ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 238

Figure 12: Outdoor and indoor relative humidity for 12 houses common rooms and bedrooms against
the comfort range (RH 30%< <80%) over the warm season

Temperature in degrees centigrade

Figure 13 illustrate both the outdoor and indoor temperature profiles against the 90% and 80%
acceptability comfort zone along the warmest week (week five), for rooms 10A, 11A, 12A facing
West. These rooms presented the most critical conditions concerning thermal performance, indoor temperatures reaching just above 36°C. This figure (Fig.13) also highlights that the indoor air
temperatures were usually outside the comfort zone and all the houses failed to offer comfortable conditions.
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10

08/ 06/ 09
00:00

08/ 06/ 09
12:00

09/ 06/ 09
00:00

09/ 06/ 09
12:00

Cmf zone 80%

10/ 06/ 09
00:00

10/ 06/ 09
12:00

11/ 06/ 09
00:00

Cmf zone 90%

11/ 06/ 09
12:00

12/ 06/ 09
00:00

Week 5
Out Temp

12/ 06/ 09
12:00

10A

13/ 06/ 09
00:00

11A

13/ 06/ 09
12:00

14/ 06/ 09
00:00

14/ 06/ 09
12:00

12A

Figure 13: Outdoor and indoor air temperatures for West facing common spaces against the comfort
zone for 80 and 90% acceptance during week five
Table 5 shows the number of discomfort hours and the percentage of discomfort hours per room
outside the comfort zone for 80% acceptability. In this analysis, it is possible to observe that the
difference of percentage of discomfort between different orientations was less pronounced in

236

ZEMCH 2015 | International Conference | Bari - Lecce, Italy