main contributions.
2. Resilience assessment framework
Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed framework and the different steps to
follow to assess the IAQ resilience of any building typology. This
assessment framework can be conducted experimentally on a case study
building, or virtually via a simulation model. Step 1 consists of inflicting
either virtually or experimentally, a “shock” that causes a rise in the
concentrations of prominent pollutants in the built environment for a
certain duration. The shocks were expressed in terms of the degree of
shock doS introduced in Ref. [16] and explained below. In Step 2, the
experimentally measured or numerically predicted temporal
D. Al Assaad et al.
concentration of pollutants are extracted from the building zones. In
Step 3, the normalized indices of the three aspects of IAQ resilience
(absorptivity effectiveness εabs , recovery effectiveness εrec and degree of
shock impact εres ) defined in Ref. [16] and explained below are calcu­
lated from the concentration profiles. They are averaged across the
building zones (to obtain the mean value for the building), for each
pollutant across the doS range. In Step 4, the calculated indices repre­
senting the three resilience aspects, are visualized on a spider chart for
the different building-relevant contaminants across the doS range. The
RS for each pollutant is then computed as the area of the formed triangle
in the spider chart. To calculate one single RS representative of the
building and accounting simultaneously for all the pollutants, the
weighted sum of the individual RS for the pollutants is computed across
the doS range (Step 7). The evolution of the resilience with increasing
shock degree can be analyzed. The weighting of the different RS is
conducted in Steps 5 and 6, objectively via a combined quantitative and
qualitative assessment based on exposure levels and evidence of harm
and disease respectively, as will be explained below [27]. Section 2.1
explains the shocks and their quantification (Step 1). Section 2.2 defines
the aspects (or characteristics) of resilience and their indices (Steps 2, 3,
4). Section 2.3 presents the pollutant-based and aggregated
building-level RS and the pollutants’ prioritization methodology to
compute the weighting factors across the doS range (Steps 5, 6, 7).
2.1. Shocks’ classification and quantification
To test the resilience of a building, shocks should be inflicted (Step 1,
Fig. 1). They are defined as extreme unexpected events that occur
without prior knowledge of the building residents or designer and thus,
no prior action (e.g., preventive maintenance) can be taken to prevent
them. Shocks should be realistic and thus, could have already occurred
or will occur in the future. In the framework of IAQ resilience, shocks
cause a significant degradation in performance of installed ventilation
systems or any other type of installation that manages IAQ. Shocks cause
a quick build-up of various pollutants generated outdoors and/or in­
doors from occupants, furniture, building envelope, to levels that can
exceed acceptable toxicological reference values (TRV) set by standards.
Fig. 2 illustrates the temporal evolution of the concentration of a
pollutant p, Cp (t) during shock events for multiple scenarios. It was seen
Fig. 2. Simplified illustration of the temporal evolution of the concentration of a pollutant p during shock events.
4
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
in Ref. [16] that pollutants’ concentrations built-up quite fast (i.e., in the
range of minutes) causing acute exposure events, which have detri­
mental effects on human health that extend well after the shock is over.
To assess IAQ resilience, Al Assaad et al. [16] classified shocks into 3
types and quantified them by introducing the normalized degree of
shock (doS) (equation 1, Table 1) combining the shock severity (i.e., a
measure of deviation of an IAQ related variable φactual from expected
conditions φexpected leading to a significant decline in IAQ) and the shock
duration (tshock ) normalized by an observation period: the occupied
period (tocc ). The higher the doS, the worse the IAQ degradation.
The 3 types of shock [16] were summarized in Table 1. Note that the
doMS, doIS and doOS defined in Table 1 do not consider spatial effects
due to non-homogeneity of the airflow field and associated pollutants’
concentration fields. In this framework, it was assumed that the space is
one control volume with lumped conditions, where doMS, doIS and doOS
were uniform in the space and were the same for all pollutants,
regardless of their emission patterns.
2.2. The three aspects of IAQ resilience
Fig. 2 illustrates the evolution of Cp (t) when a shock occurs at a time
to for multiple possible scenarios (1,2,3). Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 correspond
to different systems undergoing the same shock having a degree doS or
to the same system undergoing different doS. These scenarios are pre­
sented to show how different systems can have different resilience re­
sponses to the same shocks or how IAQ can deteriorate differently
depending on the doS. In the framework of IAQ resilience, three aspects
of resilience are defined: (1) absorptivity, (2) recovery and (3) impact.
These three aspects exist simultaneously, or in other words, one cannot
exist without the other.
• Resilience aspect 1: Absorptivity
The period between Cp (t) crossing the threshold reference value
(TRV) for pollutant p (t1 for scenario 1, t′1 for scenarios 2, t″1 for scenarios
3) until it reaches the maximum concentration Cmax at times t2 , t′2 , t″2 was
denoted as absorptivity time (Fig. 2). In the specific case where, Cp (t)
was already above the TRV when the shock occurred (i.e., base case
concentrations above the threshold), then absorptivity time is the
D. Al Assaad et al. Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669

Table 1 performance is proportional to absorptivity times. The normalized

Illustration of the three types of shock (MS, IS and OS) and their quantification absorptivity effectiveness index was defined below as:
using the degree of shock (doS) based on the previous work [16].
Δtabs
Type of shock Description Quantification (degree of shock, doS) εabs = (6)
φexpected − φactual tshock
tocc
doS = × (1)
φexpected tocc
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅⏞⏞̅⏟
Duration
Where Δtabs is the absorptivity time (h) benchmarked with respect to the
occupied period tocc (h). tocc was chosen since any absorptivity time
Severity

Mechanical They occur due to Q̇a,req,z − Q̇a,z tshock

shock partial or complete
(MS) failure of system
component(s). If the MS
affects ventilation
system components, it
leads to a decrease or
interruption in the
supply of clean outdoor
air to a zone z
(Q̇a,z < Q̇a,req,z ) (e.g.,
faulty fans, dampers
stuck in closed position,
filter fowling [28],
leaking ducts, power
outages Q̇a,z = 0 [29]).
If the MS affects the
components of other
types of systems that
regulate the
concentrations of
pollutants in the supply
air (e.g., air cleaners), it
leads to an increase in
the pollutants’
concentration in the
supply air
(Cp,sup > Cp,sup expected )
Indoor They occur inside the
shock (IS) zones and are linked to
occupancy. They consist
of an increased
generation rate of
pollutants beyond the
capacity of the systems
(ERp > ERp,expected ) (e.g.,
sick occupants
generating pathogens,
several additional
healthy occupants
entering the room [30])
Outdoor They occur due to
shock (OS) outdoor pollution
events, where generated
pollutants can infiltrate
through the envelope or
the ventilation system
(Cp,oa > Cp,oa expected ) (e.
g., traffic jams, fire
hazards, smog [31])
doMS = (2) lasting beyond the occupied period is not relevant for the resilience
Q̇a,req,z
×
tocc
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅⏞⏞̅⏟ performance since occupants were no longer residing in the space. εabs
Duration
Severity
varies between 0 (i.e., worst case scenario, the system absorbs the shock
Cp,sup − Cp,sup expected tshock
doMSp =
Cp,sup expected
×
tocc
quickly) and 1 (i.e., best case scenario, the system takes considerable
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅⏞⏞̅⏟ amount of time to fully absorb the shock). Note that if the system did not
Duration
Severity
(3) react to the occurrence of a shock (i.e., no recorded absorptivity time)
does not mean that Δtabs = 0, bur rather that equation (6) cannot be
applied.
• Resilience aspect 2: Recovery
The period between the shock end time t3 or when an intervention
strategy became effective such that Cp (t) decreased significantly from its
peak Cmax to reach the TRV or lower (t4 for scenarios, t′4 for scenarios 2,
t″4 for scenarios 3, Fig. 2), was denoted as recovery time. In the specific
case where, Cp (t) was already above the TRV in the base case of no
shock, then the recovery time is the period between t3 and the moment
Cp (t) rejoined the base case scenario concentration profile.
Different systems could have different recovery times and thus
different resilience performance. The quicker that the system and indoor
space recovered from the shock, the faster the occupant exposure sub­
sided. The slower the system recovery time, the longer occupants were
left to inhale concentrations of pollutants that were higher than the TRV
ERp − ERp,expected tshock
doISp =
ERp,expected
×
tocc
(4) (Fig. 2). Thus, the resilience performance was inversely proportional to
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅⏞⏞̅⏟
Severity Duration recovery times. The normalized recovery effectiveness index was
defined below as:
Δtrec
εrec = 1 − (7)
tocc
Where Δtrec is the recovery time (h) benchmarked with respect to the
occupied period tocc (h). tocc was chosen since any recovery time lasting
beyond the occupied period was not relevant for the resilience perfor­
mance since occupants were no longer residing in the space. εrec varies
doOSp =
Cp,oa − Cp,oa expected
×
tshock
(5) between 0 (i.e., worst case scenario, the system recovers slowly
Cp,oa expected tocc throughout the occupied period) and 1 (i.e., best case scenario, the
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅⏞⏞̅⏟
Severity Duration
system recovers almost instantaneously). Note that if the system did not
react to the occurrence of a shock (i.e., no recorded absorptivity and thus
no recovery) does not mean that Δtrec = 0, bur rather that equation (7)
cannot be applied.
• Resilience aspect 3: Shock impact

period between Cp (t) deviating from what would be the base case
concentrations with no shock until it reached the maximum concen­
tration Cmax . Cmax is the saturation concentration (i.e., the highest con­
centration that can be reached in that space for that doS. For t > t2 , t′2 , t″2
until t3 (end of shock event) is called the adaptation period, wherein
the systems in place may take action to circumvent shock effects on IAQ.
If the shock is short-term, and saturation concentration cannot be
reached, the adaptation time can be zero (Fig. 2).
Different systems could have different absorptivity times and thus
different resilience performance. The quicker the absorptivity (i.e., low
absorptivity time), the quicker the build-up and IAQ deterioration and
the quicker Cp (t) reaches its maximal value Cmax . Thus, for low ab­
sorptivity times, the acute exposure of occupants to pollutants is more
severe since they inhale the same mass of pollutants but in a shorter time
and stay exposed to Cmax longer (Fig. 2). Thus, the resilience
The impact of the shock is the unmet ventilation ppm.hours above the
TRV (Fig. 2). The ppm.hours is a measure of occupant exposure to con­
centrations exceeding the TRV during a certain period, which in this
case is the occupied period tocc (h). Different systems having different
ventilation effectiveness could yield different impacts (Fig. 2). The shock
impact considers the adaptation time if it exists. The shock impact was
expressed via the normalized resilience effectiveness index below:
ppm.hoursref − ppm.hourssystem under shock
εres = (8)
ppm.hoursref − ppm.hourssystem normal operation
The ppm.hourssystem under shock of the evaluated system under a shockwas
compared to two values: ppm.hourssystem normal operation in the case of no
shock and a reference ppm.hoursref . The ppm.hoursref is the unmet
ventilation ppm.hours for a reference building scenario that yields the
worst possible IAQ during normal operation and during a shock. This

5
D. Al Assaad et al.
reference case scenario is a building with no IAQ management strategy
(no ventilation system or any auxiliary). If the ppm.hourssystem under shock
approached the ppm.hourssystem normal operation , then the system and thus the
indoor environment and occupants were barely affected by the shock,
and kept an operation that is close to that of a base case scenario where
no shock occurred. In this case, εres approaches 1 (i.e., lowest impact and
best resilience). However, if the ppm.hourssystem under shock approached the
ppm.hoursref , then the system and thus the built environment approach
the case of a building with no ventilation or auxiliary systems with the
worst IAQ (i.e., as if the system is not there and is incapable of any
remedy action). In this case, εres approaches 0 (i.e., biggest impact and
worst resilience).
Note that the three presented aspects of IAQ resilience (absorptiv­
ity, recovery, and impact) as seen on the concentration profile in Fig. 2
are counted as one resilience cycle [32]. If, during the shock, the built
environment recovered (i.e., due to occupancy fluctuations, interven­
tion strategy or shock ends) and then re-absorbed the same or another
shock, another cycle starts. The absorptivity, recover times (Δtabs , Δtrec )
and the degree of shock impact (ppm.hourssystem under shock ) are then
re-calculated and added to the calculated values from earlier cycles.
The resilience cycle depends on factors other than the system type
and its control, such as the type of shock (MS, IS, OS), the degree of
shock (doS), space characteristics (e.g., volume, envelope tightness, user
behavior), the type of pollutant in question and notably the occupancy
schedule in the building, since occupants are important generators of
indoor pollutants. Thus, when conducting the resilience assessment, it is
important to apply and report the results of the framework under the
building’s most representative user profiles. In the case where the
building typology is characterized by more stochastic user profiles (e.g.,
residential buildings), multiple profiles should be tested, and a range of
values should be given for the different resilience aspects and thus the
eventual RS. Moreover, in a building with different zones having
different dimensions, indoor/outdoor pollution sources, emission
strengths, as well different user profiles, the framework (Fig. 1) should
be applied to each zone individually. The range of RS as function of
increasing doS can be reported for the building. The arithmetic mean
values could be considered as a representative of the building. The
framework can be applied similarly to different building typologies (i.e.,
residential, non-residential, or commercial).
After calculating the building zones’ average three metrics (εabs , εrec ,
εres ) (Steps 2 & 3) for each pollutant p, a spider chart could be plotted
with these three metrics to visualize and gain understanding on the full
picture of the IAQ resilience performance of the building and systems
under evaluation. This can be seen in Fig. 3 for the scenarios 1, 2, 3. The
idea behind the spider charts is to juxtapose the aspects of resilience that
are approximately independent in their definition. The absorptivity and
recovery times are independent one from the other as their associated
phenomena occur due to different events or system stimuli. Moreover,
they cannot occur simultaneously. The absorptivity is a response to the
occurrence of shock and recovery is a response to the end of a shock. The
degree of shock impact expressed with the ppm.hours spent above the
TRV reflects the cumulative health impact of the shock. While it partly
Fig. 3. Spider chart visualizing simultaneously the three aspects of IAQ resil­
ience (εabs , εrec , εres ). Scenarios 1, 2, 3 correspond to the ones found in Fig. 2.
6
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
and implicitly considers absorptivity and recovery in its calculation, it is
important to consider it independently to differentiate between systems:
For example, two systems can have the same absorptivity and recovery
effectiveness (εabs , εrec ), but one system can have lower ppm.hours above
the TRV and thus lower εres .
There are multiple ways this graph could be used. If the objective is
to compare multiple systems or test an intervention strategy, the spider
chart could be plotted for the systems in questions for each doS in the
range and for each pollutant p. If the objective is to gain understanding
on how different pollutants react to shocks for one building scenario, the
chart can be plotted for multiple pollutants for each doS in the range.
The chart can be used to analyze and compare different shock types
having the same doS, for each pollutant p or even the same type of shock
for multiple doS.
2.3. The resilience score (RS) metric
The total resilience score (RS) metric of a building is the normalized
sum of the RS of each pollutant p. The RS of each pollutant p is calcu­
lated as the area of the triangle formed by εabs , εrec & εres in the spider-
chart seen in Fig. 3. The total RS can be calculated in equation (9) as:
⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
5 ⎨ ∑
#HAPs ⎬
RSCO2 + ωi RSi
13 ⎪ ⎪
RS = ⎪ ⎪
⎩ i=1
⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟
⎪
⎪
⎭ (9)
RSHAPs
∑
where ωi = 1
The total RS splits the building pollutants between CO2 and haz­
ardous air pollutants (HAPs) (e.g., particles, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), etc.) due to their different impacts on health and building de­
signers’ understanding of them. CO2 if inhaled, does not cause disease to
humans like HAPs. However, it is an asphyxiant: Exposure to high levels
of CO2 compromises the immunity system [13], causes sick building
syndrome (i.e., nausea, fatigue, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness) [33,
34] and decreased cognitive performances [35] and at extremely high
levels (>10–20%), loss of consciousness and even death [36]. RSCO2
(equation (9)) is the score calculated for CO2, the pollutant considered to
be an occupancy indicator [37] and relied upon by partitioners to design
and size the ventilation system [38].
The weights associated with each HAP are calculated based on the
recently developed method by Sérafin et al. [27] for prioritization of
inhaled indoor air pollutants. This method is based on combined
quantitative approach based on an exposure risk assessment and a
qualitative approach based on hazard classification. The prioritization of
HAPs improves the identification of pollutants of concern for human
health, which is important during a IAQ resilience assessment.
2.3.1. HAPs’ prioritization: quantitative and qualitative approach
Existing methods in the literature for HAPs’ prioritization were
based on toxicological data inputs (i.e., quantitative approaches). They
ranked substances by scoring each based on the weighted sum of the sub-
scores of the risks related to different exposure routes, duration, and
different health effects [39–41]. While providing a clear ranking from
highest to lowest priority pollutant, the sub-scores and their weights
were calculated based on random decisions; making it difficult to
compare health effects. Moreover, they allowed for trade-offs between
health effects leading to ignore certain pollutants. Sérafin et al. [27]
proposed an improved new method based on combining risk assessment
from toxicological concentration data and qualitative approach based on
evidence of harm. This method was applied in this framework to
calculate the weights ωi (equation (9)) and was explained below:
• Quantitative risk assessment:
D. Al Assaad et al.
The risk associated with inhalation exposure to HAPs was expressed
by the calculation of the hazard quotient (HQ), which is the ratio of the
exposure concentration of the HAP to the TRV concentration at which no
adverse health effects occur:
CHAP
HQ = (10)
TRV
CHAP is the arithmetic mean of the median concentrations measured or
predicted in each building zone i during the observation period (Fig. 2).
The TRVs were extracted from recognized national or international or­
ganizations (e.g., US environmental protection agency (EPA) [42],
world health organization (WHO) [43], Flemish guidelines [44], Euro­
pean Commission [45] and others [46,47]). Different TRVs may exist for
the same substances, however, this is beyond the scope of this study. A
substance was a priority if its HQmean at building level or the 95th
percentile HQP95 was higher than 1. Note that in Ref. [27], HQ was not
weighted with the occupied time in the zones.
• Qualitative risk assessment:
Sérafin et al. [27] combined the different qualitative classification of
Fig. 4. Illustration of the a) test lecture room building consisting of classrooms E120, E220 and the AHU, b) corresponding validated model in Modelica.
7
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
HAPs from different international organizations (US EPA, the Interna­
tional Agency for research on Cancer (IARC), European Commission)
that were based on animal or human evidence of disease. The result of
this combination was a 5-class hazard classification, the “CMRE” which
considers Carcinogenic risks, potential for Mutagenicity and Repro­
ductive toxicity, or Endocrine disruptions simultaneously. A substance
was a priority if it belongs to CMRE category 1 or 2 corresponding to
substances that are known to have (category 1) or most likely to have
(category 2) at least one of the aforementioned health effects in humans.
The rest of the categories were either unclassified substances or sub­
stances with no proof of harm or no sufficient evidence. Their qualitative
assessment results showed 71 substances of priority including PM2.5,
PM10, VOCs (specifically formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene,
dichloropropane) which fell into categories CMRE 1 or 2.
To use this method in the resilience assessment framework, a
quantitative risk assessment was conducted for the substances that were
identified as priority pollutants by the CMRE classification [27]. The HQ
distribution of each HAP was calculated. The first occurrences of HQ > 1
of each HAP were used to weight the HAPs against each other and
∑
calculate the weighting factors such that ωi = 1 (equation (9)) and to
calculate the total RS of the building. This was done so as not to neglect
D. Al Assaad et al.
the weight of priority substances, which HQmedian does not always exceed
1 but rather its 95th percentile.
3. Application of the framework
3.1. Case study building and corresponding model
The resilience assessment framework will be applied and demon­
strated on a case study educational building located in the city of Gent,
Belgium at the Campus Gent of KU Leuven [16] consisting of 2 class­
rooms (E120 and E220) [48]. Both classrooms (13.28 m length × 10.69
m width × 2.7 m height) can seat a maximum of 80 students each. The
test lecture room building is a real-use case study, where regular classes
and exams are held throughout the academic year spanning from
September until June. These schedules have been consistent throughout
consecutive academic years and can thus be considered as representa­
tive. Fig. 4a illustrates a schematic of the building and its AHU. Detailed
description of the building envelope can be found in Refs. [16,22].
The AHU supplied 100% conditioned clean filtered outdoor air with
a maximum airflow of 4400 m3/h and a minimum of 400 m3/h. The air
was first filtered by a G4 prefilter for coarse particles to protect the AHU
and its components. It has a filtration efficiency of 15% for particles
having an optical diameter of 0.3–2.5 μm (PM2.5) and an efficiency of
70% for particles between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM2.5-10). This filter is fol­
lowed by an E10 filter having an efficiency of 80% across all particle
sizes. These filters were tested over a period of 14 months and exhibited
a stable behavior with minimal pressure drop [49].
The installed ventilation system is a balanced all-air mechanical
ventilation applying the concept of demand-controlled ventilation
(DCV). Each classroom was a single zone, with supply and return vari­
able air volume boxes regulated by a request signal from a PI control
block that regulated the airflow based on competing room temperature
and CO2 concentrations (Fig. 4a). The system can be switched to con­
stant air volume (CAV). The AHU was designed to maintain yearlong
constant temperatures in the classrooms of 22 ± 0.5 ◦ C and CO2 con­
centrations of 1000 ppm. The AHU operated during weekdays from 7:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and was shut off during weekends. The operation and
control of both heating and cooling systems can be found in detail in
Ref. [16].
In [16], a model of the building, and its AHU were developed in
Modelica [50]. Fig. 4b illustrates the model of the test lecture room
building as seen in Dymola as well as an overview of the components.
The “Integrated District Energy Assessment by Simulation” (IDEAS) library
[51] that contains validated sub-models of the building envelope, sys­
tems, and their control was used. The considered contaminants in the
model (and relevant to the current building as informed by its building
monitoring system [52–54]) are:
1CO2 due to breathing activities with a generation rate of 0.0037 L/s.
person [55]. The average outdoor concentrations were CCO2 ,oa = 450
ppm [56]. The TRV for CO2 was equal to CCO2 ,TRV = 1000 ppm according
to Flemish guidelines in Belgium [57].
2VOCs consisting mainly of aldehydes as was experimentally
measured in the test lecture rooms [16]. For the occupants, a total VOCs’
generation rate of 1.73 μg/s.person was assumed [58]. As for the
building envelope and furniture (tables), the generation rate was
determined experimentally in Ref. [16] and was equal to 7.8 μg/s. The
average outdoor concentrations in Gent, were equal to CVOC,oa = 0.0068
ppm [59]. The TRV for VOCs was equal to CVOCs,TRV = 0.049 ppm [57].
3. PM due to occupant activities and infiltration. Occupant activities
generating PM in classrooms involve students/teachers walking
around the room [60], sitting, and fidgeting. It was found that the
source strengths for human activities ranged from 0.03 to 0.5
mg/min for PM2.5 and from 0.1 to 1.4 mg/min for PM10 [61]. In this
study, the average of each range was considered.
8
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
The average outdoor concentration of PM2.5 and PM10 were obtained
from an air quality monitoring station in Gent located in the vicinity of
the case study building [62]. The recorded outdoor concentrations of
PM2.5 and PM10 have a monthly average of 10 μ g/m3 and 18 μ g/m3
respectively. The validated filter model of Faulkner et al. [63] was used
to model the AHU G4 and E10 filters. Additionally, the PM decay model
due to gravitational settling expressed in equation (11) and validated in
Ref. [63] was used:
( )
CPM (t) = Co exp − kdecay t (11)
Where CPM (t) is the transient PM concentration in the zones, Co is the
initial PM concentration and kdecay (h− 1) is a defined constant rate of PM
decay that depends on the particle diameter size. It was equal to 0.39 h− 1
for PM2.5 and 1.01 h− 1 for PM10 [64]. The TRV for PM2.5 and PM10 were
equal to 15 μ g/m3 and 45 μ g/m3 according to WHO’s air quality
guidelines also adopted in Belgium [65].
Note that other contaminants include outdoor generated pollutants
such as NOx. However, they won’t be considered in this work as it was
seen in Ref. [16], that concentrations did not exceed recommended
Flemish guideline values even under extreme OS events. According to
the CMRE classification [27], PM2.5, PM10 and the VOCs found in the test
lecture building, classify as CMRE ≤ 2 and will be ranked according to
their exposure to calculate the total RS.
The numerical predictions of the Modelica model were validated
through experiments. The zone-average temporal variations of temper­
ature and species’ concentrations were validated for the case of normal
operation and a case with a 30-min power outage during a full day.
Detailed description of experiments can be found in Ref. [16].
3.2. Simulation scenarios
IAQ resilience was assessed during an observation period of one day
on Monday June the 6th. Fig. 5 illustrates the measured occupancy
schedules on that day. The generation of the occupancy schedules were
explained in Ref. [16]. The average occupied period between both
classrooms was equal to 587 min.
MS, IS and OS were inflicted in the model (Step 1, Fig. 1). A power
outage was considered to represent a MS (complete interruption in
supply of air). The duration of the power outage was varied from 0 to
587 min (complete occupied period) with a 20-min increment (i.e.,
doMS ∈ [0, 1], Δ(doMS) = 0.05, equation 2, Table 1). IS was simulated
with an additional number of occupants in the E220 beyond the AHU
capacity throughout the occupied period. The total number varied be­
tween 58 (max capacity) to 116 occupants with an increment of 5 oc­
cupants (i.e., doISp ∈ [0, 1], Δ(doIS) = 0.05, equation 4, Table 1). OS was
simulated by an outdoor pollution event (i.e., traffic jam in the early
morning 6:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m.) that increased outdoor levels of pollu­
tion from 0 to 2.5 × (i.e., doOSp ∈ [0, 1], Δ(doOS) = 0.05, equation (5),
Table 1). To test the framework, the same simulations were also applied
to the case of CAV system operating at a constant air rate of 4400 m3/h
and the same DCV system without the presence of filters in the AHU.
4. Results and discussion
The demonstration of the framework will be presented in the order of
the steps in Fig. 1. Section 4.1 presents the visualization of the resilience
aspects as function of the contaminants for the different ventilation
systems and shock types (Step 3, 4). Sections 4.2 and 4.3 present the
ranking of the HAPs (Step 5, 6) and the RS (Step 7).
4.1. Resilience aspects for different shock types
Figs. 6 and 7 & 8 illustrate the spider charts grouping the different
resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ) segregated as function of the different
indoor contaminants (CO2, VOCs, PM2.5, PM10) for MS, IS & OS
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 5. Measured occupancy schedules in a) E120 and b) E220.
respectively for a) CAV, b) DCV and c) DCV without filters in the AHU.
The spider charts were presented for 3 ranges of doS (low, mid, and
high).
Out of all shock types, MS was the only shock type that challenged
the IAQ resilience of all systems with respect to all contaminants
throughout the entire doMS range (Fig. 6). This was not the case for IS
and OS.
IS caused violations of CO2 and VOCs TRVs for CAV throughout the
entire doIS range (Fig. 7a), for DCV with/without filters (Fig. 7b and c)
for doIS > 0.22. The reason for the latter was that in DCV systems driven
solely by CO2 demand, VOCs’ concentrations tend to build-up during
periods when no significant occupancy is present in the classrooms (i.e.,
early morning, evening, class breaks). Thus, it takes a more intense IS to
cause VOCs’ concentrations to deviate noticeably from the base case of
No Shock. Note that for the DCV w/o filters (Fig. 7c), only PM2.5 TRVs
were violated for extreme IS (doIS = 1). Thus, IS do not challenge the
resilience of mechanical ventilation systems when it comes to fine and
coarse PM except for when systems don’t have adequate filtration. OS
caused violations of VOCs only in the case of a CAV system for doOS >
0.29 and not for DCV (Fig. 8a and b). It caused PM2.5 violations in the
case of a DCV system with no filters for doOS > 0.29 (Fig. 8c).
Looking at Fig. 6, across the entire doMS range and for both CAV and
DCV, VOCs had the lowest εres (highest shock impact), the highest εabs ,
(gradual absorption) and the lowest εrec , (slowest recovery). This was
followed by CO2, PM2.5 and PM10. Recovery of PM was higher due to
gravitational settling effects, which was more pronounced for PM10.
For CAV (Fig. 6a, Fig. S1 in the supporting information file), with
increasing doMS from 0.144 to 1, εres,VOCs decreased linearly from 0.85 to
0.25. εabs,VOCs increased linearly from 0.13 to 0.65 plateauing at doMS =
0.721. εrec,VOCs remained 0.84 until doMS = 0.432, then slightly
increased to 0.87 at doMS = 0.577. For doMS > 0.577 until 1, εrec,VOCs
decreased linearly to 0.54. This was due to the longer power outage.
Thus, the zone has more time to store VOCs and takes more time to
recover. The slight increase in εrec,VOCs at doMS = 0.577 is due to the
reduction in occupancy at the time of shock events (i.e., mid-day break,
Fig. 5) speeding up the recovery process. Similar trends were obtained
for DCV (Fig. 6b and c). The difference was that εres,VOCs was ∼ 6% lower
and εrec,VOCs was ∼ 7% higher. This shows that the DCV system has
slightly higher VOCs violations. However, recovery was slightly faster as
it was recovering to the base case scenario of No shock rather than the
9
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
TRV value as is the case with CAV.
For CAV (Fig. 6a, Fig. S1), with increasing doMS from 0.288 to 1,
εres,CO2 decreased linearly from 0.94 to 0.28, εabs,CO2 increased linearly
from 0.15 to 0.53 plateauing at doMS = 0.721 until 1. εrec,CO2 was con­
stant at 0.92 until doMS = 0.577 then decreased linearly to 0.62 at doMS
= 1. Note that there was a slight increase in εrec,CO2 at doMS = 0.577 as
was the case with VOCs due to the mid-day occupancy break, however,
not as pronounced as CO2 was a faster reacting specie. Similar trends and
values were obtained for DCV as the system was driven by CO2 demand
and thus behaved similarly to CAV (Fig. 6b).
For both CAV & DCV (Fig. 6a, Fig. S1), with increasing doMS from
0.288 to 1, εres,PM2.5 decreased linearly from 0.97 to 0.3, εabs,PM2.5
increased linearly from 0.1 to 0.48 plateauing at doMS = 0.721 until
doMS = 1. εrec,PM2.5 decreased a slow linear decrease from 0.97 to 0.91 at
doMS = 0.721 and then a faster linear decrease from 0.91 to 0.62 at
doMS = 1. The same trends were obtained for CAV and DCV. CAV & DCV
had similar trends with PM10 as well with slightly higher εres,PM10 , lower
εabs,PM10 and higher εrec,PM10 due to stronger gravitational settling effects.
Filters mainly reduced εres,PM2.5 , εres,PM10 and increasingly so with an
increasing doMS (e.g., εres,PM2.5 (doMS = 0. 432) = 0.83 for DCV & 0.8 for
DCV w/o filters, εres,PM2.5 (doMS = 1) = 0.3 for DCV & 0.15 for DCV w/o
filters). On the other hand, filters did not affect absorptivity and re­
covery responses. Despite the MS being a power outage (i.e., no venti­
lation), the effect of filters was still there due to prior PM build-up at the
time of shock occurrence.
Another observation with MS (Fig. S1), was the plateauing of the
absorptivity effectiveness εabs for all contaminants and for all systems
starting doMS = 0.721, which occurred simultaneously with the fast
linear decrease in εrec . After 7 h of power outage, there was a lower
occupancy for afternoon classes. Thus, the rate of generation of endog­
enous contaminants from respiratory & occupants’ activities decreased
significantly over time.
Looking at Fig. 7, across the entire doIS range for CAV, VOCs and CO2
had similar resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ). For DCV, for doIS > 0.22,
VOCs and CO2 had equal resilience aspects with CO2 having slightly
lower εrec . In the case of DCV w/o filters, when PM2.5 challenged the
resilience for doIS > 0.62, it had similar resilience aspects as CO2.
For CAV & DCV (Fig. 7, Fig. S2), with increasing doIS from 0.07 to 1,
εres,VOCs remained almost constant, decreasing slightly by 2%. This
means that the system resilience effectiveness during IS wasn’t
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 6. Spider chart of resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ) segregated as function of indoor contaminants for a MS for different doMS.
challenged as much as it was the case with MS. The degree of shock
impact on exposure remained close to the systems’ base cases of No
shock. Note that the IS manifested for DCV later for doIS > 0.22. Since
there was still some deviation in εres,VOCs , it was still important to analyze
the rest of the resilience aspects. εres,VOCs , εabs,VOCs & εrec,VOCs had also
slight fluctuations: εabs,VOCs slightly increased linearly from 0.14 to 0.2
for CAV and from 0.07 to 0.09 for DCV. εrec,VOCs slightly decreased lin­
early from 0.97 to 0.94 for CAV and from 0.52 to 0.49 for DCV. Similar
trends were obtained for CO2 (Fig. S2).
εabs for CAV were higher than DCV, due to the lag time of the DCV in
maximizing the flow rate and thus, concentrations were peaking quickly
to the maximum concentration before plateauing. As with MS, εrec,VOCs
for DCV were ∼ 5% higher than CAV. εrec,CO2 were ∼ 8.3% lower for
DCV. This was since recovery time started for DCV from slightly higher
CO2 concentrations than CAV. In this specific case study, it can be due to
the inherent hysteresis effect of the DCV PI control, causing the flow rate
and thus concentrations to fluctuate slightly.
10
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
For DCV w/o filters for doIS ∈ [0.82, 1], the effect of filters on resil­
ience performance was not pronounced since εres,PM2.5 remained almost
constant, decreasing slightly by 2%. εabs,PM2.5 increased from 0.054 to
0.071 and εrec,PM2.5 decreased from 0.91 to 0.88 with increasing doIS.
Looking at Fig. 8, across the entire doOS range for CAV, VOCs and
CO2 had similar resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ) for doOS > 0.29. For
DCV w/o filters, for doOS > 0.58, CO2 and PM2.5 had also similar
resilience aspects.
For CAV (Fig. 8, Fig. S3), with increasing doOS starting 0.58, εres,VOCs
remained almost constant, decreasing slightly by 1%. This means that
the system resilience effectiveness during OS wasn’t challenged as much
as it was the case with MS. It was even less than IS. Similar to εres,VOCs ,
εabs,VOCs & εrec,VOCs remained more or less constant at values of 0.38 &
0.81 respectively. For CAV & DCV, εres,CO2 were similar and decreased
linearly from 0.98 to 0.92. εabs,CO2 increased with increasing doOS from
0.34 to 0.38 and was similar for both CAV & DCV. This was since the OS
began early in the morning 6:00 a.m. and thus DCV reacted earlier as
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 7. Spider chart of resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ) segregated as function of indoor contaminants for a IS for different doIS.
well. By the time occupants came in around 8:00 a.m., DCV and CAV had
similar operation (i.e., maximum supply flow). εrec,CO2 also decreased
linearly with increasing doOS from 0.83 to 0.81 for DCV and from 0.85
to 0.83 for CAV. εrec,CO2 was 2% lower for DCV as the latter was recov­
ering from slightly higher concentrations generated by the hysteresis
effect of the PI control. This effect was less pronounced than for IS.
For DCV w/o filters for doOS ∈ [0.58, 1], the effect of filters on
resilience performance was more pronounced than IS, especially on the
degree of impact and absorptivity of the shock, while it did not affect the
recovery: εres,PM2.5 decreased linearly by 10%. εabs,PM2.5 increased line­
arly by 17.5%. εrec,PM2.5 remained almost constant at a value of 0.83.
4.2. Ranking of HAPs
To calculate the final RS that aggregates all pollutants (Step 7 in
Fig. 1), it is first important to rank and weight the HAPs (Step 6, Fig. 1)
namely VOCs, PM2.5 and PM10 using the combined quantitative &
qualitative assessment method in Ref. [27] (Step 5, Fig. 1). The plots of
11
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
the HQ distribution (mean, 5th, 95th percentile) with increasing doS for
each system and each HAP can be seen in Fig. 9. The resulting weights of
each HAP can be seen in Fig. 10.
According to Fig. 9, for both CAV & DCV, and for MS, IS and OS,
HQmean,VOCs (i.e., arithmetic mean of median concentrations in E120,
E220) was always higher >1 across the entire doS range. This meant that
VOCs’ concentrations (throughout the day) were always above the TRV.
Thus, VOCs will always have a weight in the calculation of the RSHAPs
component of the RS (Fig. 10).
The HQmean,VOCs increased with increasing doMS linearly by 52.8%,
47% for CAV & DCV respectively. For IS & OS, it remained at a constant
value of ~2.6 for CAV and ~3.6 for DCV (Fig. 9). This can be explained
by analyzing the temporal distribution of VOC concentrations. In the
base case of No shock, for both CAV & DCV, the distribution of VOC
concentrations was governed by build-up due to envelope emissions,
which started occurring the moment the AHU turned off in the previous
evening and turned on the next day morning [16]. In the case of MS, all
values of VOC concentrations that were once below the base case
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 8. Spider chart of resilience aspects (εres , εabs , εrec ) segregated as function of indoor contaminants for a OS for different doOS.
median value were surpassing it, shifting the HQmean,VOCs to higher
values. This wasn’t the case for IS & OS, where the build-up peaks
remained the maximum.
The HQmean,PM2.5 remained below 1 for all systems and all shocks and
while it increased in the case of DCV w/o filters, it remained below 1.
However, the HQP95,PM2.5 did significantly cross 1 in the case of MS, for
doMS > 0.288, for both CAV & DCV and DCV w/o filters. The same trend
was obtained for PM10. In this case only, both PM2.5 & PM10 had a
weight in the calculation of the RSHAPs as seen in Fig. 10a. In the case of
DCV & DCV w/o filters, for doMS > 0.288, the weights of PM2.5 & PM10
surpassed that of VOCs (e.g., for DCV, doMS = 0.721: ωVOCs = 0.15,
ωPM2.5 = 0.45, ωPM10 = 0.40) while they stayed below for CAV.
As HQP95,PM2.5 & HQP95,PM10 remained below 1 for IS & OS (Fig. 8),
for CAV (Fig. 10a) & DCV (Fig. 10b), only the VOCs influenced the
RSHAPs . In the case of DCV w/o filters for IS & OS, only PM2.5 had a
weight in the RSHAPs for doIS > 0.62 & doOS > 0.29 exceeding that of
VOCs, notably in the case of OS. These results were also reflected in the
analysis of the εres in the previous section.
12
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
4.3. The total resilience score (RS)
Fig. 11 illustrates the evolution of RS with increasing doMS, doIS &
doOS for CAV, DCV & DCV w/o filters (Step 7). A first glance at the RS
showed a common trend: For each type of shock and system, RS
decreased quickly following a linear trend until a certain value of doS
where it either plateaued at a fixed final value or continued its decrease
at a slower pace. For the case of MS, RS of all three systems deteriorated
quickly, decreasing by 64% by doMS = 0.288 (i.e., 2.8 h of power
outage). Beyond this value, RS decreased at a slower pace following a
concave parabolic trend.
Comparing the three systems, CAV & DCV ended up having the same
RS (Fig. 11a). Looking at Fig. 6 and Fig. S1(b), the resilience aspects of
CO2 for both systems were the same, resulting in equal RSCO2 . For
RSHAPs , the values between systems evened out: They had the same
resilience aspects on PM with DCV having higher ωPM normally resulting
in higher RSHAPs . However, CAV had a lower εrec,VOCs with higher ωVOCs
evening out the RSHAPs between systems. For doMS > 0.288, DCV w/o
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 9. HQ of the HAPs for a) CAV, b) DCV, and c) DCV w/o filters for MS, IS and OS with increasing doS.
filters had a 13% lower RS than the other systems given the effect of PM
and their high ωPM . The final RS at doMS = 1, were 0.22 for CAV & DCV
and 0.19 for DCV w/o filters.
For the case of IS, RS of CAV deteriorated by 38.8% starting doIS =
0.07 until doIS = 0.22 (i.e., 12 additional occupants). For DCV & DCV w/
o filters, it deteriorated by 46% starting doIS = 0.07 until doIS = 0.42 (i.
e., 24 additional occupants). Until doIS = 0.42, DCV had a better resil­
ience performance than CAV. This is since DCV did not react to the IS
until doIS > 0.22. Beyond this value until doIS = 1, RS plateaued at a
value of 0.43 for CAV and 0.36 for DCV. In this range, the CAV had the
better resilience performance due to overall higher values of the resil­
ience aspects (Fig. 7, Fig. S2). The effect of filters did not reflect in the
RS. This is expected for IS & MS since the buildup of indoor pollutants’
concentrations was governed by indoor sources unlike OS.
For the case of OS, RS of CAV deteriorated by 51% until doOS = 0.58
(i.e., 1.5 × increase in outdoor pollution). For DCV and DCV w/o filters,
it deteriorated by 26% until doOS = 0.29 (i.e., 72% increase in outdoor
pollution). Up until doOS = 0.29, all three systems had the same RS.
Beyond doOS = 0.58, the RS of CAV plateaued at 0.49. Beyond doOS =
0.29, the RS of DCV plateaued at 0.73. However, that of DCV w/o filters
kept decreasing at a slower pace reaching a final value of 0.49 at doOS =
1 like that of CAV. For an OS, DCV had the best RS due to lower flow
13
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
rates than CAV, followed by DCV w/o filters and finally by CAV due to
its constant operation at the maximum flow rate of 4400 m3/h.
Finally, comparing the RS of the three shock types per system
(Fig. S4), for all three systems, OS was the least critical shock. For CAV,
this was followed by IS and finally MS. For DCV and DCV w/o filters, it
depended on the range of doS:
• For 0.15 < doS < 0.4, & 0.8 < doS < 1. IS was more critical than MS
• For 0.4 < doS < 0.8, MS was more critical than IS.
5. Limitations and outlook
The present framework can holistically assess the IAQ resilience of
any building typology equipped with any type of ventilation system(s)
and control strategy (i.e., mechanical, hybrid, natural, localized), with
knowledge of the building’s occupancy patterns, indoor/outdoor
pollution sources. It can be used to design ventilation systems, their
control strategies, other IAQ management strategies (e.g., filtration,
carbon capture techniques [66,67]) & influencing building parameters
(e.g., envelope tightness). This can be done while considering cost
constraints (i.e., energy, installation, maintenance). It can be used to test
the effect of occupant behavior and interaction with the building.
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 10. Ranking of HAPs for CAV, DCV, and DCV w/o filters for a) MS, b) IS and c) OS with increasing doS.
Moreover, by considering the effect of air distribution and
non-homogenous IAQ fields (e.g., through computational fluid dy­
namics simulations), other ventilation design parameters could be
investigated (e.g., positioning of inlet & outlet, grill design).
Another advantage of this framework is its multi-layer structure
allowing to assess IAQ resilience at the individual contaminant level
while visualizing & analyzing the different resilience aspects separately
using the radar chart visualization. This framework can also be extrap­
olated to any type of resilience discipline, given that the corresponding
aspects of resilience are correctly identified. An example of this is
thermal resilience to over- or under-heating events in the context of
climate change, where holistic indicators and quantitative assessment
approaches are still missing [68]. This will be part of future work.
The current indicator is a variable function of doS. While it allows to
compare and rank systems, it does not allow to label them into cate­
gories. To achieve this, further work is needed on the indicator through
an additional layer of calculation and simulations. This will also be a
follow-up of the current study. Another follow-up study includes
applying the framework to consider different shock combinations. Such
a study could give insight into the weight of concurrent shocks on RS
and the calculation of a total doS.
14
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
6. Conclusion
In this work, a holistic quantitative assessment framework of IAQ
resilience was developed and applied in a case study educational
building using a previously validated model. The resulting resilience
score (RS) was calculated for different shock types (MS, IS & OS) and
different systems: CAV, DCV and DCV w/o filters. The key takeaways
from applying this framework were summarized below:
• MS challenged the resilience of all systems against all contaminants
(CO2, VOCs, PM2.5, PM10). IS challenged the resilience of CO2 and
VOCs for CAV and DCV and additionally PM2.5 for DCV w/o filters
but only for extreme IS (doIS > 0.62). OS challenged the resilience of
CO2 and VOCs for CAV and DCV and additionally PM2.5 for DCV w/o
filters for doOS > 0.29.
• εres , εabs , εrec trends depend on doS, the building’s occupancy patterns
and the speed of absorption of contaminants, especially for MS. For
IS and OS, the rate of change of εres , εrec , εres was linear and slow
across the doS range.
• For MS, filters did not affect εabs nor εrec , only εres which was ∼ 10%
lower for DCV w/o filters. For IS, the effect of filters on resilience
performance was not that pronounced since εres,PM2.5 remained
almost constant. For OS, the effect of filters on resilience
D. Al Assaad et al.
Fig. 11. Evolution of the total RS for CAV, DCV, and DCV with no filters for a) MS, b) IS and c) OS with increasing doS.
performance was more pronounced, especially on the degree of
impact and absorptivity of the shock, while it did not affect the re­
covery. Thus, in the case where a G4/F7 filters’ combination – typical
of Passivhaus buildings, the trend of RS (Fig. 11) would start to shift
from the trend followed by DCV to that of DCV w/o filters with
decreasing filter performance. It would be most noticeable in the
case of OS.
• For each type of shock and system, RS decreased quickly following a
linear trend until a certain value of doS where it either plateaued at a
fixed final value or continued its decrease at a slower pace.
15
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
• For MS, CAV & DCV ended up having same RS and DCV w/o filters
13% lower RS. For IS, until doIS = 0.42, DCV had a better resilience
performance than CAV. Beyond this value until doIS = 1, CAV had
the better resilience performance due to overall higher values of
resilience aspects. The effects of filters did not influence the RS for
IS. For an OS, DCV had the best RS, followed by DCV w/o filters and
finally by CAV.
• The most critical shock type depends on the system type and doS. For
CAV & DCV, OS was the least critical. For CAV, this was followed by
IS and MS. For DCV and DCV w/o filters, for 0.15 < doS < 0.4, & 0.8
D. Al Assaad et al.
< doS < 1. IS was more critical than MS and for 0.4 < doS < 0.8, MS
was more critical than IS.
This conclusion is a result of aggregating the different resilience as­
pects and contaminants. This rounds the conclusion to the authors’
previous work [16] that compared shock types only based on ppm.hours
per contaminant.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Douaa Al Assaad: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Abantika Sengupta: Validation,
Software, Data curation. Hilde Breesch: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Flemish Agency for Innovation
and Entrepreneurship (VLAIO) in the Flux50 project ‘Towards Smart
Ventilation’ (HBC.2020.2520).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110669.
References
[1] T.J. Vogus, K.M. Sutcliffe, Organizational resilience: towards a theory and research
agenda, Conf Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern (2007) 3418–3422, https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICSMC.2007.4414160.
[2] A. Rose, S.Y. Liao, Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: a
computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions, J. Reg. Sci.
45 (2005) 75–112, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0022-4146.2005.00365.X.
[3] M.D. Turner, Political ecology I: an alliance with resilience? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38
(2013) 616–623, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513502770.
[4] B.D. Youn, C. Hu, P. Wang, Resilience-driven system design of complex engineered
systems, J. Mech. Design, Trans. ASME 133 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4004981/467326.
[5] The 2003 Northeast Blackout–Five Years Later - Scientific American, (n.d.). https
://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2003-blackout-five-years-later/(accessed
March 27, 2023).
[6] J. Manuel, The long road to recovery: environmental health impacts of hurricane
sandy, Environ. Health Perspect. 121 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP.121-
A152.
[7] W. Mao, V.I.O. Agyapong, The role of social determinants in mental health and
resilience after disasters: implications for public health policy and practice, Front.
Public Health 9 (2021) 551, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2021.658528/
BIBTEX.
[8] K. Riahi, S. Rao, V. Krey, C. Cho, V. Chirkov, G. Fischer, G. Kindermann,
N. Nakicenovic, P. Rafaj, RCP 8.5-A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas
emissions, Clim. Change 109 (2011) 33–57, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-011-
0149-Y/FIGURES/12.
[9] C.S. Holling, Resilience and stability of ecological systems, Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Systemat. 4 (1973) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
[10] R. Francis, B. Bekera, A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered
and infrastructure systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 121 (2014) 90–103, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.RESS.2013.07.004.
[11] M. Ungar, Qualitative contributions to resilience research, Qual. Soc. Work 2
(2003) 85–102, https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325003002001123.
16
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
[12] C. Hughes, S. Natarajan, Summer thermal comfort and overheating in the elderly,
Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Tecnol. 40 (2019) 426–445, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143624419844518.
[13] S.R. Thom, V.M. Bhopale, J.P. Hu, M. Yang, Increased carbon dioxide levels
stimulate neutrophils to produce microparticles and activate the nucleotide-
binding domain-like receptor 3 inflammasome, Free Radic. Biol. Med. 106 (2017)
406–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FREERADBIOMED.2017.03.005.
[14] H. Guo, S.C. Lee, L.Y. Chan, W.M. Li, Risk assessment of exposure to volatile
organic compounds in different indoor environments, Environ. Res. 94 (2004)
57–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-9351(03)00035-5.
[15] C. Zhang, O.B. Kazanci, R. Levinson, P. Heiselberg, B.W. Olesen, G. Chiesa,
B. Sodagar, Z. Ai, S. Selkowitz, M. Zinzi, A. Mahdavi, H. Teufl, M. Kolokotroni,
A. Salvati, E. Bozonnet, F. Chtioui, P. Salagnac, R. Rahif, S. Attia, V. Lemort,
E. Elnagar, H. Breesch, A. Sengupta, L.L. Wang, D. Qi, P. Stern, N. Yoon, D.
I. Bogatu, R.F. Rupp, T. Arghand, S. Javed, J. Akander, A. Hayati, M. Cehlin,
S. Sayadi, S. Forghani, H. Zhang, E. Arens, G. Zhang, Resilient cooling strategies – a
critical review and qualitative assessment, Energy Build. 251 (2021), 111312,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2021.111312.
[16] D. Al Assaad, A. Sengupta, H. Breesch, Demand-controlled ventilation in
educational buildings: energy efficient but is it resilient? Build. Environ. 226
(2022), 109778 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109778.
[17] T.J. Pettit, J. Fiksel, K.L. Croxton, Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of
a conceptual framework, J. Bus. Logist. 31 (2010) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1002/
J.2158-1592.2010.TB00125.X.
[18] S. Hosseini, K. Barker, J.E. Ramirez-Marquez, A review of definitions and measures
of system resilience, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 47–61, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RESS.2015.08.006.
[19] A. Rose, Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary
origins and contextual dimensions, Environ. Hazards 7 (2007) 383–398, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVHAZ.2007.10.001.
[20] L. Ji, C. Shu, A. Laouadi, M. Lacasse, L.L. Wang, Quantifying Building and Zone
Level Thermal Resilience against Summertime Heat Events, Available at: SSRN
4210569. (n.d.).
[21] S. Homaei, M. Hamdy, Thermal resilient buildings: how to be quantified? A novel
benchmarking framework and labelling metric, Build. Environ. 201 (2021),
108022, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2021.108022.
[22] A. Sengupta, D. Al Assaad, J.B. Bastero, M. Steeman, H. Breesch, Impact of
heatwaves and system shocks on a nearly zero energy educational building: is it
resilient to overheating? Build. Environ. 234 (2023), 110152 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110152.
[23] E. Tavakoli, A. O’Donovan, M. Kolokotroni, P.D. O’Sullivan, Evaluating the indoor
thermal resilience of ventilative cooling in non-residential low energy buildings: a
review, Build. Environ. 222 (2022), 109376, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2022.109376.
[24] M. Hendel, K. Azos-Diaz, B. Tremeac, Behavioral adaptation to heat-related health
risks in cities, Energy Build. 152 (2017) 823–829, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENBUILD.2016.11.063.
[25] R. Rahif, M. Hamdy, S. Homaei, C. Zhang, P. Holzer, S. Attia, Simulation-based
framework to evaluate resistivity of cooling strategies in buildings against
overheating impact of climate change, Build. Environ. 208 (2022), 108599,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2021.108599.
[26] M. Hamdy, S. Carlucci, P.J. Hoes, J.L.M. Hensen, The impact of climate change on
the overheating risk in dwellings—a Dutch case study, Build. Environ. 122 (2017)
307–323, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2017.06.031.
[27] G. Sérafin, P. Blondeau, C. Mandin, Indoor air pollutant health prioritization in
office buildings, Indoor Air 31 (2021) 646–659, https://doi.org/10.1111/
INA.12776.
[28] Y. Zhao, J. Wen, F. Xiao, X. Yang, S. Wang, Diagnostic Bayesian networks for
diagnosing air handling units faults – part I: faults in dampers, fans, filters and
sensors, Appl. Therm. Eng. 111 (2017) 1272–1286, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APPLTHERMALENG.2015.09.121.
[29] Power Cuts in Belgium, .https://Www.Fluvius.Be/Nl/Meer-Weten/Stroomonde
rbrekingen?App-Refresh=1638796478670 (n.d.).
[30] C.J. Weschler, Roles of the human occupant in indoor chemistry, Indoor Air 26
(2016) 6–24, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12185.
[31] G. Lissens, W. Debruyn, C. Mensink, G. Dumont, SMOGSTOP: a model for
forecasting maximum daily ozone concentration in Belgium, Environmetrics 11
(2000) 511–521, https://doi.org/10.1002/1099–095X(200009/10)11:5<511::
AID-ENV415>3.0.CO;2-G.
[32] H.T. Tran, M. Balchanos, J.C. Domerçant, D.N. Mavris, A framework for the
quantitative assessment of performance-based system resilience, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 158 (2017) 73–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2016.10.014.
[33] D. Norbäck, K. Nordström, Sick building syndrome in relation to air exchange rate,
CO2, room temperature and relative air humidity in university computer
classrooms: an experimental study, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 82 (2008)
21–30, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00420-008-0301-9/TABLES/6.
[34] M. Hodgson, Sick building syndrome., Occup. Med. 15 (2000) 571–585. http
s://europepmc.org/article/med/10903551 (accessed November 11, 2021).
[35] X. Zhang, P. Wargocki, Z. Lian, Effects of exposure to carbon dioxide and human
bioeffluents on cognitive performance, Procedia Eng. 121 (2015) 138–142,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2015.08.1040.
[36] REHVA Journal CO₂ monitoring and indoor air quality (n.d.), https://www.rehva.
eu/rehva-journal/chapter/co2-monitoring-and-indoor-air-quality, 2023. June 22.
[37] L. Rueda, K. Agbossou, A. Cardenas, N. Henao, S. Kelouwani, A comprehensive
review of approaches to building occupancy detection, Build. Environ. 180 (2020),
106966, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2020.106966.
D. Al Assaad et al.
[38] S.J. Emmerich, A.K. Persily, Literature review on CO2-based demand-controlled
ventilation, Trans. Am. Soc. Heat. Refrigerat. Air Conditioning Eng. 103 (1997)
229–243.
[39] J.M. Logue, T.E. Mckone, M.H. Sherman, B.C. Singer, Hazard assessment of
chemical air contaminants measured in residences, Indoor Air 21 (2011) 92–109,
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0668.2010.00683.X.
[40] K. Azuma, I. Uchiyama, S. Uchiyama, N. Kunugita, Assessment of inhalation
exposure to indoor air pollutants: screening for health risks of multiple pollutants
in Japanese dwellings, Environ. Res. 145 (2016) 39–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENVRES.2015.11.015.
[41] R.D.E.F. Bromes, Hierarchisation sanitaire des parametres D’INTERET pour
L’OBSERVATOIRE de la QUALITE de L’AIR INTERIEUR, in: APPLICATION AUX
PHTALATES, PARAFFINES CHLOREES A CHAINE COURTE, ORGANO-ETAINS,
ALKYL PHENOLS ET, 2005.
[42] Chemical Search | IRIS | US EPA, (n.d.). https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/search/
index.cfm (accessed April 3, 2023).
[43] W.H. Organization, WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants, in:
World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2010.
[44] Indoor Environment Decree, Decree of the Flemish Government of 11 June 2004
concerning measures to combat health risks due to pollution of the indoor
environment, n.d. Care and Health (2021) https://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/
binnenmilieubesluit-besluit-van-de-vlaamse-regering-van-11-juni-2004-houdende-
maatregelen-tot. December 3
[45] EU-LCI values (n.d.), https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/constr
uction/eu-lci-subgroup/eu-lci-values_en. (Accessed 3 April 2023).
[46] A.J. Baars, R.M.C. Theelen, P.J.C.M. Janssen, M.C.M. Meijerink, L. Verdam, M.
J. Zeilmaker, J.M. Hesse, M.E. Van Apeldoorn, Re-evaluation of Human-
Toxicological Maxi-Mum Permissible Risk Levels, 2001. https://www.rivm.
nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/711701025.pdf. (Accessed 3 April 2023).
[47] Indoor air quality resources for professionals, Canada.ca (2023) n.d. https://www.
canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/air-quality/residential-indoor-air-quali
ty-guidelines.html. April 3
[48] Menerga | Menerga, (n.d.). https://www.menerga.com/(accessed February 3,
2022).
[49] J. van Herreweghe, S. Caillou, T. Haerinck, F. Graindorge, C. Delmez, P. van
Huffel, Real-life ventilation filter performance: final results of an in-depth study, in:
2nd AIVC Conference 10th TightVent Conference 8th Venticool Conference, 2022.
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
[50] Dymola - Dassault Systèmes® (n.d.), https://www.3ds.com/products-services/cat
ia/products/dymola/. (Accessed 11 February 2022).
[51] F. Jorissen, G. Reynders, R. Baetens, D. Picard, D. Saelens, L. Helsen,
Implementation and verification of the IDEAS building energy simulation library,
J. Build. Perform Simul. 11 (2018) 669–688, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19401493.2018.1428361.
[52] B. Merema, H. Breesch, D. Saelens, MPC Framework for All-Air Systems in Non-
residential Buildings, KU Leuven, 2021.
[53] M. Borrelli, B. Merema, F. Ascione, R. Francesca De Masi, G. Peter Vanoli,
H. Breesch, Evaluation and optimization of the performance of the heating system
17
Building and Environment 243 (2023) 110669
in a nZEB educational building by monitoring and simulation, Energy Build. 231
(2021), 110616, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2020.110616.
[54] B. Merema, M. Delwati, M. Sourbron, H. Breesch, Demand controlled ventilation
(DCV) in school and office buildings: lessons learnt from case studies, Energy Build.
172 (2018) 349–360, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.04.065.
[55] A. Persily, L. de Jonge, Carbon dioxide generation rates for building occupants,
Indoor Air 27 (2017) 868–879, https://doi.org/10.1111/INA.12383.
[56] indicators.be - CO2 atmospheric concentration, n.d.), https://indicators.be/en/i/
G13_CO2/CO2_atmospheric_concentration, 2022. March 2.
[57] Hoge Gezondheidsraad, Indoor Air Quality in Belgium, HGR, Brussels, 2017.
[58] X. Tang, P.K. Misztal, W.W. Nazaroff, A.H. Goldstein, Volatile organic compound
emissions from humans indoors, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 12686–12694,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04415.
[59] D.H. Do, H. van Langenhove, C. Walgraeve, S.F. Hayleeyesus, P. de Wispelaere,
J. Dewulf, K. Demeestere, Volatile organic compounds in an urban environment: a
comparison among Belgium, Vietnam and Ethiopia, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 93
(2013) 298–314.
[60] D. Al Assaad, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, C. Habchi, Coupled CFD and particle
resuspension models under combined effect of mechanical and aerodynamic
disturbances, Build. Environ. 169 (2020), 106567, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2019.106567.
[61] A.R. Ferro, R.J. Kopperud, L.M. Hildemann, Source strengths for indoor human
activities that resuspend particulate matter, Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (2004)
1759–1764, https://doi.org/10.1021/ES0263893/SUPPL_FILE/
ES0263893SI20030924_074503.PDF.
[62] Baudelopark air quality index (AQI) and gent air pollution, IQAir (2023) (n.d.),
https://www.iqair.com/belgium/flanders/gent/baudelopark. May 12.
[63] C.A. Faulkner, J.E. Castellini, W. Zuo, D.M. Lorenzetti, M.D. Sohn, Investigation of
HVAC operation strategies for office buildings during COVID-19 pandemic, Build.
Environ. 207 (2022), 108519, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2021.108519.
[64] L. Wallace, Indoor particles: a review, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 46 (1996)
98–126, https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1996.10467451.
[65] W.H. Organization, WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.
5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide:
Executive Summary, 2021.
[66] J.P. Harrouz, J. Karam, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, Personalized ventilation with
embedded air treatment system for simultaneous cooling and sorption-based
carbon and humidity capture, Energy Convers. Manag. 291 (2023), 117290,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2023.117290.
[67] J.P. Harrouz, K. Ghali, M. Hmadeh, N. Ghaddar, S. Ghani, Feasibility of MOF-based
carbon capture from indoor spaces as air revitalization system, Energy Build. 255
(2022), 111666, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2021.111666.
[68] A. Sengupta, H. Breesch, D. Al Assaad, M. Steeman, Evaluation of Thermal
Resilience to Overheating for an Educational Building in Future Heatwave
Scenarios, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/14733315.2023.2218424. Https://Doi.
Org/10.1080/14733315.2023.2218424.