|
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