Microclimatic comfort measurements evaluation of building physics: The effect of building form and building settled area,on pedestrian level comfort around buildings

Abstract

Wind discomfort and the dangers that the wind may lead can be harmful in terms of comfort conditions of both indoor and outdoor environment of the building/buildings to be constructed or just completed. The extent of discomfort to pedestrian varies from inducing slightly unpleasant feeling to producing a falling down hazard. Typically, the cause of frequent occurrences of strong wind at pedestrian area is primary related to the configuration of building structures and/or topography in the vicinity of the pedestrian area. Depending on the characteristics of the wind including magnitude, uniformity, ambient temperature, and so on, the level of disturbance to users of pedestrian areas can be different. In this context, the regions where Necmettin Erbakan University temporary education buildings are located have a fairly intensive topography in terms of wind. Therefore, detailed analysis of the inside regions and the surrounding areas of education buildings in particular are performed in terms of microclimatic comfort and indoor energy recovery. Especially, the topography where university campus temporary educational buildings are located has very high wind climate conditions compared to the city of Konya climate conditions.

In this study, pedestrian-level wind conditions around N.E.U. campus buildings and in urban areas and the topography of campus settlements were analyzed through on-site measurement with Delta OHM microclimatic instruments.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the pedestrian-level comfort conditions around the project buildings suggested by concept architects together with microclimatic measurements of comfort conditions, in the light of current topographic and climatic conditions presented by the head architect. However, presentation of these topographic and microclimatic measurements around currently completed temporary classrooms of the university campus have not yet been completed. The topography of the university campus, which is at an altitude higher than that of Konya centrum, is exposed to an extremely high wind velocity. The pedestrian-level comfort conditions are measured using Delta OHM instrument. The study also aims to compare pedestrian-level comfort conditions at locations of various buildings.

In addition, outdoor comfort survey was also conducted in the campus area.

However, measurement results of the microclimatic measurement device, DeltaOHM, are evaluated in this study.

It can be observed from the results that pedestrian-level comfort of current campus settlements around the buildings reach very discomforting levels.

Since the university’s topography varies between very high and very low temperature levels and wind velocity values, climatic comfort problems are observed in the area.

Some reasons for the discomfort problems observed in current settlement are; incorrect use of climatic parameters, incorrect directions of buildings, thermal effects due incorrect selection of materials used in constructions of buildings.

In order to achieve thermal comfort, more studies are required on pedestrian-level comfort, use of passive design techniques such as correct direction of buildings and correct selection of materials utilized in the buildings based on their thermal effects.

This would help university campus buildings consume less energy and maximize people’s satisfaction.

Keywords

Microclimatic comfort measurement building form and building settled area pedestrian level comfort DELTA OHM HD 32.1 microclimatic air movement campus buildings

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alfieri

Damon

Smith

(2009) From living building to living campuses. Planning for Higher Education 38(1): 51–59.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (1993) Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (2001a) Chapter 8. Comfort. In: ASHRAE (ed.) Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, pp. 1–29.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (2001b) Chapter 13. Measurements and instruments. In: ASHRAE (ed.) Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, pp. 26–27.

Arens

Bosselmann

(1989) Wind, sun and temperature – predicting the thermal comfort of people in outdoor spaces. Building and Environment 24(4): 315–320.

Arnfield

(1990) Canyon geometry the urban fabric and nocturnal cooling: a simulation approach. Physical Geography 11(3): 220–239.

Bênia

Dolz

(2010) Criteria evaluation for determining people’s comfort and safety conditions facing wind action. 139 f. Dissertação (Grau de Mestre), Departamento de Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese).

Blocken

Carmeliet

(2004) Pedestrian wind environment around buildings: literature review and practical examples. Journal of Thermal Envelope and Building Science 28(2): 107–159.

Bosch

Rodi

(1998) Simulation of vortex shedding past a square cylinder with different turbulence models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 28(4): 601–616.

10.

Bottema

(2000) A method for optimisation of wind discomfort criteria. Building and Environment 35: 1–18.

11.

Brown

Gillespie

(1986) Estimating outdoor thermal comfort using a cylindrical radiation thermometer and an energy budget model. International Journal of Biometeorology 30: 43–52.

12.

D’Amico

Brooks

(1968) The Spatial Campus: A Planning Scheme and Annotated Bibliography. Bloomington, IN: School of Education, Indiana University.

13.

De Dear

Bragger

Cooper

(1997) Developing an Addaptive Model of Thermal Comfort. Sydney: Macquire Research.

14.

Fanger

(1970) Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

15.

Foss

(1978) Ground plane wind shear interaction on acoustic transmission. WA-RD 033.1. Washington State Department of Transportation. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/000/033.1.htm (accessed 30 May 2007).

16.

Givoni

(1976) Man, Climate and Architecture. London: Applied Science Publishers.

17.

Givoni

Noguchi

Saaroni

. (2003) Outdoor comfort research issues. Energy and Buildings 35: 77–86.

18.

Gomes

(2003) Wind effects on buildings: experimental evaluation of pressure coefficients for L- and U- shaped buildings. MSc Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon (in Portuguese).

19.

International Standard ISO 7726 (1998) Thermal Environments–Instruments and Methods for Measuring Physical Quantities. Geneva: International Standards Organisation.

20.

ISO 7726 / EN27726 (1998). “Thermal Environments -- Instruments and Methods for Measuring Physical Quantities”. International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva.

21.

ISO 7933:1989 (1989) Hot environments – analytical determination and interpretation of thermal stress using calculation of required sweat rate.

22.

Jitkhajornwanich

Pitts

(2002) Interpretation of thermal responses of four subject groups in transitional spaces of buildings in Bangkok. Building and Environment 37(11): 1193–1204.

23.

Krys

Brown

(1990) Radiation absorbed by a vertical cylinder in complex outdoor environments under clear sky conditions. International Journal of Biometeorology 34: 69–75.

24.

Lawson

(1990) The determination of the wind environment of a building complex before construction. Report number TVL 9025. Bristol: Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol.

25.

Lilly Rose

Ebin

Surya

(2014) Study on the microclimatic conditions and thermal comfort in an institutional campus in hot humid climate. In: Proceedings of the 30th international PLEA conference, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India, 16–18 December.

26.

Lopes

Oliveira

Marques

Silva

. (2008) Thresholds of Comfort from Tests in the Wind Tunnel: First Results. Lisbon: Cities and Climate Changes. What Future? Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, 15–16 Maio (in Portuguese; Design guide for wind, district plan – volume 2: design guides, non-statutory: for guidance only, 2000).

27.

Murakami

(1998) Overview of turbulence models applied in CWE–1997. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 74–76(1): 1–24.

28.

Neuman

(2004) Campus planning. In: Neuman

(ed.) Building Type Basics for College and University Facilities. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, 1–44.

29.

Nikolopoulou

Steemers

(2003) Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces. Energy and Buildings 35: 95–101.

30.

Nikolopoulou

Baker

Steemers

(2001) Thermal comfort in outdoor urban spaces: understanding the human parameter. Solar Energy 70: 227–235.

31.

Norton

Brix

Brydon

. (2007) Transforming the university campus into sustainable community. Planning for Higher Education 35(4): 22–39.

32.

Nunez

Oke

(1977) The energy balance of an urban canyon. Journal of Applied Meteorology 16: 11–19.

33.

Oke

(1976) The distinction between canopy and boundary layer heat islands. Atmosphere 14(4): 268–277.

34.

Oke

(1981) Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. International Journal of Climatology 1: 237–254.

35.

Oke

Johnson

Steyn

. (1991) Simulation of surface urban heat islands under ideal conditions at night – part-2 diagnosis and causation. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 56: 339–358.

36.

Omidreza

Kamaruzzaman

Elias

(2013) Adaptation of sustainability community indicators for Malaysian Campuses as small cities. Sustainable Cities and Society 6: 40–50.

37.

Paterson

Apelt

(1986) Computation of wind flows over three-dimensional buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 24(3): 193–213.

38.

Rediscovering the Urban Realm and Open Spaces (RUROS) (2004) Designing Open Spaces in the Urban Environment: A Bioclimatic Approach. CRES. Available at: http://alpha.cres.gr/ruros/

39.

Ryan

Tilbury

Corcoran

. (2010) Sustainability in higher education in the Asia-Pacific: developments, challenges, and prospects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11(2): 106–119.

40.

Salas-Olmedo

(2008) Spatial and Transport Planning Integrated Policies: Guidelines for Northwest Spain. TSU Working Paper Series, Ref. 1034. Oxford: School of Geography and the Environment.

41.

Shane

(2011) Pedestrian level wind study. GmE 11-008-PLW, 16 September. Available at: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/community_planning/files/pdf/1443bathurst_pedestrian-wind.pdf

42.

Shapiro

Epstein

(1984) Environmental physiology and indoor climate – thermoregulation and thermal comfort. Energy and Buildings 7: 29–34.

43.

Silveira

(2012) Experimental Assessment of Pedestrian Comfort in Urban Environment. Lisboa: Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), DE Civil, UTL.

44.

Simiu

Scanlan

(1996) Wind Effects on Structures: An Introduction to Wind Engineering, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

45.

Spagnolo

De Dear

(2003) A field study of thermal comfort in outdoor and semi-outdoor environments in subtropical Sydney Australia. Building and Environment 38(5): 721–738.

46.

Stathopoulos

(2006) Pedestrian level winds and outdoor human comfort. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 94(11): 769–780.

47.

Stathopoulos

Baskaran

(1996) Computer simulation of wind environmental conditions around buildings. Engineering Structures 18(11): 876–885.

48.

Stathopoulos

Zacharias

(2004) Outdoor human comfort in an urban climate. Building and Environment 39(3): 297–305.

49.

(1994) Pedestrian – Level Wind Environment around Buildings. Montreal, QC, Canada: Concordia University.

50.

Kriksic

(2012) Designing for pedestrian comfort in response to local climate. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 104–106: 397–407.