Nov. 2012, Volume 6, No. 11 (Serial No. 60), pp.

14921503
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, ISSN 1934-7359, USA

DAVID

PUBLISHING

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and

Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City
Anisha Noori Kakon1 and Nobuo Mishima2
1. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh
2. Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan
Abstract: The urban microclimate has direct implications with regards to thermal comfort indoors as well as outdoors. In the tropics,
the outdoor thermal comfort conditions during daytime are often far above acceptable comfort standards due to intense solar radiation
and high solar elevations. This study aims to know effects of simple and fundamental building forms on microclimate and outdoor
thermal comfort in a high dense tropical city, focusing on Dhaka, Bangladesh as a study city. Investigations are carried out on existing
area and model areas with modified building forms (in respect of height and shape) on the microclimate as well as on outdoor thermal
comfort during daytime in summer. This study has demonstrated that the model using less ground coverage and higher buildings can
offer a better thermal climate than the models using maximum ground coverage in a high-density tropical city.
Key words: Building form, thermal comfort, tropical city, three-dimensional microclimate model, PET (physiological equivalent
temperature).

1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization in the tropics has brought in its
wake many hitherto changes to the physical
environment of the cities. Many of these changes are
well studied by researches in diverse fields such as
agriculture, medicine and engineering. However, the
integration of climate dimension in the planning and
design process has received little attention. The
environmental factors that characterize a climate such
as radiation, temperature, wind speed, relative
humidity, precipitation, and cloudiness are affected by
the three-dimensional characteristics of urban forms
and surface materials [1]. The important urban design
elements that affect the urban microclimate are the size
of the city, orientation and width of streets, density of
the built-up area, height of the buildings, and the
presence of parks and other green areas [2]. Therefore,
it is possible to modify the urban climate through the
physical restructuring of a city and appropriate urban

Corresponding author: Nobuo Mishima, PhD, associate

professor, research fields: urban design and architecture,
E-mail: mishiman@cc.saga-u.ac.jp.

policies. Building form (especially the shape and

height of buildings) is an independent design feature
that can affect urban climate in many ways. Studies in
Pune, India, showed that the unplanned increase in
building heights increases the discomfort level in the
city [3]. However, in the case of Colombo, Sri Lanka, it
was found that the wide streets with low-rise buildings
and no shade trees made the outdoor conditions worse,
and the most comfortable conditions were found in
narrow streets with tall buildings, especially if shade
trees were present [4]. In addition, it was found that a
very deep street canyon had considerably lower air
temperature than a shallow street canyon [5]. However,
most of these studies were conducted for the existing
cases only.
The urban microclimate has direct implications with
regards to thermal comfort indoors as well as outdoors.
Increased thermal stress leads to loss of efficiency and
productivity, and has been identified as one of the
causes of decrease in life expectancy in urban areas in
comparison to the rural areas [6]. In the tropics, the
outdoor thermal comfort conditions during daytime are
often far above acceptable comfort standards due to

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

intense solar radiation and high solar elevations [7].

Thus, the ability to moderate outdoor thermal stress
conditions would certainly benefit the users of urban
outdoor space as well as indoor conditions.
This study aims to know effects of simple and
fundamental building forms on microclimate and
outdoor thermal comfort in a high dense tropical city.

2. Method of Study
2.1 Study Area
Present research is focusing on Dhaka, Bangladesh,
a location in South Asia within the tropical monsoon
climate zone, as a study city. Presently, in Dhaka city,
increasing the heights of buildings is commonly
adopted to cope with the rapid urbanization. Moreover,
heat stress in summer is a growing environmental
concern for Dhaka city. Thus, there is an urgent need to
evaluate the effects of different building forms on the
thermal climate in the city. Dhaka is a fast growing
mega city in the world. Approximately 12.3 million
people live in the metropolitan area, resulting in a high
density of about 23,029 persons per square kilometer
[8]. To accommodate this large population, the city is
growing both horizontally and vertically. This study is
based on a locality namely Dhanmondi area, which is
one of the first planned residential communities in the
city. However, gradual invasion of non-residential uses
has drastically affected the quality and changed the
character of this area. The study area is shown in Fig. 1
and marked by the dotted line. The selected area is a

Fig. 1

Study area in Dhanmondi, Dhaka.

1493

well-known commercial zone located along both the

sides of a busiest street of 22 m wide with pedestrian
ways. Up to 2006, the height of buildings was limited
to 6-storied in this area and thus most of the buildings
are within 6-storied. The orientation of this canyon is
60 NE-SW.
2.2 Investigation
Investigations are carried out on existing area and
model areas with modified building forms (in respect
of height and shape) on the microclimate as well as on
outdoor thermal comfort during daytime in summer.
This study was carried out for hot and dry summer
conditions (March-May). During this season, the solar
radiation on horizontal surface is high with comparison
to the rest of the year, and the maximum occurs in April
(5.75 kWh/m2/day). The relative humidity in this
period is about 40%, and the near-ground wind speed is
about 2.0 m/s, with slight variation during the daytime
[9].
The microclimate was evaluated based on solar
radiation, air temperature Ta, mean radiant temperature
Tmrt, and wind velocity vs. To access the outdoor
thermal comfort, the PET (physiological equivalent
temperature) is considered. The thermal microclimatic
parameters and the outdoor thermal comfort are
compared between the existing and model areas.

3. Modification of Building Form: Model

Areas
From April 2006, Dhaka city had a new Building
rule Dhaka Metropolitan Area Building
Construction Rules 2006 which was implemented after
Jan. 31, 2007 [10]. As a result, the previous rule
regarding height limitation has been withdrawn
allowing higher buildings in accordance to these rules.
According to this rule, the building height in number of
stories will be assigned by the FAR (floor-area-ratio)
corresponding to the plot size and land use. In this
study, the building forms are modified according to the
rules of site setback, ground coverage, FAR and so on.

1494

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

The layout of the existing area is shown in Fig. 2. Apart

from the existing case, three models are considered
using three different building forms shown in Fig. 3.
However, the following things are considered while
modifying the building forms:
The building volume on each plot is same for the
three models;
The maximum allowable building volume on
each plot is estimated by the maximum FAR. FAR of
3.25, 3.50, 3.75, 4 and 5 are used for plot sizes of
150300 m2, 300500 m2, 500650 m2, 6501,300 m2
and greater than 1,300 m2, respectively;
All buildings are of the same form in a particular
model;
The maximum allowable ground coverage is
60% and 50% for plot sizes of 150650 m2 and
6501,300 m2, respectively;
All the models set aside the mandatory open
space on to the rear side;

Buildings are considered on all the lots. Thus,

there is no vacant plot in the model areas.
The characteristic features of the modified building
forms of the three models are shown in Table 1.
Features of the existing area are shown for reference.
As the building setback is applied in Model 2, the
back part of the building became larger to keep the
volume fixed. However, in Model 3, the reduced
ground coverage increases the building height
compared to the other models.
Fig. 4 shows the SVF (sky view factors) which
represents the percentage of free sky at a specific
location at a height of 1.2 m above ground for the
existing area as well as for the three models.

4. Methodology
4.1 Numerical Modeling
In urban climatology, an extremely limited number
of field studies related to outdoor thermal comfort and
its dependence on urban growth are available due to the
large number of urban variables and processes
Table 1

Features of the modified building forms.

Models
Existing

Pedestrian way: Line 1

Fig. 2

Model 1

Pedestrian way: Line 2

Layout of the existing area.

Model 2

Model 3
Model 1

Existing

Ground
Coverage FAR
Site Setback
As
As existing As existing
existing
Allowable
Allowable Allowable minimum in
maximum maximum the front
and sides
Allowable
Allowable Allowable minimum in
maximum maximum the front
and sides
Allowable
Reduction
minimum in
of 10% of Allowable
the front
allowable maximum
and right
maximum
side

Special
Features
---

--Building
setback on
front after
3-storied
Increased
side distances
between
buildings

6m
3-storied

Model 2
Fig. 3

Model 3

Building forms of existing and model areas.

Existing
SVF = 61.8%
Fig. 4

Model 1
SVF = 34.6%

Model 3
Model 2
SVF = 42.1% SVF = 35.6%

Sky view factors of different model areas.

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

involved. Thus, numerical modeling is more popular

than comprehensive field measurements, because
researchers have greater control over modeling, and it
is more economical with regard to time and resources
[11].
4.2 Modeling of Microclimate
The present microclimate is evaluated by using a
three-dimensional numerical model ENVI-met
(three-dimensional microclimate model) [12, 13] which
simulates the microclimatic changes within urban
environments in a high spatial and temporal resolution.
This model calculates all important meteorological
parameters such as the solar radiation, air temperature,
relative humidity, wind speed, as well as mean radiant
temperature and so on. Mean radiant temperature is the
key variable in evaluating thermal sensation outdoors
during the daylight hours in summer. It has been
confirmed that human comfort indexes such as PMV
(predicted mean vote) and PET are strongly dependent
on Tmrt [14]. The equations for the calculation of Tmrt in
ENVI-met are given in Ref. [15]). The basic input
parameters for simulation are shown in Table 2.
Further, the results of air temperature in the present
existing area obtained from the field measurements and
numerical simulation show good agreement which was
shown in previous studies [15, 16].
4.3 Modeling of Thermal Comfort
The thermal comfort is accessed by the PET, which
is an up-to-date thermal index [17]. It is based on the
MEMI model (Munich energy balance model for
individuals) [18]. PET is defined as the air temperature
at which, in a typical indoor setting (air temperature =
mean radiant temperature, relative humidity = 50%,
wind speed = 0.1 m/s), the heat budget of the human
body is balanced with the same core and skin
temperature as those under complex outdoor
conditions. Thus, PET enables a person to compare the
integral effects of complex thermal conditions outside
with his or her own experience indoor [17]. PET has

Table 2

1495

Basic input parameters for simulation.

Dhaka, Bangladesh, 23.24N,

90.23E, 8.8 m asl
Simulation day
Typical summer day, 18th April
Simulation duration
From 6:00 to 22:00 LST (16 h)
Spatial resolution
160 88 25, grid size 2 2 3
Wind speed and direction 2.0 m/sec from 180 (south)
Initial atmosphere
20C (293 K)
temperature
Relative humidity
40%
Walls: 1.7 W/m2K,
Heat transmission
Roofs: 2.2 W/m2K
Albedo
Walls: 0.3, Roofs: 0.15

Location

been employed as a bioclimatic index in several

studies of outdoor thermal comfort [1921].
In the present study, PET is evaluated by the recent
model, RayMan [22] (developed in the Meteorological
Institute, University of Freiburg) due to its availability
and ease of applications. The validity and versatility of
the RayMan model are confirmed by several recent
researches [2124]. For the calculation of PET, the
simulated values (from ENVI-met) of meteorological
parameters such as air temperature Ta, mean radiant
temperature Tmrt, RH (relative humidity) and wind
velocity vs are used. In addition, the thermophysiological parameters such as heat resistance of
clothing (clo units) of 0.5 clo and activity of humans
while walking of 200 watt are considered in present
RayMan model.

5. Results and Discussions

5.1 Microclimate Analysis
The microclimate is investigated mostly on the
pedestrian ways (Lines 1 and 2 as shown in Fig. 2)
since the assessment of thermal comfort at these
positions is most important for the pedestrians. 20
points at a distance of 10 m are taken along the
pedestrian ways. Further, results will be shown at the
middle of the canyon at point m shown in Fig. 2.
Parameters are evaluated at a height of 1.2 m above
ground as this height is representative for the comfort
assessment for a standing person.
5.1.1 Solar Radiation

1496

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

The direct S and diffuse D components of the hourly

mean short-wave radiation at point m (shown in Fig.
2) are presented in Fig. 5 for the existing area together
with the three models. Since the global radiation (G) is
the sum of S and D, the value of G is mostly affected by
the direct solar radiation S because of the tropical
location and clear sky conditions. The relation between
solar radiation and SVF is previously analyzed and it
was found that the higher the SVF the larger solar
radiation can reach in urban canyon [25]. Therefore S
decreases as SVF decreases in the models. The average
S values are 657.3 W/m2, 496.9 W/m2, 533.8 W/m2 and
387.0 W/m2 in the existing area, Model 1, Model 2 and
Model 3, respectively. It is noticeable that although the
SVF of Model 1 and Model 3 is very close, S is lower in
Model 3 than in Model 1. This is due to the duration of
sunshine hours at point m in Model 3 is lowest 4.5
hours (10:30-15:00 LST) while this duration is 6 hours
(9:30-15:30 LST) in Model 1. Since the day of
simulation is a clear sky day, the diffuse radiation D is
very low (< 95 W/m2) in all the cases. The maximum
value of D is found at 12:00 LST. D decreases in the
models than the existing case. However, D is highest in
Model 2 comparing the other models. Adding the S and
D components, it can be observed that global radiation,
G is highest at 12:00 LST in all the models because of
the effect of the position of the sun (75.9 for Dhaka),
which in this month is highest at this time. It is found
that in the existing case, the average global radiation G
is 729.9 W/m2. However, the average G values are
549.7 W/m2, 593.2 W/m2 and 436.9 W/m2 in Models 1,
2 and 3.
5.1.2 Air Temperature
Figs. 68 illustrate the distribution of Ta at the points
on pedestrian way along Lines 1 and 2 at 9:00 LST,
12:00 LST and 15:00 LST, respectively. At 9:00 LST
and along Line 1 (Fig. 6a), Ta decreases in almost all
the points in Models 1, 2 and 3 comparing with the
existing case. The lowest Ta at this time is found in
Model 3 and the highest difference in Ta is found about
1.16C to that from the existing case. Furthermore, Ta

distributes non-uniformly for all the cases. However,

all points average value shows that Ta decreases to
0.33C, 0.15C and 0.90C for Models 1, 2 and 3,
respectively from the existing case. On the other side of
pedestrian way along Line 2 at 9:00 LST (Fig. 6b), Ta
increases all through the way in Model 2 than the
existing case. This is due to setback of building that
reduces the building height in the front resulting more
direct solar radiation in this model. However, Ta
decreases almost all the points in Model 3 as the
buildings are the tallest from the other models. In this
case, the maximum decrease in Ta at a particular point
is 0.9C and the point average decrease is 0.6C.
Further, in Model 1, Ta decreases to some extent in
some parts on the way while it increases in other parts.
At 12:00 LST (Fig. 7), Ta is lower in all the models
than the existing case on both the sides of pedestrian
way. As in this time the sun is in its highest position
and there is no shading effect during this time, the
distribution pattern of Ta is very similar along both the
sides of the pedestrian ways. Along Line 1 (Fig. 7a),
considering the point average value, Ta decreases to
Existing
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

850
800
750
700
650
600
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Existing
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

100
80
60
40
20
0
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Fig. 5 Direct (S) and diffuse (D) radiation fluxes received

at 1.2 m above ground.

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

Mean radiant temperature, Tmrt is the most important

parameter governing human energy balance, especially
on hot sunny days. Figs. 911 show the distribution of
Tmrt along Lines 1 and 2 at 9:00 LST, 12:00 LST and
15:00 LST, respectively. The effect of sun on buildings
is such that at a moment while the one side of
pedestrian way is under shaded condition, the other
side is sunny. It is important to mention that the taller
buildings along one side of the pedestrian way
sometimes create longer shadow which covers the
other side of the pedestrian way. The difference of Tmrt
at a shaded and unshaded point is about 36C. Fig. 9a
shows that at 9:00 LST along Line 1, Tmrt is very high
33

33

32.5

Ta ( C)

33.5

Ta ( C)

0.69, 1.06 and 0.73C in Models 1, 2 and 3,

respectively to that from existing case. On Line 2 (Fig.
7b), these reductions are 0.54, 0.80 and 0.59C in
Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Similar to 12:00 LST, Ta is lower in the models than
the existing case on both the sides of pedestrian way at
15:00 LST as shown in Fig. 8. At this time, on both the
sides Ta is lowest in Model 2. Along Line 1 (Fig. 8a),
the average decreases of Ta are 0.88, 1.49, and
1.04C in Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively to that from
the existing one. Along Line 2 (Fig. 8a), these
reductions are 0.87, 1.54 and 0.97C in Models 1, 2
and 3, respectively.
5.1.3 Mean Radiant Temperature

32.5

40

80

120

x (m)

: E x istin g ,

Fig. 6

32
31.5

32
31.5
0

160

31
0

200

40

80

120

x (m)

: M o d el 2 ,

: M o d el 1 ,

160

200

: M o d el 3

(a)
(b)
Distribution of air temperature Ta for the existing and model areas at 9:00 LST, along: (a) Line 1; (b) Line 2.
37
36.5
o

Ta ( C)

Ta ( C)

37
36.5
36

36
35.5

35.5
35
0

80

120

x (m)

160

41

40

40.5

Ta ( C)

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

39.5

40

40.5

39

39.5
39

38.5

Fig. 8

34.5
0

200

(a)
(b)
Distribution of air temperature Ta for the existing and model areas at 12:00 LST, along: (a) Line 1; (b) Line 2.

Ta ( C)

Fig. 7

35
40

38.5

38

38

37.5
0

37.5
0

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

1497

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

(a)
(b)
Distribution of air temperature Ta for the existing and model areas at 12:00 LST, along: (a) Line 1; (b) Line 2.

1498

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City
70

Tmrt (oC)

Tmrt (oC)

67
66

60
50
40

65

30
64
0

40

80

120

x (m)

160

20
0

200

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

: Existing ,

: M odel 2 ,
: M odel 3
: M odel 1 ,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9 Distirbution of mean radiant temperature Tmrt for the existing and model areas at 9:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and (b)
Line 2.

60

Tmrt ( C)

63

Tmrt ( C)

70

62

50
40
30

61
0

40

80

120

x (m)

160

20
0

200

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

(a)
(b)
Fig. 10 Distirbution of mean radiant temperature Tmrt for the existing and model areas at 12:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and
(b) Line 2.

Tmrt ( C)

70

73

Tmrt ( C)

80

60
50

72

40
30
0

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

71
0

40

80

120

x (m)

160

200

(a)
(b)
Fig. 11 Distirbution of mean radiant temperature Tmrt for the existing and model areas at 15:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and
(b) Line 2.

in the range of 6467C in all the models. Comparing

with the existing case, Tmrt increases to some extent
at most of the points in the Models 1 and 2. The
difference in Tmrt is very small and among these
models the highest average increase is 1.02C in
Model 2. In fact in the morning, Line 1 is under sunny
condition and the other side (Line 2) is under shade.
In Model 3, at some points (8 out of 20) along Line 1,
Tmrt falls down to some extent due to shading from the
buildings of the other side. Along Line 2 (Fig. 9b), in
the existing area Tmrt is very high (6466C) at most
of the points, whereas in the models Tmrt is very low
(2830C). Thus in Models 1, 2 and 3, Tmrt decreases

by upto 36C from the existing case in most of the

parts along Line 2.
Again at 12:00 LST (Fig. 10a) similar to the
previous case Tmrt is high in all models and slightly
higher in the models than in the existing. In this case,
the maximum increase is 1.65C at a particular point in
Model 2. Along Line 2 (Fig. 10b), Tmrt is very high
(6163C) all through the line in existing case and
Model 2. At most of the points of Model 1, Tmrt values
are very close to the existing case. However, in Model
3, Tmrt decreases variably by 2430C at most of the
points.

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

Line 1 at 15:00 LST, is under building shade, thus

Tmrt is lower in this side which is confirmed by Fig.
11a. In the existing case, the building height is lower.
Moreover, most of the buildings are erected
maintaining a larger distance from the road, thus there
is lack of shading resulting in high Tmrt. Again in Model
2, Tmrt is extremely high (the average is 71C). This is
due to building setback which lowers the front height
of the building in this model and allows more solar
radiation. However, in Models 1 and 3, the values of
Tmrt are very close and these are significantly lower
than the existing case. Tmrt decreases by 3437C from
the existing case almost all the points in Models 1 and 3.
Whereas along Line 2 at 15:00 LST (Fig. 11b), Tmrt is
very high (about 7173.2C). Although in the models
Tmrt is lower to some extent at most of the points than
the existing case, these differences are small. However,
the maximum reduction is found in Model 3.
5.1.4 Wind Velocity
The wind direction at this period of the year is not
favorable for this area due to the orientation of the
canyon. Fig. 12 shows the distribution of daytime
average wind velocity vs along Lines 1 and 2. The wind

is more along Line 1 (point average is 0.95 m/s) than

Line 2 (point average is 0.71 m/s). The wind velocity
decreases at most of the points in the models than the
existing case. Again in the existing case at the point in
front of the vacant space (no building), vs is higher.
Apart from the existing case, comparing the models, vs
is higher to some extent in Model 3 along Line 1 at
most parts of the pedestrian way (Fig. 12a). Along this
line the point average vs are 0.80 m/s, 0.70 m/s and 0.85
m/s in Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Along Line 2
(Fig. 12b), vs is increased at some points in Model 3
than the existing case. However, the point average vs
are same in Models 1, 2 and 3 and the value is 0.56 m/s.
5.2 Thermal Comfort Analysis
The distribution of physiological equivalent
temperature, PET along Lines 1 and 2 is shown in Figs.
1315 at 9:00 LST, 12:00 LST and 15:00 LST,
respectively.
PET schemes are basically influenced by Tmrt in
summer days under sunny conditions. Therefore, the
patterns of the diurnal courses of PET and Tmrt are
similar. This is not surprising as Ta, relative humidity
1.5

vs (m/s)

vs (m/s)

1.5

0.5

0
0

Fig. 12

0.5

40

80

120

160

0
0

200

40

80

(m)

120

160

200

(m)

(a)
(b)
Distribution of average wind velocity, vs in the existing and model areas; along (a) Line 1 and (b) Line 2.
55
50
o

PET ( C)

PET ( C)

52
51
50
49

45
40

48

35

47

30

46
0

40

80

: E x istin g ,

120

(m)

160

200

1499

25
0

40

80

120

160

200

(m)

: M o d el 2 ,
: M o d el 3
: M o d el 1 ,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13 Distribution of PET for the existing and model areas at 9:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and (b) Line 2.

1500

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City
55
50

PET ( C)

51

PET ( C)

52

50
49
48
0

45
40
35

40

80

120

160

30
0

200

40

80

120

160

200

(m)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14 Distribution of PET for the existing and model areas at 12:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and (b) Line 2.
(m)

60

65

PET ( C)

55

59

PET ( C)

60

50
45

58
57

40
35
0

40

80

120

160

200

56
0

40

80

120

160

200

(m)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15 Distribution of PET for the Existing and model areas at 15:00 LST; along (a) Line 1 and (b) Line 2.
(m)

and vs vary comparatively much less. In this research,

the thermal sensation and PET ranges are considered
as that of the case of Sun Moon Lake, Taiwan [26].
That region is also characterized by the tropical
climate which closely matches with the present study
area. Table 3 shows the thermal sensation and
corresponding PET ranges.
At 9:00 LST and along Line 1 (Fig. 13a), PET is
high (47.051.8C) showing very hot thermal
sensation. PET is higher in Models 1 and 2 at most of
the points compare to the existing case. In Model 3 at
most of the points, PET is lower than the existing case
with the maximum difference of 3.7C. Alternatively,
at this time along Line 2 (Fig. 15a), PET decrease
significantly by 1621C than the existing case.
Table 3

Thermal sensation and PET Classes.

Thermal sensation

PET (C)

Slightly cool

22 26

Comfortable

26 30

Slightly warm

30 34

Warm

34 38

Hot

38 42

Very hot

> 42

Similarly, at 12:00 LST along Line 1 (Fig. 14a),

PET is high (48.551.5C). Comparing to the existing
case, PET increased to some extent at half portion of
the pedestrian way while at other half, it decreases in
Models 1 and 2.
In Model 3, PET is lower at most of the points (14
out of 20) than the existing case with the maximum
difference of 2.4C. Alternatively along Line 2 at
12:00 LST (Fig. 14b) PET varies within a large range
of 3551C. Here in existing case, PET is high
(>48C) indicating very hot condition all through
the pedestrian way. At this time, PET decreases at
most of the points in Models 1 and 3 than the existing
case. It differs notably by 1017C in most parts of
the way in Model 3 and in some parts of Model 1. For
the case of Model 2, PET is high and the values are
close to the existing case.
Moreover at 15:00 LST along Line 1 (Fig. 15a),
PET is high (> 57C, very hot) at most of the points
in the existing case and also in Model 2. In Models 1
and 3, PET values are within 3840C (hot).
The daytime highest PET values are found along
Line 2 at 15:00 LST (Fig. 15b), where the range of
PET is 56.859.7C for all models which corresponds

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

7
Fig. 16

11

13

15

17

1501

19

Diurnal distribution of thermal sensation in the existing and model areas.

to very hot sensation. In this case, PET decreases

slightly in the models than the existing case although
the point average values are very close for all the
models. Thus it is found here that PET decreases
largely in Model 3 than the existing case along one
side either on Line 1 or Line 2 throughout the day.
While in Model 1, PET decreases considerably in the
morning (along Line 2) and afternoon (along Line 1).
PET values of Model 2 are very close to the existing
case in most of the hours of the day. The most
uncomfortable locations are those exposed to the sun.
Thermal comfort was also assessed at point m
(shown in Fig. 2) and the results are presented in
respect of thermal sensation in Fig. 16. In the existing
case, the duration of very hot (PET > 42C) thermal
sensation is long (8:0016:30 LST) with a total
duration of nine hours. This duration decreased in the
models and these are six hours in Model 1, seven
hours in Model 2, and the lowest 5 hours in Model 3.
Thus comparing all the models the duration of very
hot condition is shortest in Model 3. The average
PET in the very hot condition is also shown in this
figure. A maximum average decrease of 1.9C is
found in case of Model 3 than the existing case.
Furthermore, the durations of comfortable and
slightly warm thermal sensation are only 1 hour in the
existing case, whereas these are 3.5 hours in Model 1, 3
hours in Model 2 and 4.5 hours in Model 3. Therefore
the condition of thermal comfort is best in Model 3

followed by Model 1. Comfort condition is also

improved in Model 2 than the existing situation.
As in the models the wind velocity, vs is not
improved well, thus the improved thermal comfort
condition in these models is mainly due to the shading
effect which causes lower Ta and Tmrt.

6. Conclusions
The important findings of the present study are that:
The global radiation decreases largely in the
models of modified building forms than the existing
case;
Air temperature Ta decreases in the model areas
to that of existing area. However, the decreases are not
uniform throughout the day. At 9:00 LST, Ta
decreases by 0.33C, 0.15C and 0.90C on an
average for cases of Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
At 12:00 LST, Ta decreases by 0.69C, 1.06C and
0.73C for cases of Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Further, Ta decreases by 0.87C, 1.54C and 0.97C
for cases of Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively at 15:00
LST;
Unlike air temperature, mean radiant temperature
(Tmrt) is higher in the model with building setback
(Model 2) as it receives more solar radiation. In the
other two models (Models 1 and 3), mean radiant
temperature decreases considerably at most parts of
the pedestrian ways either one side or the other.
However, the maximum difference is found in the
model with highest building height (Model 3). In this

1502

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

model, Tmrt decreases variably by 2430C at most

parts of the pedestrian way along one side at 12:00
LST. The increased building height of this model
causes the mean radiant temperature to decrease
largely, due to the shading effect. Nevertheless, in a
particular model the difference of mean radiant
temperature at a shaded and unshaded point is up to
36C;
Similar to mean radiant temperature, PET values
also decreased largely in the model with highest
building height (Model 3) either one side or the other
along the pedestrian way all-over the day. In addition,
in Model 1, PET decreases considerably in the
morning (along Line 2) and afternoon (along Line 1)
hours. PET values of Model 2 are very high and close
to the existing case in most hours of the day;
Furthermore, all models of modified building
forms considerably reduce the duration of worst
thermal sensation (very hot condition) to that of
existing case. This worst duration is 9 hours in the
existing case while in Model 3 this duration is found
to be 5 hours which is the minimum among the
models.
This study has demonstrated that the model using
less ground coverage and higher buildings can offer a
better thermal climate than the models using
maximum ground coverage in a high-density tropical
city. Further, the results obtained from this research
can contribute to improve outdoor thermal comfort in
urban environment.

Acknowledgments
We sincerely appreciate the support from Sasagawa
Kagaku Kenkyu Josei in 2009. This manuscript is a
slightly revised version of a paper presented in 11th
International Congress of Asian Planning Schools
Association at Tokyo University from the September
19th21th, 2011.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]

References
[1]

K. S. Ahmed, Approaches to bioclimatic urban design for

the tropics with special reference to Dhaka, Bangladesh.

[16]

Ph.D. Thesis, Environment and Energy Studies Program,

Architectural Association School of Architecture, London,
UK, 1995.
D. Watson, A. Plattus and R. Shibly, Time-Saver
Standards for Urban Design, McGraw-Hill Professional,
New York, 2003.
V. Deosathali, Assessment of impact of urbanization on
climate: An application of bio-climatic index,
Atmospheric Environment 33 (24-25) (1999) 41254133.
E. Johansson and R. Emmanuel, The influence of urban
design on outdoor thermal comfort in the hot, humid city
of Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Journal of
Biometeorology 51 (2) (2006) 119133.
E. Johansson, Influence of urban geometry on outdoor
thermal comfort in a hot dry climate: A study in Fez,
Morocco, Building and Environment 41 (10) (2006)
13261338.
B. Givoni, Climate Considerations in Building and Urban
Design, John Willey and Sons., New York, 1998.
A. F. Toudart and H. Mayer, Effects of asymmetry,
galleries, overhanging faades and vegetation on thermal
comfort in urban street canyons, Solar Energy 81 (2007)
742754.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Pocket Book,
Government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 2007.
Meteorological Department, Climate Division Climate
Data, Dhaka, Government of Peoples Republic of
Bangladesh, 2007.
GOB (Government of Bangladesh), Dhaka Metropolitan
Building Construction Rules 2006, Ministry of Housing
and Public Works, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007.
A. J. Arnfield, Two decades of urban climate research: A
review of turbulence, exchange of energy and water, and
the urban heat island, International Journal of
Climatology 23 (1) (2003) 126.
M. Bruse and H. Fleer, Simulating surface-plant-air
interactions inside urban environments with a
three-dimensional numerical model, Environmental
Modelling Software 13 (4) (1998) 373384.
M. Bruse, ENVI-met Homepage, available online at:
http://www.envi-met.com/ (accessed Sep. 11, 2008)
A. Matzarakis, H. Mayer and F. Rutz, Radiation and
thermal comfort, in: Proceedings of 6th Hellenic
Conference
in
Meteorology,
Climatology
and
Atmospheric Physics, Greece, 2002, pp. 738744.
A. N. Kakon and N. Mishima, An evaluation of
increasing building height in respect of thermal climate in
a high density city in South Asia using numerical
modeling, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering 8 (2) (2009) 401406.
A. N. Kakon, N. Mishima and S. Kojima, Simulation of
the urban thermal comfort in a high density tropical city:

The Effects of Building Form on Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in a Tropical City

[17]

[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]

Analysis of the proposed urban construction rules for

Dhaka,
Bangladesh,
Building
Simulation:
An
International Journal 2 (4) (2009) 291305.
P. Hppe, The physiological equivalent temperature A
universal index for the biometeorological assessment of
the thermal environment, International Journal of
Biometeorology 43 (1999) 7175.
P. Hppe, Heat balance modeling, Cellular and Molecular
Life Sciences 49 (1993) 741746.
S. Thorsson, T. Honjo, F. Lindberg, I. Eliasson and E. M.
Lim, Thermal comfort and outdoor activity in Japanese
urban public places, Environment and Behavior 39 (2007)
660684.
S. Oliveira and H. Andrade, An initial assessment of the
bioclimatic comfort in an outdoor public space in Lisbon,
Journal of Biometeorology 52 (2007) 6984.
T. P. Lin, A. Matzarakis and R. L. Hwang, Shading effect
on long-term outdoor thermal comfort, Building and
Environment 45 (2010) 213221.

1503

[22] RayManLink,
available
online
at:
http://www.mif.uni-freiburg.de/rayman/intro.htm.
[23] A. Matzarakis, F. Rutz and H. Mayer, Modelling
radiation fluxes in simple and complex environments:
Basics of the RayMan model, International Journal of
Biometeorology 54 (2010) 131139.
[24] H. Farajzadeh and A. Matzarakis, Climate potential for
tourism in northwest of Iran, Meteorological Applications
16 (2009) 545555.
[25] A. N. Kakon and N. Mishima, The sky view factor effect
on the microclimate of a city environment: A case study
of Dhaka city, in: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Urban Climate, Yokohama, Japan, 2009.
(CD-ROM)
[26] T. P. Lin and A. Matzarakis, Tourism climate and thermal
comfort in Sun Moon Lake, Taiwan, International Journal
of Biometeorology 52 (2008) 281290.