Tobacco Documents Online

Progress Report Evdwtion of.V.niiladoo Syat.ms November 19, 1992 APPENDIX C PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Purpose and scope Performance criteria developed In this document will provide guidelines for comparative assessment of a vertical displacement system and a conventional variable air volume system. They include the following: 1. Human response criteria based on the perception of the indoor environment by the occupants. 2. Exposure criteria in terms of thermal and air quality stressors. 3. System performance criteria in terms of the ability of the system to meet the load capacities and its control strategies to maintain specified exposure criteria. 4. Economic performance criteria in terms of energy efficiency andlifecycie costs to maintain specified exposure and systems performance criteria. Rational basis for the establishment of performance criteria The fundamental objective of indoor environmental control is to not only prevent the existence of deleterious conditions, but to provide for the comfort and well-being of the occupants. Performance criteria for this research are therefore based on the conditions expected to occur In 'healthy buiidings'. A healthy building is defined as ".. not just free from building related illness and discomfort but indeed promotes well-being and health. Besides being non-hazardous, the salient features of the healthy building Include thermal comfort, pleasant air quality, illumination and acoustical characteristics, support of social needs and productivity, and distinguished aesthetic quaiities. These features should be maintainable over the building life-time. The ~ occupant should feel confidence in the building and its operation, be able to comprehend the fl systems and design, and be given a fair chance to control the systems" (Bergiund et al. 1991). ba &A a Perfarmarroe cdWia

Progress R.port Cwalu.tion of V.ntiiatbn Syat.ms November 19, 1992 Humans respond to any given environment in two ways: (a) a direct, receptor response or sensory perception of the environment; and (b) an indirect, dose-response relationship which may not be immediately perceived. For establishing this set of performance criteria, we have appiied the ASHRAE definition of acceptable air quality: "Air in which there are no known contaminants at harmfui concentrations as determined by cognizant authorities and with which a substantial majority (80% orr more) of the people exposed do not express dissatisfactlon" (ASHRAE 62-1989). The criteria proposed in this document include, as a minimum, compliance with the above ASHRAE standard. Central to the development of this document is a rational model of the relationship of perceived human response to the environmental systems. Human perception of a given environment, through receptor responses, is triggered by the various exposure parameters (thermal and air quality in this context). The values of exposure parameters result from system performance (HVAC system in this case). The system, in turn, is responding to the imposed thermal and contaminant loads, which may occur in the space or may be introduced from the outdoors. Figure 1 presents this model of the relationship between sources, systems, exposure and human response, and the role of economics in all decisions that impact the selection and operation of building systems. In determining these criteria for evaluation of existing building performance or design of new buildings, a conscious evaluation is made between the desired values of exposure and the costs of obtaining them. A systematic approach to using these criteria is also presented. Performance criteria proposed in this document, are based on this rational relationship. First, human response criteria are selected. Then, exposure criteria, expected to result from the human response criteria, are established. Third, appropriate criteria for system capacity and adequate control strategies are determined to meet the expected thermal and contaminant loads. Finally, economic criteria are determined based on the relationship between system performance, initial costs, operating costs, energy costs, and productivity. Performance Crioeria C2

Primary Factors Sources Irxfoor Sources Oukdoor Sources Contamirwit Loads I Thermal Loads I llluminatbn Loads llcoustic Loads Mitigating Factors Systems Type of Ssrvica System I Spatisl fbsipn I Modilisd Loads lNr Distrihutlon Pattern I Illuminstlon Design I Aeoustb D.sipn 1_control __..stramoss Economics M I Flrst Costs I Opsratinp Costs I Exposure [ I I [ I Thermal Air OuaNty Illuminatbn Acoustfc Erponomic Energy Use I Dependent Factors I I I I I Human Response I Ssnsory I I comfort Aac.ptahiNty I I Complaints end I Productivity Figure 1. Conceptual Model for Establishing Relationship of Human Response to indoor Environmental Factors Performance criteria C3 CUS&sIzuz

program Report Ev.lwuon of v.ntp.tion sysams Novamber 19„ 1992 Recommended values Two sets of values for performance criteria are proposed. The first set corresponds to the best quality of environment that can be attained, given the state-of-the-art technology. At this level occupants will experience maximum acceptability of the environment, and there may be a very minimum level of discomfort The second set of values allow for some lee-way in the quality of the environment obtained, but is still within acceptable ranges and comply with the standards, and have no known adverse health effects. At this level, at least 80% of the occupants are expected to express satisfaction. These two sets of values for performance criteria define the boundaries within which other performance criteria are constrained. Pragmatic considerations, however, suggest that economic justification be provided for all those values that define performance criteria for any desired application. In practice, therefore, we may expect to find that performance criteria for Individual applications are established as some Intermediate values, lying between the two sets, the decision being taken based on economic considerations which too should be determined in advance. Human Resoonse Criteria The acceptability scale developed by Rohles, Woods and Morey (1989) is used as the measure for human response evaluation of the environment. The scale from 1 to 6 corresponds to the range of occupants' perception of the environment from very unacceptable to very acceptable. The users rate the thermal environment for three features: temperature, humidity and air movement. The air quality is rated for: odor, dust and tobacco smoke. Should 800/6 of the occupants rate the environment as 5 or better on the six point scale, the environment is deemed to meet the requirements set up in the ASHRAE standards. For the first level of performance criteria, we may expect a 100% of the occupants to rate the environment as 6. N ~ N N CA ~ ~ ~ rP aerforniarm cmer;e C4

progr.,, p.W Evdu.tion of v.nti.tion sysc«e. November 19, 1992 Exnosure Cnriteria Exposure criteria have also been developed for the thermal environment and indoor air quality, using several standards and guidelines (see references) for the two sets of values of performance criteria. These criteria form the basis for establishing systems performance and economic performance criteria. Table 1 provides the exposure criteria In conjunction with human response criteria at the two performance levels. Thermal criteria Include operative temperature, relative humidity, and air velocity. Air quality criteria include particuiates, CO2, total volatile organic compounds, nicotine, and decipoi. For the thermal environment several standards and guidelines have been published. For these we have made our best estimates of the values. For air quality the information is considerably limited. The primary references for this category are ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Molhave (1990), and Fanger (1988). System Performance Criteria Each system's performance will be evaluated by its capability to effectively respond to the loads in the occupied space. For purposes of this research, the systems should meet the following criteria: • Comply with established human response and exposure criteria for thermal and air quality. • Ventilation efficiencies for each space should exceed 80%. • The system should have sufficient capacity to meet 90 - 110% of the design loads. • The system should provide adequate control and performance at part load conditions. At 50% loading, it should provide the same exposure values and performance as at design loads. At minimum loads, its performance should match its design criteria for exposure and system performance to within t10%. Ferfonnance criieria C5

Table 1. Human response and exposure criteria for the two performance levels Exposure Criteria Human Response Thermal Air Quality C riteria Operative Relative Air Particuiates' CO= TVOC Nicotine= Decipol Temp. Humidity Velocity (ug/m) (ppm) (ug/m' eq. (°C) N (m/s) (long term av.) toluene) Max. Acceptability 23.0 t 0.5 50 <.15 30 400 - 500 0.3 - 0.5 n.a. < 0.3 80% Acceptability 23.0 ± 2.0 40 - 60 0.15 - 0.25 75 800 - 1000 0.5 - 3.0 n.a. < 1.5 1 For particle size less than 10 microns. 2 Exposure criteria for nico.tine has not yet been deterrNned. Pertorrnance Criteria C6 9sl.s4STzoz

Progr... R.port EvNu.tioo of Ventiletion Syst.ms November 19, 1992 Enemv and Economic Performance Criteria For the evaluation of the systems, energy efficiency may be defined as the ratio of the energy required to maintain the environmental criteria to the energy consumed to provide the required energy. For assessment purposes, it Is recommended that a minimum system efficiency of 80 percent be achieved. Control strategies that improve indoor environmental quality and minimize life-cyde costs are desired. The performance criteria thus established couple energy and economic criteria. At optimum conditions, the life-cycle-cost should be minimized using the model to be developed as a component of Task 3. While the human response, exposure, and system performance criteria will serve as constraints, energy and economic performance criteria will provide the desirable values which should preferably be achieved. References Bergiund B, T Undvall, I Samuelsson, and J Sundell. 1991. "Prescriptions for healthy buildings". Proc of CIB Conference Healthy Buildings '88. vol 4: Conclusions and recommendations for healthier buildings (Berglund B and T Undvall eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. Rohles FH, JE Woods and PR Morey. 1989. "Indoor environment acceptability: The development of a rating scale". ASHRAE Transactfons. vol. 95(1), pp. 23-27. Woods JE. 1988. "Recent developments for heating, cooling, and ventilating buildings: Trends for assuring healthy buildings". Proc of CIB Conference Healthy Buildings '88. (Berglund B and T Lindvall eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. ASHRAE. 1989. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality ANSUASHRAE 62-1989. Atlanta, N GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. s~ N Moihave L 1990. "Volatiie organic compounds, indoor air quality and health". Proc of /ndoorAir '90. v.5, pp. 15-33. CA ~ Fanger PO. 1988. "Introduction of the off and decipol units to quantify air pollution perceived by ~ humans indoors and outdoors". Energy and Buildings. v. 12, pp. 1-6. ~Q Performarroe Uwk C7

Progress p.port Evalu.tbn of VentNation byat.ms November 19, 1992 ASHRAE. 1991. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. ASHRAE Revised Standard 55-1981R (revised draft). Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. CEN. 1991. Ventilation for buildings: Design criteria for the indoor environment. Draft Document CEN/TC156/WG6 N7. ISO. 1990. Moderate thermal environments - determination of the PMV and PPD indices and specificadon of Me conditions for thermal comfort. ISO 7730 (modified version). Document CEN/lTC156/WG6 N8. Swedish Indoor Climate Institute. 1991. Classfied indoor climate systems: Guidelines and specifications. Sweden: SCANVAC.