Kinghorn+Comfort

= **EFFICIENTLY UNCOMFORTABLE?** =

A Case Study on Kinghorn Hall Bryan Beerman + Matt Schmalzel

ABSTRACT
Kinghorn Hall, a recent addition to the campus of Ball State University, is seeking LEED Silver certification (“Thomas”). One factor in gaining a LEED certification requires that the building be thermally comfortable (“New”). Thermal comfort, in turn, is defined by Standard 55 of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. The components of thermal comfort contingent on a building are all quantities that can be measured: air temperature, relative humidity, air speed, and mean radiant temperature. However, thermal comfort also must take into account personal factors such as the amount of clothing and metabolic rate of the users (“ANSI/ASHRAE”). In addition, each occupant’s psychological reaction to the conditions of the spaces is liable to be an inexact, albeit important, influence on the thermal comfort they experience within the space. The authors are both residents of Kinghorn Hall. It has been their personal experience that Kinghorn is thermally uncomfortable, especially in its circulation spaces and exercise room. In an attempt to further study this phenomenon, the authors have put forward a hypothesis stating that Kinghorn is indeed thermally uncomfortable and undeserving of LEED credit for this criterion. To prove or disprove this hypothesis, they have developed a detailed methodology that utilizes both quantitative measurements and qualitative surveying of residents. The two components of the study were then correlated to draw conclusions. After analyzing the data, it was found that Kinghorn Hall has acceptable thermal comfort according to Standard 55. Although this is the case, it was not always apparent to the residents, some of whom expressed thermal discomfort, due to differences in personal experience.

INTRODUCTION
Thomas J. Kinghorn Hall, completed in the summer of 2010, is located on the northeast corner of Ball State's campus. The 205,000 sq. ft. building was designed for LEED Silver certification by CSO Architects. The HVAC system of Kinghorn is an all-air system with numerous zones per floor. The individual dorm rooms, exercise room, and hallways each have occupant adjustable thermostats; however, the hallways are commonly left at a set temperature. Additionally, the building constantly circulates fresh air from outdoors via a separate duct system.

 Figure 1 – View from southwest of Kinghorn Hall (“Thomas”).

Standard 55 (Figure 2) of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) describes the conditions classified as "thermal comfort." Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) awards three separate credits pertaining to thermal comfort. This study is concerned with IEQ Credit 7.1: Thermal Comfort - Design. The Intent of this credit is: "To provide a comfortable thermal environment that promotes occupant productivity and well-being." The requirements of this credit are: "Design HVAC systems and the building envelope to meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal Comfort Conditions for Human Occupancy" ("New Construction"). Therefore, LEED uses ASHRAE Standard 55 to evaluate the success of thermal conditions in new construction. Thus, it is through the lens of Standard 55 that this study will view the thermal comfort of Kinghorn Hall relative to its attempt at LEED Silver certification.

Figure 2 - ASHRAE comfort zones from Standard 55 (Source: wbdg.org)

Figure 3 - Exercise room

Figure 4 - East Third Floor Hallway

Figure 5 - Example of a dorm room thermostat

Figure 6 - Example of a hallway thermostat

HYPOTHESIS
Kinghorn Hall does not maintain thermally comfortable conditions for its occupants relative to its LEED certification.

METHODOLOGY
The first step to implementing this study involved defining the thermal comfort parameters per LEED and ASHRAE. In order to sample a range of spaces and functional types for analysis, the study focused on two hallways on the third floor of the building (not student adjusted), the exercise room on the first floor (potentially occupant adjusted), and three student dorm rooms (student adjusted). Because of time constraints, this study could not be comprehensive of the entire building, so these spaces were selected to obtain a wide sampling of thermal conditions within Kinghorn. The approach involved both subjective and objective components: comparing how occupants’ perceptions related to thermal conditions.

One part of the implementation consisted of an occupant thermal comfort survey, directly distributed by hand to the student residents within the defined area of observation at different intervals from November 3 - November 11, 2011. The survey asked the occupants to evaluate the space both instantaneously and from past experience, while also recording their location, time, and day. The other part of the implementation consisted of continuously measuring the dry bulb temperature and relative humidity at 15 minute intervals via a Hobo data logger (Figure 7) kept in each space throughout the collection period (for specific placement, see Figure 10). In addition, the air speed and surface temperatures in each space were measured and evaluated once at the beginning of the entire study, using a hot wire anemometer (Figure 8) and infrared thermometer (Figure 9) respectively. The anemometer was used throughout the spaces to locate and record any air movement to factor into account during analysis. The surface temperatures were checked for significant deviations from the overall air temperature, and if found, they were later noted during analysis. Measurements were taken and surveys were administered in a consistent fashion per each location. Results were then set up for analysis by graphing the quantitative data, while comparing the qualitative surveys to the quantitative data gathered for their respective location, day, and time.



Figure 7 - Hobo data logging device



Figure 8 - Hot wire anemometer



Figure 9 - Raytech Minitemp used to measure surface temperatures



Third Floor
Figure 10 - Floor plans denoting areas analyzed and Hobo data logger placement.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Survey Questions:** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">1) Location in the building (denoted by placing an "X" on a given floor plan diagram) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">2) Day and time <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">3) Which best describes how you **currently** feel in the space? <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">cold (1) | cool (2) | slightly cool (3) | neutral (4) | slightly warm (5) | warm (6) | hot (7) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">3) Which best describes how you **generally have felt** in the space based on **past** use? <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">cold (1) | cool (2) | slightly cool (3) | neutral (4) | slightly warm (5) | warm (6) | hot (7) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">4) Which of the following best describes your current clothing? <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 1. shorts and T-shirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 2. shorts and long-sleeve shirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 3. shorts and a sweatshirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 4. jeans and T-shirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 5. jeans and long-sleeve shirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 6. jeans and a sweatshirt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 7. jeans and a coat <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">5) What activity were you engaged in during the previous 10 minutes? <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 1. sleeping <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 2. sitting <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 3. walking <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 4. riding a bike <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 5. running / exercising <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 6. playing basketball or other high activity sports <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;"> 7. other:

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">DATA / FINDINGS
The exterior temperature trends were obtained from Accuweather.com, and are as follows:

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[[image:Exterior_Temperatures.jpg width="720" height="385"]]
Figure 11 - Exterior temperatures recorded throughout the collection period.

The temperature and relative humidity of each space was recorded by the Hobo data logging devices and compiled into graph format as follows:

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[[image:Temp_-_Dorm_Rooms.jpg width="832" height="417"]]
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Figure 12 - Temperature data for the dorm rooms. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Figure 13 - Temperature data for the exercise room and third floor hallways.

[[image:RH_-_Dorm_Rooms.jpg width="832" height="417"]]
Figure 14 - Relative humidity data for the dorm rooms. Figure 15 - Relative humidity data for the exercise room and third floor hallways.

West Hallway: 25 feet / minute East Hallway: 20 feet / minute Exercise Room: 20 feet / minute Dorm Room 1: 5 feet / minute Dorm Room 2: 5 feet / minute Dorm Room 3: 5 feet / minute
 * Average measured air speeds of each space:**

The low air speeds were determined not significant enough to be taken into consideration for analysis.

The measured surface temperatures of the walls in each space were consistent with one another and the dry bulb temperature. Small variations were found in the temperature of the window surfaces, averaging 4 degrees lower. However, neither of these conditions was considered to be a significant factor in the analysis.



Figure 16 - Compiled graphical results of the distributed surveys.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">ANALYSIS
In looking at the data and measurements, generalizations were formed for each type of space. These generalizations did not take into account fluctuations in outlying responses, which appeared at the extreme peaks and valleys of the data. In the dorm rooms, the instantaneous and past perceptions were generally slightly cool or neutral, with the occupants typically wearing jeans and a long sleeve shirt. The dorm rooms did not have a consistent temperature or relative humidity level. Dorm room 3 especially shows this fluctuation, as its thermostat was left at the constant temperature of 73 degrees, yet the measured temperatures greatly deviated from this. The lowest temperature measured (65 degrees) combined with the average relative humidity, air speed (negligible), and MRT (negligible), does not fall within the ASHRAE standard (Figure 2) for thermal comfort. However, the average temperature of 71 degrees barely meets minimum requirements for thermal comfort. This quantitative data correlates to the occupants' perceptions of feeling slightly cool, established in the surveys.

The exterior temperature seems to have a direct relationship to the dorm room temperature and relative humidity. On 11/5 and 11/10, the outdoor air temperature decreased lower than the average, which is reflected by a drop in both dorm room temperature and relative humidity. The repetitious pattern associated with dorm room 3 from 11/3 to 11/6 may also support the relation to exterior conditions, with the possible fluctuations aligned with solar gain due to the room's east orientation, as the peaks and valleys align with the time the sun would be shining on the room. For each of the spaces, the interior dry bulb temperature appears to drop most on the two coldest days of 11/5 and 11/10, with fluctuations acknowledging the decreased exterior nighttime temperatures. This could imply that the colder exterior temperature is breaking the envelope of the building, and with wall and window surface temperature deviation relatively minimal, the thermal bridge could occur in elements such as the fresh-air ventilation system or through windows left open in the building.

In the halls, most occupants wore jeans and long sleeve shirts or sweatshirts, were walking, and generally felt slightly cool or sometimes neutral (instantaneous and past perception). With a very consistent temperature in the spaces of 71 degrees, clo level of 1.0, and average relative humidity of 35-40 percent, the conditions of the space are just within the thermal comfort zone.

The exercise room presents a different clo and met situation. The occupants typically wore shorts and a t-shirt or long sleeve shirt, and they felt either neutral or slightly warm in both instantaneous and past perceptions. For example, one individual considered the exercise room to be cold, however, this could be because the individual had not yet exercised and each of the other survey responses were given by individuals after exercising. Due to a much higher met level caused by exercise, the temperature range that would imply thermal comfort for the individual is lower than standard conditions that do not involve activity. Additionally, the temperature data for the exercise room indicates steep drops in the late evening and nighttime hours. It was observed that a window was left open multiple times within the data collection period, which may be the cause of the decreases in temperature.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">CONCLUSIONS
Based on the quantitative measurements and qualitative surveys, the spaces in Kinghorn Hall were found to be designed effectively to allow thermal comfort. These findings disprove our hypothesis, and justify the building's pursuit of LEED credits in IEQ Credit 7.1: Thermal Comfort - Design. However, analysis showed that each was barely within the bounds of thermal comfort. The study revealed occasional outlier data, which can be explained by non-measured observed conditions or patterns. Overall, occupants commonly felt slightly cool in each space other than the exercise room, where they felt slightly warm. Additionally, not all occupants found the spaces to be thermally comfortable, which underscores the disparity between personal perception and quantifiable data. Because the dorm rooms are occupant adjusted, there should be no reason these spaces could not be thermally comfortable relative to the occupants' preferences. Although Kinghorn Hall holistically achieves thermal comfort, there are still variations in personal opinion that occur.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">REFERENCES
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">"ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010." Journal of Indoor Environmental Quality. Journal of Indoor Environmental Quality, 10 Dec. 2010. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://blogs.healthyheating.com/2010/12/ansiashrae-standard-55-2010-thermal-environmental-conditions-for-human-occupancy.html>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Grondzik, Walter, Alison Kwok, Benjamin Stein, and John Reynolds. //Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings//. 11th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2010.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">"New Construction and Major Renovations." //U.S. Green Building Council//. U.S. Green Building Council, 1 Aug. 2011. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">"Thomas J. Kinghorn Hall - Ball State University." CSO Architects. CSO Architects. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://csoinc.net/?q=portfolio/thomas-j-kinghorn-hall-ball-state-university>.