|
Temperature in degrees centigrade
32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 14 / 01 / 09
00:00
|
14 / 01 / 09 12:00 |
15 / 01 / 09 00:00
15 / 01 / 09 12:00
16 / 01 / 09 00:00
16 / 01 / 09 12:00
17 / 01 / 09 00:00
17 / 01 / 09 12:00
18 / 01 / 09 00:00
18 / 01 / 09 12:00
19 / 01 / 09 00:00
19 / 01 / 09 12:00
Week 5 Cmf zone 80 % Cmf zone 90 % Out Temp 1A 2A 3A
20 / 01 / 09 00:00
|
20 / 01 / 09 12:00 |
Figure 10: Outdoor and indoor air temperatures for North facing common spaces against the comfort zone for 80 and 90 % acceptance during week five
In order to evaluate the degree to which the houses failed to provide comfortable conditions to the occupants, the number of discomfort hours( DH) and the percentage of discomfort hours( PDH) per room outside the wider comfort zone( 7K) for 80 % acceptability were calculated. From this calculation, none of the rooms reached temperatures above the upper comfort limit. By contrast, all rooms significantly felt below the lower comfort limit, table 4 presents the results from this calculation. From here it is possible to observe that rooms of façade facing south( 7A, 8A, 9A and 7B, 8B, 9B) presented lower percentage of discomfort( compared to other rooms of façades facing different orientations) during the entire monitored season. In six weeks period, the average discomfort percentage for A rooms on the North orientation was 55 %, on the East was 44 %, on the West was 56 % and on the South was 27 %. Average discomfort percentage for B rooms on the North orientation was 50 %, on the East was 42 %, on the West was 47 % and on the South was 25 %. This indicates that all rooms on the North, East, and West orientations require heating 50 % of the time to achieve comfortable conditions.
Table 4: Number of discomfort hours( DH) and the percentage of discomfort hours( PDH) per |
room outside the wider comfort zone( 7K) for 80 % acceptability along the cool season |
Common rooms |
|
1A |
2A |
3A |
4A |
5A |
6A |
7A |
8A |
9A |
10A |
11A |
12A |
DH |
464 |
642 |
553 |
479 |
380 |
450 |
212 |
278 |
313 |
652 |
545 |
508 |
PDH |
46 % |
64 % |
55 % |
48 % |
38 % |
45 % |
21 % |
28 % |
31 % |
65 % |
54 % |
50 % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bedrooms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1B |
2B |
3B |
4B |
5B |
6B |
7B |
8B |
9B |
10B |
11B |
12B |
DH |
418 |
537 |
549 |
462 |
313 |
495 |
102 |
311 |
342 |
540 |
546 |
338 |
PDH |
41 % |
53 % |
54 % |
46 % |
31 % |
49 % |
10 % |
31 % |
34 % |
54 % |
54 % |
34 % |
Warm season Figure 11 presents an overview of the thermal performance of the houses over the warm season. In general, all the houses performed in the same way, following a similar pattern of temperature fluctuations. This season also presented a great outdoor daily fluctuation, reaching up to 16 ° C difference throughout the same day. During this period of measurement, the lowest outdoor temperature registered was 12.91 ° C and the highest was 32.15 ° C. The indoor temperature also followed by the outdoor temperature fluctuations with a smaller difference, however, it is highlighted that
234 ZEMCH 2015 | International Conference | Bari- Lecce, Italy