Thermal Comfort Performance of Existing Perforated Solar Screens Across Different Façade Orientations: A Field-Based Study

Fatma Zoroglu; Elif Başdoğan; Aylin Yalnız; Doğa Öngener; Yagmur Haydaroglu; Ceren Zoroğlu

doi:10.38027/mediterranean-cities_vol6no1_7

Authors

Fatma Zoroglu Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Design, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, Adana, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5096-6063
Elif Başdoğan Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6334-3174
Aylin Yalnız Independent Researcher, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8535-7866
Doğa Öngener Independent Researcher, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7870-8820
Yagmur Haydaroglu Independent Researcher, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3624-284X
Ceren Zoroğlu Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5198-780X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38027/mediterranean-cities_vol6no1_7

Keywords:

Thermal Comfort, Perforated Solar Screens, Façade Orientation, PMV, University Building

Abstract

This study investigates the thermal comfort performance of perforated solar screens in educational and office buildings on university campuses, focusing on façade orientation. Although the performance of shading devices has been widely investigated through simulation-based studies, field-based evidence evaluating their thermal comfort performance under real operating conditions remains limited. To address this gap, classrooms and offices oriented along north–south and east–west axes were examined under real operating conditions. Field-based on-site measurements were conducted at representative points, defined according to the seating layout in classrooms and as window-adjacent and interior zones in offices. Thermal comfort was assessed using the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV), derived from on-site measurements, and compared with comfort ranges defined by ISO 7730 and ASHRAE 55. The results indicate orientation-related variations in PMV, particularly in south-oriented offices, where PMV values reached up to +1.16 at window-adjacent zones and frequently exceeded the comfort limits despite the presence of shading devices. In contrast, PMV values in north-oriented spaces generally remained within the recommended comfort range. In south-oriented classrooms, PMV values remained within acceptable limits but were biased toward warm conditions, with the observed conditions also reflecting active cooling and curtain use. Spatial PMV differences within classrooms ranged between 0.05 and 0.15, indicating differences in the spatial distribution of predicted thermal comfort conditions. These findings suggest that identical perforated solar screen configurations may not provide equivalent thermal comfort performance across different façade orientations. The originality of this study lies in its field-based evaluation of perforated solar screens under actual operating conditions. The findings emphasize the need for orientation-sensitive, climate-responsive shading design and provide empirical evidence that can support façade design decisions in educational buildings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Appelfeld, D., McNeil, A., & Svendsen, S. (2012). An hourly-based performance comparison of an integrated micro- structural perforated shading screen with standard shading systems. Energy and Buildings, 50, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.038

ASHRAE. (2017). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55–2017: Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Baker, N., & Steemers, K. (2000). Energy and environment in architecture: A technical design guide. Taylor & Francis.

Chi, D. A., Moreno, D., & Navarro, J. (2017). Design optimisation of perforated solar façades in order to balance daylighting with thermal performance. Building and Environment, 125, 383–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.09.007

de Dear, R., & Brager, G. S. (1998). Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1), 145–167.

Fanger, P. O. (1970). Thermal comfort: Analysis and applications in environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill.

Frontczak, M., & Wargocki, P. (2011). Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment, 46(4), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.021

Givoni, B. (1998). Climate considerations in building and urban design. John Wiley & Sons.

Guo, H., Liu, Y., Ji, Y., & Wang, C. (2020). A review of recent studies on thermal comfort in indoor environments. Energy and Buildings, 218, 110041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110041

ISO. (1998). ISO 7726:1998 Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Instruments for measuring physical quantities. International Organization for Standardization.

ISO. (2005). ISO 7730:2005 Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. International Organization for Standardization.

Kirimtat, A., Koyunbaba, B. K., Chatzikonstantinou, I., & Sariyildiz, S. (2016). Review of simulation modeling for shading devices in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.020

Lavin, C., & Fiorito, F. (2017). Optimization of an external perforated screen for improved daylighting and thermal performance of an office space. Procedia Engineering, 180, 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.216

Lechner, N. (2014). Heating, cooling, lighting: Sustainable design methods for architects (4th ed.). Wiley.

Nicol, F., & Humphreys, M. A. (2002). Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00006-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00006-3

Nicol, F., & Roaf, S. (2017). Rethinking thermal comfort. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1301698

Ochoa, C. E., & Capeluto, I. G. (2008). Strategic decision-making for intelligent buildings: Comparative impact of passive design strategies and shading systems on thermal and visual comfort. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1829–1839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.018

Olesen, B. W., & Parsons, K. C. (2002). Introduction to thermal comfort standards and to the proposed new version of EN ISO 7730. Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00004-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00004-X

Olgyay, V. (1963). Design with climate: Bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism. Princeton University Press.

Olgyay, V. (2015). Design with climate: Bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism (New and expanded ed.). Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77kqb

Straube, J. (2017). Building enclosure fundamentals: A concise introduction. University of Waterloo. https://buildingscienceeducation.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Building-Enclosure-Fundamentals-2017.pdf

Szokolay, S. V. (2014). Introduction to architectural science: The basis of sustainable design (3rd ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852409

Tamrakar, S., Lang, W., & Kralik, M. (2023). Variation of mean radiant temperature in rooms for summer and winter conditions. Energies, 16(15), 5609. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16155609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16155609

Tzempelikos, A., & Athienitis, A. K. (2007). The impact of shading design and control on building cooling and lighting demand. Solar Energy, 81(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.06.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.06.015

Tzempelikos, A., Bessoudo, M., & Athienitis, A. K. (2010). Experimental evaluation of the impact of shading devices on indoor thermal comfort and energy performance near glazing façades. Energy and Buildings, 42(6), 1036–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.01.003

Wargocki, P., & Wyon, D. P. (2017). Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork. Building and Environment, 112, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.020

Zoroğlu, F., Zorer Gedik G., (2022). A Field Study on Thermal Comfort in The Shopping Malls in a Temperate Humid Climate, A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol.19, no.1, pp.103-118. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.5505/itujfa.2022.62582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.62582