International Construction Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC) (5th : 2015)

Thermal comfort assessment through measurements in a naturally ventilated LEED Gold building Kim, Amy; Wang, Shuoqi; Reed, Dorothy Jun 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52660-Kim_A_et_al_ICSC15_013_Thermal.pdf [ 2MB ]
52660-Kim_A_et_al_ICSC15_013_Thermal_Comfort_slides.pdf [ 1.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52660-1.0076478.json
JSON-LD: 52660-1.0076478-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52660-1.0076478-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52660-1.0076478-rdf.json
Turtle: 52660-1.0076478-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52660-1.0076478-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52660-1.0076478-source.json
Full Text
52660-1.0076478-fulltext.txt
Citation
52660-1.0076478.ris

Full Text

5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT THROUGH MEASUREMENTS IN A NATURALLY VENTILATED LEED GOLD BUILDING Amy Kim, Ph.D.1,4, Shuoqi Wang2, and Dorothy Reed, Ph.D., P.E.3 1 Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States  2 Graduate Student, Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352650, Seattle, WA 98195-2650, United States 3 Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States 4 amyakim@uw.edu Abstract: Reductions in electric power consumption at the University of Washington are an established sustainability performance target. In order to meet this target, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification of buildings on campus is part of a long term plan for the University. It has been assumed that LEED certification will result in less power usage by occupants while improving indoor environmental quality. However, the related indoor environmental quality for these certified buildings has not been evaluated in situ. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the indoor quality assessment, more specifically in this paper, we discuss the thermal comfort of a LEED Gold building through both in-situ measurements of temperature, humidity, and occupant comfort surveys. Three measurement stations have been implemented in a low-rise retrofitted Student Union Building starting April of 2014: two in a food court or commercial kitchen environment and the other in a small office. Surveys to assess the comfort levels of both populations have been undertaken. The resulting data set is rich in terms of providing technical and nontechnical feedback on the thermal comfort of a LEED certified building. Preliminary findings indicate that thermal comfort parameters employed for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems control were not optimum in practice.    1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In 2009, University of Washington (UW) President Mark A. Emmert stated his intent to establish a climate-neutral campus having no net greenhouse gas emissions (University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team 2009). As part of a plan to accomplish this goal, over 216 smart meters have been placed on buildings on the Seattle campus to monitor energy consumption through the related Pacific Northwest Smart Grid demonstration project. Another major strategy adopted by the university is to require high-performance building standards (University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team 2009). As a founding signatory of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, UW uses the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for all buildings on the UW campus. According to UW’s Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office, the number of LEED-certified buildings has increased from 15 in 2011 to 27 in 2013.  The newly renovated UW Husky Union Building (HUB) (i.e., the Student Union Building) received a LEED Gold rating. To achieve these goals, dramatic changes were made to the building. New mechanical, electrical, lighting, and audiovisual systems were brought into the building to replace antiquated systems, although half of the building’s more than 60-year-old superstructure was preserved (Bussard & Chan 2012, 013-1  “The University of Washington opens newly renovated husky union building” 2012). In addition, a series of sustainable elements were incorporated into the new HUB. For example, the newly designed atrium, the large expanses of glass, and supporting mechanical systems created a naturally illuminated and ventilated building. As a result, in principal, the indoor environment can be improved while energy usage is reduced. This led to the research question of this study: does the LEED-certified Gold HUB perform according to protocols established by agencies such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Charted Institute of Building Services Engineers, and USGBC in terms of thermal comfort? Studies about occupant and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in green buildings have focused mostly on occupant surveys without investigating the on-site physical measurements of the indoor environment (Abbaszadeh et al. 2006, Altomonte and Schiavon 2013, Asmar et al. 2014) and mostly for office buildings (Radwan et al. 2013). This study takes into consideration both the subjective (occupant surveys) and objective (physical measurements) aspects of indoor environment in a LEED-Gold certified building. In addition, IEQ measurements for commercial kitchen environment were undertaken. 2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The predicted energy performance of a building is based upon several assumptions about the indoor environment quality such as the indoor temperature, relative humidity, CO2 levels, lighting and acoustics. In this paper, we present one segment of preliminary findings of a long-term investigation focused on the development of a comprehensive framework to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainable practices used in new and existing green buildings. Specifically, we characterize the in situ IEQ for a naturally ventilated LEED Certified Gold building through physical measurements and occupant surveys. This paper presents the collected data on temperature, humidity, and occupant comfort surveys in both a small office and a commercial kitchen environment of a naturally ventilated LEED Gold building on UW campus in the year of 2014. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Equipment Selection and Set-Up After investigating the required measurement equipment, the research team mounted all the handheld devices on a moveable I.V. pole and delivered the three measurement stations to the office and the kitchen. The research team consulted multiple references (ASHRAE, USGBC, & CIBSE 2010, ASHRAE 2009, Haruyama et al. 2010, Simone et al. 2013, Stoops et al.2012) to evaluate the necessary equipment for accessing the IEQ of the office area and commercial kitchen. Table 1 lists all the purchased equipment related to measurement of air temperature (Ta), globe temperature (TG), and relative humidity (RH) for the study to physically measure the thermal comfort parameters. Mounting heights were also extracted from existing sources (ASHRAE 2013a) and are summarized in Table 2.  013-2  Table 1: Partial specifications of instruments used in this study Parameter (Abbreviation) Unit Model Name Sensor Type Accuracy Range Air Temperature (Ta) °C REED SD-4214 Thermo-anemometer/Data Logger Telescoping Hot Wire Slim Probe (12-mm Diameter) ±0.4°C 0°C~50°C Fluke 975 Airmeter Built-In ±0.9°C from 40°C to 60°C -20°C~60°C ±0.5°C from 5°C to 40°C ±1.1°C from -20°C to 5°C HOBO U12 Temp/RH/Light/External Data Logger Built-In ±0.35°C from 0°C to 50°C -20°C~70°C Globe Temperature (TG) °F Extech HT30 Black Ball: 1.57 Diameter, 1.37 Height TG Indoor: ±4°F WBGT: 32°F to 122°F TG Outdoor: ±5.5°F TG: 32°F to 176°F Ta: ±1.8°F Ta: 32°F to 122°F RH: ±3% RH: 0 to 100% Relative Humidity (RH) % Fluke 975 Airmeter Built-in ±2% RH (10% RH to 90% RH) 10% to 90 % RH, Non-condensing HOBO U12 Temp/RH/Light/External Data Logger Built-in ±2.5% RH (10% RH to 90% RH), to a Maximum of ±3.5% 5% to 95 % RH  Table 2 Vertical placement information for the instruments Parameters Height (above Floor) References Standing Occupants Seated Occupants  Air temperature 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m 0.1, 0.6, and 1.1 m ASHRAE Standard 55 Air velocity 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m 0.1, 0.6, and 1.1 m Relative Humidity 1.1 m 1.1 m  3.2 Testing Location Selection  Three locations were used for data gathering. The selection of each location was based on how well it represented the surrounding area. Through consulting the kitchen and office staff, the research team decided that these locations were ideal in terms of keeping the impact of the data measurements on normal business operations to a minimum level. Within the kitchen environment there were two data-gathering 013-3  locations. The first location was near the restaurant’s cooking equipment. The second location was identified near the dishwashing machine. In the office, the unit was located in the general occupant seating/desk area.  3.3 Survey preparation  The International Organization for Standardization and ASHRAE have established indoor thermal environment standards. The Center for the Built Environment (CBE) of the University of California, Berkeley provided an occupant IEQ survey for researching building performance (Center for the Built Environment n.d.). The survey covers thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting/daylighting, and acoustics and served the purpose of this study. The CBE also has large databases of accumulated survey results. Therefore, the research team chose to use the CBE survey for occupants in the office inside the HUB. The kitchen area is a different indoor environment from the office areas. The main activity in the HUB kitchen is cooking, which generates heat and effluents that must be captured and exhausted in order to control and guarantee thermal comfort and good air quality for the employees (ASHRAE 2009). Relatively little research has been conducted regarding thermal comfort in commercial kitchens. Therefore, a standardized survey for commercial kitchen employees could not be found. Haruyama (Haruyama et al. 2010) used questionnaire surveys to evaluate subjective thermal strain in different kitchen working environments in Japan. In the United States, ASHRAE-supported research (Simone et al. 2013, Stoops et al. 2012) investigated the thermal comfort in commercial kitchens of different types and locations in different climatic zones. A modified version of Stoops et al’s “Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens Survey” was used in this research to collect subjective measurements. The modified survey contained 36 questions covering background information, personal comfort, personal control, work conditions, environmental sensitivity, and clothing. Both the office and kitchen surveys were pre-tested with the HUB associate director. Based on the feedback, kitchen survey questions about building features including window blinds, roller shades, exterior shades, and security systems were deleted since they were not available or accessible to most kitchen staff. Questions in the office survey about exterior shades and the security system were also deleted given their limited installation. 4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The preliminary results are provided for the thermal comfort measurement in the office and the kitchen. The results of the thermal comfort measurements include the indoor operative temperature, measured data as plotted in the graphic comfort zone, and the vertical temperature difference measured at 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m. The results for the office area were assessed separately for occupied hours for both summer months and autumn months. Summer months were from June through August. Autumn months were from October through November. Survey results were used to assess whether these objective data aligned with the occupants’ subjective assessment of the thermal comfort.  4.1 Measured Thermal Comfort Data  4.1.1 Office Area Figures 1 and 2 contain representative time series plots comparing the daily average five-minute mean indoor operative temperature readings for the working hours for the summer and autumn, respectively. The indoor operative temperature (ASHRAE 2009) represents the temperature of a uniform environment that includes the effects of relative humidity. The globe temperature measurement is used as equivalent to the indoor operative temperature. Excursions of peak values above and below the 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4 occur occasionally, especially early in the morning during the summer months due to the free-cooling strategy, night ventilation. The 80 percent limits are a function of the outdoor temperature and vary as the weather changes. The statistical variance in the record is much smaller for the autumn readings.  013-4  Determining thermal comfort included asking questions about the indoor temperature in the workspace. On average, the respondents indicated feeling slightly above the neutral level at 3.5. However, about 40 percent of respondents were slightly to very dissatisfied (range from 0 to 2) with the indoor temperature. Of those people that were dissatisfied, 75 percent of them actually had a portable fan in their workspace, and 37 percent had access to window blinds or shades and/or operable windows. In conclusion, 94 percent of the occupants that expressed discomfort had means to individually control their environment with personally adjustable or controllable systems in place. None of the occupants indicated discomfort from the cooler morning temperatures. 4.2.2 Kitchen Area The kitchen survey asked employees questions about air movement and discomfort. The employees of the kitchen area consist of regular staff and temporary student employees. Fifteen regular staff members worked in the kitchen at the time of assessment. The manager distributed 15 paper copies of surveys to the regular staff, and all 15 copies were answered and returned.  Over half of the employees (60 percent) did not feel adequate air movement normally during work. Those employees complained about excessive heat from ovens or woks, and suggested increasing air flow and installing air conditioning or fans. Seventy-three percent of the employees stated that they did not feel comfortable most of the time. Most of them felt warm at the front and back of their bodies. Regarding different environmental conditions in the kitchen that could cause discomfort, “too high temperature” and “sweating” bothered most of the employees. Complaints of other conditions such as “draft” or “smoky kitchen” were relatively low. 5 CONCLUSION Occupants of the offices were mainly satisfied with the thermal comfort of the building. Nevertheless, slightly lower and higher room temperatures were observed during early mornings and late afternoons in the summer. The free-cooling strategy, night ventilation, was successful in reducing the indoor operable temperature to a comfortable level in the morning. Without a mechanical air-conditioning system in the office spaces, the rise in outdoor temperature during the summer afternoons, in combination with the higher occupancy rate, increased the temperature to exceed the 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4. The survey showed that occupants were not bothered by the lower temperature in the morning but were disturbed by the higher temperature in the afternoons. Interestingly, 94 percent of those that were dissatisfied with the temperature had means to control their environment with personally adjustable or controllable systems such as windows and fans. Objective measurement of the two kitchen areas, cooking and dishwashing, showed frequent exceedance of 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4. Complaints did exist among most of the kitchen employees about the indoor operable temperature. Specifically, these included low air movement causing discomfort with high temperature and sweating. An overwhelming number of respondents, almost three-fourths, indicated that most of the time they felt uncomfortable working in the kitchen. They suggested adding additional mechanical cooling systems. The results presented here are preliminary and data collection continues through 2015. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Yiming Liu, engineering technician; HUB Associate Director Paul Zuchowski; Carole A. Grayson, JD, director of student legal services; and Dale T. Askew, general manager of the Husky Den. We would also like to thank all the employees who filled out surveys and Michael Taborn II, who participated in collecting survey data as a summer graduate researcher. This research was also supported and funded by the University of Washington’s Green Seed Fund.  13-9  References Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., Huizenga,. C. 2006. Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. Center for the Built Environment. About the HUB. 2014. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/thehub/home/about-the-hub/ Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S. 2013. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Center for the Built Environment. ASHRAE. 2009. ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refirgerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Retrieved 12 29, 2014, from app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpASHRAE22 ASHRAE. 2009. Indoor air quality guide: Best practices for design, construction, and commissioning. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE. 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE, USGBC, & CIBSE. 2010. Performance measurement protocols for commercial buildings. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Bussard, R., & Chan, S. 2012. HUB gets a reboot for the 21st century. Retrieved from Daily Journal of Commerce: https://www.djc.com/news/co/12044962.html Center for the Built Environment. Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey. Retrieved February 28, 2014, from http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm El Asmar, M., Chokor, A., Srour, I. 2014. Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality: A Study of the LEED-Certified Buildings on the Arizona State University Campus. ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World, ASCE, 1063-1070.  Haruyama, Y., Muto, T., Matsuzuki, H., Ito, A., Tomita, S., Muto, S., Katamoto, S. 2010. Evaluation of Subjective Thermal Strain in Different Kitchen Working Environments Using Subjective Judgment Scales. Industrial Health, 48(2), 135-144. Radwan, A., Issam M., and Mallory-Hill, S. 2013. A Review of Research Investigating Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings. SB13 Portugal-Sustainable Building Contribution to Achieve the EU 20-20-20 Targets, Guimaraes, Portugal, Chapter 6 – Building Sustainability Assessment Tools, 497-504. Simone, A., Olesen, B. W., Stoops, J. L., & Watkins, A. W. 2013. Thermal comfort in commercial kitchens (RP-1469): Procedure and physical measurements (Part 1). HVAC&R Research, 19(8), 1001-1015. Stoops, J., Watkins, A., Smyth, E., Adams, M., Simone, A., & Olesen, B. W. 2012. ASHRAE RP-1469 -- Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. The University of Washington opens newly renovated husky union building. 2012. Retrieved from http://perkinswill.com/news/the-university-of-washington-opens-newly-renovated-husky-union-building.html University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team. 2009. University of Washington's Climate Action Plan. University of Washington Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office. University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team. 2010. University of Washington Climate Action Plan 2010 Update. University of Washington Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office.  13-10   5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT THROUGH MEASUREMENTS IN A NATURALLY VENTILATED LEED GOLD BUILDING Amy Kim, Ph.D.1,4, Shuoqi Wang2, and Dorothy Reed, Ph.D., P.E.3 1 Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States  2 Graduate Student, Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352650, Seattle, WA 98195-2650, United States 3 Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States 4 amyakim@uw.edu Abstract: Reductions in electric power consumption at the University of Washington are an established sustainability performance target. In order to meet this target, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification of buildings on campus is part of a long term plan for the University. It has been assumed that LEED certification will result in less power usage by occupants while improving indoor environmental quality. However, the related indoor environmental quality for these certified buildings has not been evaluated in situ. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the indoor quality assessment, more specifically in this paper, we discuss the thermal comfort of a LEED Gold building through both in-situ measurements of temperature, humidity, and occupant comfort surveys. Three measurement stations have been implemented in a low-rise retrofitted Student Union Building starting April of 2014: two in a food court or commercial kitchen environment and the other in a small office. Surveys to assess the comfort levels of both populations have been undertaken. The resulting data set is rich in terms of providing technical and nontechnical feedback on the thermal comfort of a LEED certified building. Preliminary findings indicate that thermal comfort parameters employed for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems control were not optimum in practice.    1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In 2009, University of Washington (UW) President Mark A. Emmert stated his intent to establish a climate-neutral campus having no net greenhouse gas emissions (University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team 2009). As part of a plan to accomplish this goal, over 216 smart meters have been placed on buildings on the Seattle campus to monitor energy consumption through the related Pacific Northwest Smart Grid demonstration project. Another major strategy adopted by the university is to require high-performance building standards (University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team 2009). As a founding signatory of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, UW uses the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for all buildings on the UW campus. According to UW’s Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office, the number of LEED-certified buildings has increased from 15 in 2011 to 27 in 2013.  The newly renovated UW Husky Union Building (HUB) (i.e., the Student Union Building) received a LEED Gold rating. To achieve these goals, dramatic changes were made to the building. New mechanical, electrical, lighting, and audiovisual systems were brought into the building to replace antiquated systems, although half of the building’s more than 60-year-old superstructure was preserved (Bussard & Chan 2012, 013-1  “The University of Washington opens newly renovated husky union building” 2012). In addition, a series of sustainable elements were incorporated into the new HUB. For example, the newly designed atrium, the large expanses of glass, and supporting mechanical systems created a naturally illuminated and ventilated building. As a result, in principal, the indoor environment can be improved while energy usage is reduced. This led to the research question of this study: does the LEED-certified Gold HUB perform according to protocols established by agencies such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Charted Institute of Building Services Engineers, and USGBC in terms of thermal comfort? Studies about occupant and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in green buildings have focused mostly on occupant surveys without investigating the on-site physical measurements of the indoor environment (Abbaszadeh et al. 2006, Altomonte and Schiavon 2013, Asmar et al. 2014) and mostly for office buildings (Radwan et al. 2013). This study takes into consideration both the subjective (occupant surveys) and objective (physical measurements) aspects of indoor environment in a LEED-Gold certified building. In addition, IEQ measurements for commercial kitchen environment were undertaken. 2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The predicted energy performance of a building is based upon several assumptions about the indoor environment quality such as the indoor temperature, relative humidity, CO2 levels, lighting and acoustics. In this paper, we present one segment of preliminary findings of a long-term investigation focused on the development of a comprehensive framework to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainable practices used in new and existing green buildings. Specifically, we characterize the in situ IEQ for a naturally ventilated LEED Certified Gold building through physical measurements and occupant surveys. This paper presents the collected data on temperature, humidity, and occupant comfort surveys in both a small office and a commercial kitchen environment of a naturally ventilated LEED Gold building on UW campus in the year of 2014. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Equipment Selection and Set-Up After investigating the required measurement equipment, the research team mounted all the handheld devices on a moveable I.V. pole and delivered the three measurement stations to the office and the kitchen. The research team consulted multiple references (ASHRAE, USGBC, & CIBSE 2010, ASHRAE 2009, Haruyama et al. 2010, Simone et al. 2013, Stoops et al.2012) to evaluate the necessary equipment for accessing the IEQ of the office area and commercial kitchen. Table 1 lists all the purchased equipment related to measurement of air temperature (Ta), globe temperature (TG), and relative humidity (RH) for the study to physically measure the thermal comfort parameters. Mounting heights were also extracted from existing sources (ASHRAE 2013a) and are summarized in Table 2.  013-2  Table 1: Partial specifications of instruments used in this study Parameter (Abbreviation) Unit Model Name Sensor Type Accuracy Range Air Temperature (Ta) °C REED SD-4214 Thermo-anemometer/Data Logger Telescoping Hot Wire Slim Probe (12-mm Diameter) ±0.4°C 0°C~50°C Fluke 975 Airmeter Built-In ±0.9°C from 40°C to 60°C -20°C~60°C ±0.5°C from 5°C to 40°C ±1.1°C from -20°C to 5°C HOBO U12 Temp/RH/Light/External Data Logger Built-In ±0.35°C from 0°C to 50°C -20°C~70°C Globe Temperature (TG) °F Extech HT30 Black Ball: 1.57 Diameter, 1.37 Height TG Indoor: ±4°F WBGT: 32°F to 122°F TG Outdoor: ±5.5°F TG: 32°F to 176°F Ta: ±1.8°F Ta: 32°F to 122°F RH: ±3% RH: 0 to 100% Relative Humidity (RH) % Fluke 975 Airmeter Built-in ±2% RH (10% RH to 90% RH) 10% to 90 % RH, Non-condensing HOBO U12 Temp/RH/Light/External Data Logger Built-in ±2.5% RH (10% RH to 90% RH), to a Maximum of ±3.5% 5% to 95 % RH  Table 2 Vertical placement information for the instruments Parameters Height (above Floor) References Standing Occupants Seated Occupants  Air temperature 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m 0.1, 0.6, and 1.1 m ASHRAE Standard 55 Air velocity 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m 0.1, 0.6, and 1.1 m Relative Humidity 1.1 m 1.1 m  3.2 Testing Location Selection  Three locations were used for data gathering. The selection of each location was based on how well it represented the surrounding area. Through consulting the kitchen and office staff, the research team decided that these locations were ideal in terms of keeping the impact of the data measurements on normal business operations to a minimum level. Within the kitchen environment there were two data-gathering 013-3  locations. The first location was near the restaurant’s cooking equipment. The second location was identified near the dishwashing machine. In the office, the unit was located in the general occupant seating/desk area.  3.3 Survey preparation  The International Organization for Standardization and ASHRAE have established indoor thermal environment standards. The Center for the Built Environment (CBE) of the University of California, Berkeley provided an occupant IEQ survey for researching building performance (Center for the Built Environment n.d.). The survey covers thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting/daylighting, and acoustics and served the purpose of this study. The CBE also has large databases of accumulated survey results. Therefore, the research team chose to use the CBE survey for occupants in the office inside the HUB. The kitchen area is a different indoor environment from the office areas. The main activity in the HUB kitchen is cooking, which generates heat and effluents that must be captured and exhausted in order to control and guarantee thermal comfort and good air quality for the employees (ASHRAE 2009). Relatively little research has been conducted regarding thermal comfort in commercial kitchens. Therefore, a standardized survey for commercial kitchen employees could not be found. Haruyama (Haruyama et al. 2010) used questionnaire surveys to evaluate subjective thermal strain in different kitchen working environments in Japan. In the United States, ASHRAE-supported research (Simone et al. 2013, Stoops et al. 2012) investigated the thermal comfort in commercial kitchens of different types and locations in different climatic zones. A modified version of Stoops et al’s “Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens Survey” was used in this research to collect subjective measurements. The modified survey contained 36 questions covering background information, personal comfort, personal control, work conditions, environmental sensitivity, and clothing. Both the office and kitchen surveys were pre-tested with the HUB associate director. Based on the feedback, kitchen survey questions about building features including window blinds, roller shades, exterior shades, and security systems were deleted since they were not available or accessible to most kitchen staff. Questions in the office survey about exterior shades and the security system were also deleted given their limited installation. 4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The preliminary results are provided for the thermal comfort measurement in the office and the kitchen. The results of the thermal comfort measurements include the indoor operative temperature, measured data as plotted in the graphic comfort zone, and the vertical temperature difference measured at 0.1, 1.1, and 1.7 m. The results for the office area were assessed separately for occupied hours for both summer months and autumn months. Summer months were from June through August. Autumn months were from October through November. Survey results were used to assess whether these objective data aligned with the occupants’ subjective assessment of the thermal comfort.  4.1 Measured Thermal Comfort Data  4.1.1 Office Area Figures 1 and 2 contain representative time series plots comparing the daily average five-minute mean indoor operative temperature readings for the working hours for the summer and autumn, respectively. The indoor operative temperature (ASHRAE 2009) represents the temperature of a uniform environment that includes the effects of relative humidity. The globe temperature measurement is used as equivalent to the indoor operative temperature. Excursions of peak values above and below the 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4 occur occasionally, especially early in the morning during the summer months due to the free-cooling strategy, night ventilation. The 80 percent limits are a function of the outdoor temperature and vary as the weather changes. The statistical variance in the record is much smaller for the autumn readings.  013-4  Determining thermal comfort included asking questions about the indoor temperature in the workspace. On average, the respondents indicated feeling slightly above the neutral level at 3.5. However, about 40 percent of respondents were slightly to very dissatisfied (range from 0 to 2) with the indoor temperature. Of those people that were dissatisfied, 75 percent of them actually had a portable fan in their workspace, and 37 percent had access to window blinds or shades and/or operable windows. In conclusion, 94 percent of the occupants that expressed discomfort had means to individually control their environment with personally adjustable or controllable systems in place. None of the occupants indicated discomfort from the cooler morning temperatures. 4.2.2 Kitchen Area The kitchen survey asked employees questions about air movement and discomfort. The employees of the kitchen area consist of regular staff and temporary student employees. Fifteen regular staff members worked in the kitchen at the time of assessment. The manager distributed 15 paper copies of surveys to the regular staff, and all 15 copies were answered and returned.  Over half of the employees (60 percent) did not feel adequate air movement normally during work. Those employees complained about excessive heat from ovens or woks, and suggested increasing air flow and installing air conditioning or fans. Seventy-three percent of the employees stated that they did not feel comfortable most of the time. Most of them felt warm at the front and back of their bodies. Regarding different environmental conditions in the kitchen that could cause discomfort, “too high temperature” and “sweating” bothered most of the employees. Complaints of other conditions such as “draft” or “smoky kitchen” were relatively low. 5 CONCLUSION Occupants of the offices were mainly satisfied with the thermal comfort of the building. Nevertheless, slightly lower and higher room temperatures were observed during early mornings and late afternoons in the summer. The free-cooling strategy, night ventilation, was successful in reducing the indoor operable temperature to a comfortable level in the morning. Without a mechanical air-conditioning system in the office spaces, the rise in outdoor temperature during the summer afternoons, in combination with the higher occupancy rate, increased the temperature to exceed the 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4. The survey showed that occupants were not bothered by the lower temperature in the morning but were disturbed by the higher temperature in the afternoons. Interestingly, 94 percent of those that were dissatisfied with the temperature had means to control their environment with personally adjustable or controllable systems such as windows and fans. Objective measurement of the two kitchen areas, cooking and dishwashing, showed frequent exceedance of 80 percent ASHRAE acceptability limits as defined in ASHRAE 55-2013 Section 5.4. Complaints did exist among most of the kitchen employees about the indoor operable temperature. Specifically, these included low air movement causing discomfort with high temperature and sweating. An overwhelming number of respondents, almost three-fourths, indicated that most of the time they felt uncomfortable working in the kitchen. They suggested adding additional mechanical cooling systems. The results presented here are preliminary and data collection continues through 2015. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Yiming Liu, engineering technician; HUB Associate Director Paul Zuchowski; Carole A. Grayson, JD, director of student legal services; and Dale T. Askew, general manager of the Husky Den. We would also like to thank all the employees who filled out surveys and Michael Taborn II, who participated in collecting survey data as a summer graduate researcher. This research was also supported and funded by the University of Washington’s Green Seed Fund.  13-9  References Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., Huizenga,. C. 2006. Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. Center for the Built Environment. About the HUB. 2014. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/thehub/home/about-the-hub/ Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S. 2013. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Center for the Built Environment. ASHRAE. 2009. ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refirgerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Retrieved 12 29, 2014, from app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpASHRAE22 ASHRAE. 2009. Indoor air quality guide: Best practices for design, construction, and commissioning. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE. 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE, USGBC, & CIBSE. 2010. Performance measurement protocols for commercial buildings. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Bussard, R., & Chan, S. 2012. HUB gets a reboot for the 21st century. Retrieved from Daily Journal of Commerce: https://www.djc.com/news/co/12044962.html Center for the Built Environment. Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey. Retrieved February 28, 2014, from http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm El Asmar, M., Chokor, A., Srour, I. 2014. Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality: A Study of the LEED-Certified Buildings on the Arizona State University Campus. ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World, ASCE, 1063-1070.  Haruyama, Y., Muto, T., Matsuzuki, H., Ito, A., Tomita, S., Muto, S., Katamoto, S. 2010. Evaluation of Subjective Thermal Strain in Different Kitchen Working Environments Using Subjective Judgment Scales. Industrial Health, 48(2), 135-144. Radwan, A., Issam M., and Mallory-Hill, S. 2013. A Review of Research Investigating Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings. SB13 Portugal-Sustainable Building Contribution to Achieve the EU 20-20-20 Targets, Guimaraes, Portugal, Chapter 6 – Building Sustainability Assessment Tools, 497-504. Simone, A., Olesen, B. W., Stoops, J. L., & Watkins, A. W. 2013. Thermal comfort in commercial kitchens (RP-1469): Procedure and physical measurements (Part 1). HVAC&R Research, 19(8), 1001-1015. Stoops, J., Watkins, A., Smyth, E., Adams, M., Simone, A., & Olesen, B. W. 2012. ASHRAE RP-1469 -- Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. The University of Washington opens newly renovated husky union building. 2012. Retrieved from http://perkinswill.com/news/the-university-of-washington-opens-newly-renovated-husky-union-building.html University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team. 2009. University of Washington's Climate Action Plan. University of Washington Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office. University of Washington Climate Action Plan Oversight Team. 2010. University of Washington Climate Action Plan 2010 Update. University of Washington Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office.  13-10   Indoor Environment Quality AssessmentDorothy Reed, Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmy Kim, Civil and Environmental EngineeringShuoqi Wang, Industrial and Systems EngineeringYiming Liu, Civil and Environmental EngineeringOutline of today’s presentationIntroduction & MotivationObjective Measurement Equipment set-upResultsSubjective Measurement: Surveys ConclusionsIntroduction and Motivation> Green Building 101 [USGBC.org]: The Indoor Environment Quality[IEQ] “encompasses the conditions inside a building” such as– Thermal conditions– Air quality– Lighting– Acoustics– Ergonomicsand their effects on occupants.> Better IEQ can “enhance the lives of occupants, increase the resalevalue of a building and reduce liability for building owners.”Primary research question: Does LEED Gold status ensure high IEQ in practice?> In order to answer this question, we collected both objective andsubjective data in-situ for the Husky Union Building (HUB), which isLEED-Gold.Objective measurements: Equipment Set-upModel NameFluke 975V Air MeterREED SD-4214 Thermo-Anemometer/DataloggerREED SD-4023 Sound Level Meter/DataloggerHOBO U12-012 Temp/RH/Light/External USB LoggerEXTECH HT30 Heat Stress WBGT MeterTelaire 7001 CO2 SensorMeasurementRelativeHumidity+CO2Air Temperature+Air VelocitySound LevelLight Intensity+Relative HumidityGlobeTemperature CO2 LevelMeasurement Location I> There are multiple office groups around the building. The Student Legal Services (SLS) Office, with west facing windows located in the northern part of the building on the third floor.Measurement Location II> To study the indoor environment of Husky Den dining area, the Firecracker station was selected as a test location as well as the dishwashing area.FirecrackerDishwashingSubjective Measurement: Occupant [Employee] Surveys> The survey for office environment was a modified version of Center for the Built Environment of University Berkeley’s Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality at http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm> The survey for Husky Den kitchen area was developed based on the research by Stoops et al. supported by ASHRAE for restaurant kitchen environments.DateIndoor Operative Temperature [TG (°C)]DateIndoor Operative Temperature [TG (°C)]SummerAutumnSLS OfficeGraphic Comfort Zone for working hours(8 am to 8 pm) in the summer. The solid“boxed” area shows the 0.5 clothing zone.Graphic Comfort Zone for working hours (8 amto 8 pm) in the autumn in SLS office. The 1.0(blue solid line) and 0.5 (green solid line)clothing zones are shown.SummerAutumnSLS OfficeGraphic Comfort Zone at Firecracker StationGraphic Comfort Zone for Firecracker (10 am to 4 pm) in the summer. The 1.0(blue solid line) and 0.5 (green solid line) clothing zones are shown.Graphic Comfort Zone for Firecracker (10 am to 4 pm) in the autumn. The 1.0(blue solid line) and 0.5 (green solid line) clothing zones are shown.Graphic Comfort Zone at Dishwashing Area during Working HoursGraphic Comfort Zone for Dishwashing (6 am to 9 pm) in the summer. The 1.0(blue solid line) and 0.5 (green solid line) clothing zones are shown.Graphic Comfort Zone for Dishwashing (6 am to 9 pm) in the autumn. The 1.0(blue solid line) and 0.5 (green solid line) clothing zones are shown.HUB Office Occupant Survey> Table below gives the background information of the office survey respondentsEmployees Number of Respondents % of Age(±SD)Height(±SD)Weight(±SD)Years m kgAll 41 100% 31±13 1.71±0.12 75±23Male 14 34% 36±16 1.82±0.07 86±24Female 27 66% 29±12 1.64±0.09 69±20HUB Office Occupant Survey> The respondents were evenly spread between satisfied and dissatisfied when asked about the indoor temperature and their thermal comfort.0246810120Verydsisatisfied1 2 3 4 5 6Very satisfiedNumber of RespondentsSatisfactory ScoreHow satisfied are you with the temperature in yourworkspace?Overall, does your thermal comfort in yourworkspace enhance or interfere with your ability toget your job done?HUB Office Occupant Survey> From the survey results, it is clear that respondents connect their thermal comfort directly to indoor temperature. Respondents who were not satisfied with the temperature generally feel the thermal comfort in their workspace interferes their ability to get their job done.01234560 1 2 3 4 5 6Does thermal comfort enhance ability?Satisfactory with the temperatureHUB Office Occupant Survey> Compared to thermal comfort, respondents were more satisfied with the air quality in their workspace.024681012140Verydsisatisfied1 2 3 4 5 6Very satisfiedNumber of RespondentsSatisfactory ScoreHow satisfied are you with the air quality in yourworkspace (i.e. stuffy/stale air, cleanliness, odors)?Overall, does the air quality in your workspaceenhance or interfere your ability to get your jobdone?HUB Office Occupant Survey> Majority of the respondents were also satisfied with the lighting and acoustic quality of their offices.0510150Verydsisatisfied1 2 3 4 5 6Very satisfiedNumber of RespondentsSatisfactory ScoreLightingHow satisfied are you with the amount of light inyour workspace?How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of thelighting (e.g. glare, refections, contrast)?Overall, does the lighting quality enhance or interferewith your ability to get your job done?024681012140Verydsisatisfied1 2 3 4 5 6Very satisfiedNumber of RespondentsSatisfactory ScoreAcousticHow satisfied are you with the noise level in yourworkspace?How satisfied are you with the sound privacy in yourworkspace (ability to have conversations withoutyour neighbors overhearing and vice versa)?Overall, does the acoustic quality in your workspaceenhance or interfere with your ability to get your jobdone?Husky Den Kitchen Survey Results> Table below contains background information of the survey respondents.RespondentsNumber of Respondents% of RespondentsAge(±SD)Height(±SD)Weight(±SD)Years m kgAll 15 100% 39±14 1.72±0.17 82±22Male 9 60% 38±15 1.79±0.16 93±22Female 6 40% 40±13 1.61±0.13 67±11Husky Den Kitchen Survey Results> The kitchen employees are multi-functional.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.911 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Percentage of Time Spend on Different Work ZonesRespondentsOtherCashierDishwashingFoodPrepCookingHusky Den Kitchen Survey Results> Regarding different environmental conditions in the kitchen which could cause discomfort, ‘Too High Temperature’ and ‘Sweating’ bothered most of the employees. Complaints of the other conditions were relatively low.0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%Percentage of RespondentsYes, dailyYes, often (every week)Yes, sometimesNo, neverConclusions> Objective and subjective measurements for the offices showed problems of indoor thermal discomfort during the summer and high CO2 concentrations  in the autumn.> Objective measurement of the Husky Den kitchen also showed temperature problems which were confirmed by the kitchen surveys.> Therefore, LEED Gold status does not automatically ensure thermal comfort for employees, especially in restaurant/ kitchen areas.  In-situ calibration is needed to adjust the building ventilation system.Acknowledgements> We would like to thank HUB Associate Director Paul Zuchowski; Carole A. Grayson, JD, Director of Student Legal Services; and Dale T. Askew, General Manager of the Husky Den.> We would also like to thank all the employees who filled out surveys.> This research was supported by University of Washington’s Green Seed Fund. Thank you!

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52660.1-0076478/manifest

Comment

Related Items