Research on sustainable acclimatization of entertainment rooms.

J. Gaspar (1), B. Soares (2), M. Fontul (3), S. Pinto (4)

(1)
Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Área Científica de
Projecto Mecânico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
+351 218417795, jose.gaspar@ist.utl.pt
(4)
Schako Climatização e Refrigeração Lda, Avenida Conselheiro Fernando Sousa, nº 19, 5º
sala 16, 1070-072 Campolide Lisboa, Portugal.

1. Introduction - thermal comfort is defined as the state of mind that expresses satisfaction regarding the
surrounding environment [1], and is affected by heat conduction, convection, radiation, and evaporative
heat loss. However, satisfaction is also affected by the IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) [2], defined as an
indicator of the concentration of harmful air contaminants that affect health. The most cost effective way
to obtain acceptable IAQ is to dilute indoor air, with a high concentration of contaminants, with outdoor
air [3], using information sent by CO2 sensors to the ventilation control, known as DCV-CO2 (based
demand controlled ventilation) [4]. This system is capable of savings of up to 30% [5] compared to a time
based constant volume ventilation control. However, DCV is not completely reliable [3], because CO2
sensors require a quasi-steady state to accurately give information, a process that may take several hours,
slowing its reaction time, although some methods have been proposed [6] to overcome this issue. Our
goal is to improve this system by using occupancy information given from theatre ticketing systems, but
its impact on thermal comfort must first be analyzed. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to
analyse the variation of thermal comfort in a public entertainment room according to its occupancy rate.
This study is the first step of a series of tasks, which will contribute to the development of better
sustainable air conditioning systems, better thermal comfort, indoor air quality and energy efficiency.

2. Experimental - the laboratorial tests were developed on a segmented four seat stand model (figure 1,
left), with the same geometry and ventilation approach of the theatre rooms, i.e., displacement ventilation
system at constant air volume. The stand is an empty box (plenum) that receives the fresh airflow from an
AHU (Air Handling Unit) and delivers it to each seat, at the step level, through sets of five rotational
diffuser elements. The fresh airflow was calculated by multiplying the number of occupants by the
airflow (30 m3 / h / person) required for an effective removal of air contaminants produced by each
occupant, at rest and in a theatre room (RSECE, Dec. Lei 79/2006). The occupants were simulated with
“dummies” (figure 1, left), having each one an electrical device that heated the air at the same rate as
humans at rest (100W). The fresh airflow and room temperatures were set respectively to 18 and 24 ºC,
i.e., a temperature differential of about 6ºC.

Figure 1. Test stand: left) stand model with “dummies” (1 to 4), right) measurement layout, data logger,
and heat-wire anemometer and thermocouple sensors (1 to 4).
Four hot-wire anemometer and thermocouple sensors were mounted on a mobile platform to measure the
air velocity and temperature on the front and rear seat rows (figure 1, right). The measurements were
recorded with a sampling rate of 0.5 seconds, during a period of 120 seconds. Two air velocities were
measured, V85 and V50, defined respectively as air velocities not exceeded by 85% and 50% of the
measurements recorded during the sampling period. V85 is considered approximately the maximum air
velocity, Vmax.

The stand occupancy variation was simulated during four test situations: 1) full occupation – 4
“dummies” and 120 m3/h of total airflow, 2) 3/4 occupation – “dummy” 1 was removed and total airflow
was reduced to 90 m3/h, 3) half occupation – “dummy 2” was removed and total airflow was reduced to
60 m3/h, and 4) 1/4 occupation – “dummy” 3 was removed and total airflow was reduced to 30 m3/h. The
tests were done by SCHAKO personnel at their laboratory, and using their equipment.

The data was organized according to the occupation rate and measurement location. It was analysed by
calculating the air temperature and velocity differentials between the front and rear seat rows, and left and
right seat rows. The absolute values of temperature and air velocity at each seat were also analysed.

3. Results and Discussion - the equations used to calculate the air temperature and velocity differentials
between the front (f) and rear (r) seat rows were: ∆T = [(T1f + T2f + T3f + T4f) – (T1r + T2r + T3r + T4r)] / 4,
∆V50 = [(V501f + V502f + V503f + V504f) – (V501r + V502r + V503r + V504r)] / 4 and ∆Vmax = [(Vmax1f +
Vmax2f + Vmaxf + Vmax4f) – (Vmax1r + Vmax2r + Vmax3r + Vmax4r)] / 4. The variables in brackets
represent the measurements took by the four sensors (see figure 1, sensors 1 to 4) at the front (f) and rear
seat rows (r).

The results are presented in figure 2. As the left plot shows, the air temperature differential diminishes
with reduced stand occupancies. This can be interpreted as the homogenization of the air temperature
across the space (from rear to the front seats), as a result of the reduction of the heating sources. However,
the air velocity differentials ∆V50 and ∆Vmax (figure 2, right plot), have the opposite behaviour, by
increasing with reduced occupancies. The first tends to be neutral down to half occupancy and positive
from then on, showing a shift in the behaviour of the airflow, from lower to higher air velocities at the
front seats, i.e. velocity gain with decreasing occupancy. The second follows this behaviour.

Figure 2. Occupancy impact on: left) ∆T, right) ∆V50 and ∆Vmax. The dotted lines are polynomial
regressions.

These first results were refined by studying the behaviour of the air temperature and velocity across the
transversal section of the stand model, i.e., from the left to the right seat rows. The equations used to
calculate the air temperature and velocity differentials between the right and left seat rows were: ∆Tright =
[(T3f + T4f) – (T3r + T4r)] / 2, ∆Tleft = [(T1f + T2f) – (T1r + T2r)] / 2; ∆V50right = [(V503f + V504f) – (V503r +
V504r)] / 2, ∆V50left = [(V501f + V502f) – (V501r + V502r)] / 2; ∆Vmaxright = [(Vmax3f + Vmax4f) – (Vmax3r
+ Vmax4r)] / 2 and ∆Vmaxleft = [(Vmax1f + Vmax2f) – (Vmax1r + Vmax2r)].

The results are presented in figure 3. As the figure shows at the top plot, the temperature homogenization
is not equal for the left and right parts of the stand model, a fact that can be related to the unequal
distribution of heating sources (dummies) across the stand. For example, at half (2/4) occupancy, only the
right part of the stand had heating devices, and as a result it had the greatest temperature differential.
Unlike in the first results, only the ∆V50 and ∆Vmax of the left part of the stand model have an opposite
behaviour to the temperature homogenization (figure 3 lower plots left and right), and the effect increases
exponentially at 1/4 of occupancy. The cause for this behaviour is found on the test program, where the
first two “dummies” were removed from the left part of the stand. Therefore, the gain of air velocity with
reduced occupancies that was found in the first analysis occurred mainly on the left part of the stand
model.

Figure 3. Transversal analysis of the stand model. Top) ∆T, left ∆Vmax, right) ∆V50. The dotted lines
are polynomial regressions.

Finally a third analysis was performed, seat by seat, to reinforce the results of this research. The equations
used to calculate the air temperature and velocities in each seat were (the number of each seat is shown in
figure 1, left): Tseat1 = (T1r + T2r) / 2, Tseat2 = (T1f + T2f) / 2, Tseat3 = (T3r + T4r) / 2, Tseat4 = (T3f + T4f) / 2;
V50seat1 = (V501r + V502r) / 2, V50seat2 = (V501f + V502f) / 2, V50seat3 = (V503r + V504r) / 2, V50seat4 =
(V503f + V504f) / 2; Vmaxseat1 = (Vmax1r + Vmax2r) / 2, Vmaxseat2 = (Vmax1f + Vmax2f) / 2, Vmaxseat3 =
(Vmax3r + Vmax4r) / 2, Vmaxseat4 = (Vmax3f + Vmax4f) / 2.

The results are presented in figure 4, next page. The seat located at the front and left of the stand model
had always the lowest temperatures (see top plot, figure 4) and the most increased rates of air velocity
(see lower plots, figure 4). Consequently, this seat is the worst seat concerning thermal comfort.
 Figure 4. Occupancy local impact on: top) air temperature T, left) Vmax, right) V50.

The main result of this research is that there is a gain in air velocity at the stand downstream which
increases with a decreasing occupancy rate. The more the number of seats unoccupied in the same
direction, the greater the deterioration of the comfort conditions, due to the increasing downstream air
current that interferes with the air supplied underneath the seats. This undesired effect is comparable to a
cascade of fresh air. The analysis also shows that with a reduction of occupancy the temperature at the leg
level decreases. The combination of these effects increases the feeling of discomfort.

4. Conclusions – the development of our idea [7] [8] [9] will hopefully help reduce the undesirable
effects of occupancy variations on thermal comfort, because with reliable information given from the
ticketing system, the airflow can be regulated according to the occupancy, diminishing the thermal load
on the users. The minimization of the discomfort is also achieved with increased efficiency, without
affecting IAQ. Therefore, we expect to do more tests in the future, to compare the outcomes of this
solution with the presented results, and to develop and test air diffusers to cope with it.

5. References

[1] Chen, S. and Demster, S., “Variable Air Volume Systems for Environmental Quality”, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1995.
[2] ASHRAE Applications Handbook, ASHRAE, 1999.
[3] Wang, S., “Handbook of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration”, McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[4] Emmerich, J. and Persily, K., “Literature review on CO2-Based Demanded-Controlled Ventilation”,
ASHRAE Transactions, (1997) pp 229-243.
[5] Carpenter, S., “Energy and IAQ impacts of CO2-Based Demand-Controlled Ventilation”, ASHRAE
Transactions, 102 (2), (1996) pp 80-88.
[6] Elovitz, M., “Minimum Outside Air Ventilation in VAV Systems”, Eng. Systems, 3, (1997), pp 44-50.
[7] Gaspar, J. and Frade V., “The Concept of Active Distribution of Air Conditioning”, Revista
Climatização, May 2006.
[8] Salvador A. and Gaspar J., “Cooperation between Siemens and University”. Revista Diálogo,
Siemens, May, 2006.
[9] Gaspar, J., Bruno, S. and Silva, A., “Creativity Templates in Engineering Design”, Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Integrity, Reliability and Failure, Porto, 2009.