the 20 a field measurement of thermal comfort in
TRANSCRIPT
A FIELD MEASUREMENT OF THERMAL COMFORT IN
SEMI OUTDOOR SPACE IN HOT HUMID CLIMATE
Ai Siti Munawaroh1, Eka Damayanti1, Yusuf Agung Prasetyo1
1 Universitas Bandar Lampung
Urban Retrofitting: Building, Cities and Communities
in The Disruptive Era
The 20th
International Conference on
Sustainable
Environment
& Architecture
Supported By:Organized By:Presenter Affiliation:
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
Thermal comfort is still important in measuring the quality of a place. Many studies have been conducted to measure the thermal comfort.
The latest study resulted that thermal comfort in semi outdoor space in hot humid climate which case study was Canteen of Universitas Bandar Lampung (UBL) have not meet the human comfort standard based on user perception. Although this canteen is semi outdoor space, but most of the users were feeling hot when fans were not using [15]. This paper aims to show a present study based on field measurement on that place.
2
Supported By:Organized By:
METHODS
(a)
3
Supported By:Organized By:
Spot Date Time Measurement
Outdoor 21 – 25 September 2020 08.00 AM – 04.00 PM Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Velocity
Semi Outdoor A
Semi Outdoor B
Semi Outdoor C
Semi Outdoor D
21 – 25 September 2020
21 – 25 September 2020
21 – 25 September 2020
21 – 25 September 2020
08.00 AM – 04.00 PM
08.00 AM – 04.00 PM
08.00 AM – 04.00 PM
08.00 AM – 04.00 PM
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Velocity
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Velocity
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Velocity
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Velocity
Figure 1. (a) Floor plan and measurement spot; (b) Front view of measurement spot; (c) Data
collection; (d) Semi Outdoor A, B and C; (e) Semi Outdoor D; (f) Hygrometer, thermometer and
anemometer; (g) CBE thermal comfort tool
(b)
(d)
(c)
(f)
(g)
(e)
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4
Supported By:Organized By:
Figure 2. (a) Air Temperature; (b) Relative Humidity; (c) Air Velocity
(c)
(b)
(a)
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
Air
Te
mp
era
ture
( C
)
Outdoor Temperature (ºC) Semi Outdoor Temperature (ºC) Spot A Semi Outdoor Temperature (ºC) Spot B Semi Outdoor Temperature (ºC) Spot C Semi Outdoor Temperature (ºC) Spot D
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
Rel
ativ
e H
um
idit
y (%
)
Outdoor Humidity (%) Semi Outdoor Humidity (%) Spot A Semi Outdoor Humidity (%) Spot B Semi Outdoor Humidity (%) Spot C Semi Outdoor Humidity (%) Spot D
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Air
Vel
oci
ty (m
/s)
Outdoor Air Velocity (m/s) Semi Outdoor Air Velocity (m/s) Spot A Semi Outdoor Air Velocity (m/s) Spot B Semi Outdoor Air Velocity (m/s) Spot C Semi Outdoor Air Velocity (m/s) Spot D
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
5
Supported By:Organized By:
Figure 2. (a) Air Temperature; (b) Relative Humidity; (c) Air Velocity
(c)
(b)
(a)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Semi Outdoor A
Semi Outdoor B
Semi Outdoor C
Semi Outdoor D
Air Velocity Differences (%)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Semi Outdoor A
Semi Outdoor B
Semi Outdoor C
Semi Outdoor D
Relative Humidity Differences (%)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Semi Outdoor A
Semi Outdoor B
Semi Outdoor C
Semi Outdoor D
Air Velocity Differences (%)
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
6
Supported By:Organized By:
Figure 3. (a) Predicted Mean Vote (PMV); (b) Thermal sensation;; (c)
Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD); (d) PMV Differences
(a) (c)
(b)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Semi Outdoor A Semi Outdoor B Semi Outdoor C Semi Outdoor D
PM
V
Series1
Series2
(d)
CONCLUSIONS
7
Supported By:Organized By:
• Temperature of Semi Outdoor in some measurements resulted higher than Outdoor.
• Relative humidity in Semi Outdoor also was higher than Outdoor.• Air velocity in Semi Outdoor was lower than in Outdoor. • Thermal sensation that nearly neutral was in Outdoor. • Although thermal sensation in Semi Outdoor D was nearest to slightly
warm, but it was also closer to neutral than other Semi Outdoor spots.• Thermal sensation in Semi Outdoor A was near slightly warm and hot. • Semi Outdoor B and C was nearly warm. • In concluded, thermal sensation in Semi Outdoor without wall was
accepted than in Semi Outdoor with wall.
REFERENCES
8
Supported By:Organized By:
[1] Z. Li, H. Zhang, C. Wen, A. Yang, and Y. Juan, “Effects of frontal area density on outdoor thermal comfort and air quality,” Build. Environ., vol. 180, no. March, pp. 1–16, 2020.[2] M. K. . Senin and M. A. O. Mydin, “Significance of Thermal Comfort in Buildings and Its Relation to the Building Occupants,” Eur. J. Technol. Des., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2013.[3] R. Aghamolaei, M. Mehdi, and B. Aminzadeh, “Urban Climate A tempo-spatial modelling framework to assess outdoor thermal comfort of complex urban neighbourhoods,” Urban Clim., vol. 33, no. March, pp. 1–16, 2020.[4] S. Banerjee and S. Chattopadhyay, “Urban Climate A meta-analytical review of outdoor thermal comfort research : Applications , gaps and a framework to assess low-income settlements in Indian megacities,” Urban Clim., vol. 33, no. March, pp. 1–18, 2020.[5] T. Goto and K. Ito, “Thermal / air environment effects on academic performance of late-teen students,” J. Engvironmental Eng., vol. 75, no. September, pp. 767–777, 2010.[6] T. Goto, T. Hayase, and K. Funamoto, “Measurements of blood flow and blood pressure under different indoor temperature and body postural conditions , and development of a new human simulation model,” in Healthy Building Europe, 2015, vol. 2015, no. May, pp. 1–8.[7] Z. Zhou, H. Chen, Q. Deng, and A. Mochida, “A Field Study of Thermal Comfort in Outdoor and Semi-outdoor Environments in a Humid Subtropical Climate City,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 73–79, 2013.[8] Z. Zain, M. N. Taib, S. Mohd, and S. Baki, “Hot and humid climate : prospect for thermal comfort in residential building,” vol. 209, pp. 261–268, 2007.[9] M. S. Al-homoud, A. A. Abdou, and I. M. Budaiwi, “Assessment of monitored energy use and thermal comfort conditions in mosques in hot-humid climates,” Energy Build., vol. 41, pp. 607–614, 2009.[10] K. Villadiego and M. A. Velay-dabat, “Outdoor thermal comfort in a hot and humid climate of Colombia : A fi eld study in Barranquilla,” vol. 75, pp. 142–152, 2014.[11] R. Forgiarini and E. Ghisi, “What is the most adequate method to assess thermal comfort in hybrid commercial buildings located in hot-humid summer climate ?,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 29, pp. 449–462, 2014.[12] B. Hamzah, R. Mulyadi, and S. Amin, “Analisis Kenyamanan Termal Ruang Kelas Sekolah Dasar di Kota Makassar,” IPLBI, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016.[13] N. Makaremi, E. Salleh, M. Z. Jaafar, and A. Ghaffarianhoseini, “Thermal comfort conditions of shaded outdoor spaces in hot and humid climate of Malaysia,” Build. Environ., vol. 48, pp. 7–14, 2012.[14] B. Paramita, H. Fukuda, R. P. K. Khidmat, and A. Matzarakis, “Building Configuration of Low-Cost Apartments in,” no. May, 2019.[15] E. Damayanti, A. S. Munawaroh, T. S. Surjana, and D. Hartabela, “Thermal Comfort in Semi-outdoor Space in Lampung Indonesia (Case study: Canteen of University Og,” in International Conference and Workshop “Less is Moji –REboot the City,” 2020, pp. 391–396.[16] ASHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, vol. 2017. America, 2017.[17] A. P. Gagge, A. P. Fobelets, and L. G. Berglund, “A Standard Predictive Index of Human Response to The Thermal Environment,” ASHRAE Trans., vol. 2, no. 1, 1986.[18] F. Tartarini, S. Schiavon, T. Cheung, and T. Hoyt, “SoftwareX CBE Thermal Comfort Tool : Online tool for thermal comfort calculations and visualizations,” SoftwareX, vol. 12, no. 2020, pp. 1–5, 2020.
Thank You
The 20th International Conference on
Sustainable Environment & Architecture
Supported By:Organized By:Presenter Affiliation: