1 / 22

Thermal Comfort of the Student Recreation and Wellness Center Kent State University Campus

Hypothesis. Due to the shading system being inadequate, the south-facing glass fa

libitha
Download Presentation

Thermal Comfort of the Student Recreation and Wellness Center Kent State University Campus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Thermal Comfort of the Student Recreation and Wellness Center Kent State University Campus By Brian Blystone Environmental Technology III Professor Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D.

    3. Research Methods HOBOs Modeling Analysis PMV Calculations

    4. HOBO’s Objective To place one HOBO in the fitness floor area that would be affected by the glass façade and place another HOBO under the same air supply but in an area not affected by the wall. Compare the Results

    5. HOBO’s Locations

    6. Control Desk (13 Days)

    7. Control Desk Analysis 13 Day Average = 73.9*F ACSM Standard for Control Desk Areas: 72*F to 78*F

    8. Fitness Floor (13 Days)

    9. Fitness Floor Analysis 13 Day Average = 71.4*F ACSM Standard for Fitness Floor Areas: 68*F to 72*F

    10. Body Responses to Dry Bulb Temperature: Temperature Body Response 78*F Activity level is falling, difficult to fall asleep or stay asleep, Good for bathing or showering 75*F When clothed feelings of fatigue, and sleepiness. Optimum temperature when unclothed 72*F Best temperature for year round with activity with light clothing 70*F Midpoint for summer comfort. 68*F Midpoint for winter comfort. Some may feel cool. *Data from ACSM Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines.

    11. Modeling Objective The objective of building the scale model on the fitness floor and the shading system was to determine if it was adequate in shading during the overheated period.

    12. Overheated Period

    13. Overheated Period

    14. Model Analysis March/September 9 a.m. 3 p.m. Noon

    15. Model Analysis April/August Exterior Shading Exterior and Interior at Noon Shading at Noon

    16. Model Analysis May/July 9 a.m. 3 p.m. Noon

    17. Model Analysis June 21st Noon

    18. PMV Calculation’s Objective PMV stands for Predicted Mean Vote Based on a scale from –3 to 3. -3 being the coldest and 3 being the hottest. Using www.penman.es.mq.edu.au/~rdedear/pmv/ a PMV number is reached based on the conditions and on what most people would “like” This was done to see if the existing and standard conditions are comfortable .

    19. Standard Conditions Input Parameters Environmental Parameters Personal Parameters Ambient temperature (°C) 21.1 Subject weight (kg) 80 Radiant temperature (°C) 21.1 Subject surface area (m2) 1.8 Barometric pressure (hPa) 1013 Clothing insulation (clo) 0.36 H2O vapor pressure (hPa) Metabolic rate (W m-2) 240 Relative humidity (%) 50.0 Work rate - external (W m-2) 0 Room air velocity (m s-1) 0.13 Exposure time (min) 30  Comfort Model Results Effective Temperature (ET*) 21.11 Standard Effective Temperature (SET*) 25.09  Discomfort (DISC) 0.20 Comfortable Thermal Sensation (TSENS) 0.01 Neutral Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) 2.30 Warm Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied (PPD) 88.34  Heat Stress Index (HSI) 47.47  

    20. Existing Conditions Input Parameters Environmental Parameters Personal Parameters Ambient temperature (°C) 21.8 Subject weight (kg) 80 Radiant temperature (°C) 21.8 Subject surface area (m2) 1.8 Barometric pressure (hPa) 1013 Clothing insulation (clo) 0.36 H2O vapor pressure (hPa) 6.7 Metabolic rate (W m-2) 240 Relative humidity (%) 25.6 Work rate - external (W m-2) 0 Room air velocity (m s-1) 0.13 Exposure time (min) 30  Comfort Model Results Effective Temperature (ET*) 20.47 Standard Effective Temperature (SET*) 24.63  Discomfort (DISC) 0.18 Comfortable Thermal Sensation (TSENS) 0.01 Neutral Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) 2.34 Warm Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied (PPD) 89.42  Heat Stress Index (HSI) 43.12

    21. Thermal Comfort Chart

    22. Conclusions The dry bulb temperatures of the fitness floor are well within the standards set by ACSM. The shading system is designed very well for shading the overheated period. PMV values have shown that conditions are adequate. Therefore, if there is a problem with the thermal comfort of the fitness floor area of the SRWC, it is not because of direct heat gain.

More Related