In naturally ventilated buildings t

In naturally ventilated buildings the thermal comfort of the
occupants is brought about by active intervention of the occupants
themselves. There is not such things as set point as the comfort
level ofthe occupants is dictated by the occupants themselves, or by
“changing the conditions to accord with comfort and changing comfort
temperature to accord with the prevailing conditions” [3]. No temperature
or any other comfort-related sensors connected to a control
unit are installed to restrict or allow the occupants to open window
to allow for a breeze or storm to enter their room. All is left
to the occupants themselves. As a guide to the building designers
(for instance, to size the window, screens, etc.), however, a chart or
standard for naturally ventilated building is required. The critical
question is: do we really need a separate approach for establishing
a standard or comfort chart for this type of buildings? Cannot the
heat balance approach be applied for such a task as demonstrated in
the latest Standard 55-2010 [11] where acceptable range for operative
temperature for elevated high speeds can be established? Can
the adaptive approach handle such a task while itignores this factor
in its fundamental equation?
The adaptive comfort approach may take credit for widening
the range of acceptable comfort temperature, which makes it possible
to claim more energy savings in buildings designed using this
approach than those design using ‘chamber’ approach. However,
in the long run, this may prove unsustainable. Early results from
adopting the adaptive approach to the design of a number of buildings
have found that green buildings are ‘much colder’ in winter
and ‘much warmer’ in summer [56]. This is not to be expected if
one recall adaptive approach’s claim that the building occupants
actually can tolerate much wider temperature range than that permitted
by Fanger’s PMV/PPD formulation. ‘Much colder’ and ‘much
warmer’ sensations fall just on the boundary between ‘acceptable’
and ‘unacceptable’ before they cross to ‘too cold’ and ‘too hot’ sensations.

Hasil (Inggris) 1:

In naturally ventilated buildings the thermal comfort of theoccupants is brought about by the active intervention of the occupantsaddiction themselves. There is not such things as set point as the comfortlevel ofthe occupants is dictated by the occupants themselves, or by"changing the conditions to accord with comfort and changing comforthue to accord with the prevailing conditions "[3]. No hueor any other comfort-related sensors connected to a controlunits are installed to restrict or allow the occupants to open Windowsto allow for a breeze or storm to enter their room. All is leftto the occupants themselves. As a guide to the building designers(for instance, to size the window, screens, etc.), however, a chart orstandard for naturally ventilated building is required. The criticalquestion is: do we really need a separate approach for establishinga standard or comfort chart for this type of buildings? Can not theheat balance approach be applied for such a simple task as demonstrated inthe latest Standard 55-2010 [11] where acceptable range for the co-operativehue for elevated guideways in high speeds can be was? Canthe adaptive approach handle such a task while itignores this factorin its fundamental equation?The adaptive comfort approach may take credit for wideningthe range of acceptable comfort hue, which makes it possibleto claim more energy savings in buildings designed using thisapproach than those design using ' chamber ' approach. However,in the long run, this may prove unsustainable. Early results fromadopting the adaptive approach to the design of a number of buildingshave found that green buildings are ' much colder ' in winterand ' much warmer ' in summer [56]. This is not to be development ifone recall adaptive approach's claim that the building occupantsactually can tolerate much wider than that permitted hue rangeby Fanger's PMV/PPD formulation. ' Much ' and ' much colderwarmer ' sensations fall just on the boundary between ' acceptable 'and ' unacceptable ' before they cross to ' too cold ' and ' too hot ' sensations.

Hasil (Inggris) 2:

In naturally ventilated buildings the thermal comfort of the
occupants is brought about by the active intervention of the occupants
themselves. There is not such things as the set point as the comfort
level ofthe occupants is dictated by the occupants themselves, or by
"changing the conditions to accord with comfort and changing comfort
temperature to accord with the prevailing conditions" [3]. No temperature
or any other comfort-related sensors connected to a control
unit are installed to restrict or allow the occupants to open the window
to allow for a breeze or storm to enter their room. All is left
to the occupants themselves. As a guide to the building designers
(for instance, to size the window, screens, etc.), however, a chart or
standard for naturally ventilated building is required. The critical
question is: do we really need a separate approach for establishing
a standard or comfort chart for this type of buildings? Can not the
heat balance approach be applied for such a task as demonstrated in
the latest Standard 55-2010 [11] where the acceptable range for operative
temperature for elevated high speeds can be established? Can
the adaptive approach handle such a task while itignores this factor
in its fundamental equation?
The adaptive comfort approach may take credit for widening
the range of acceptable comfort temperature, which makes it possible
to claim more energy savings in buildings designed using this
approach than those design using 'chamber' approach. However,
in the long run, this may prove unsustainable. Early results from
adopting the adaptive approach to the design of a number of buildings
have found that green buildings are 'much colder' in winter
and 'much warmer' in summer [56]. This is not to be expected if
one recall adaptive approach's claim that the building occupants
actually can tolerate much wider temperature range than that permitted
by Fanger's PMV / PPD formulation. 'Much colder' and 'much
warmer' sensations fall just on the boundary between 'acceptable'
and 'unacceptable' before they cross to 'too cold' and 'too hot' sensations.