A new approach for indoor climate labeling of building materials—emission testing, modeling, and comfort evaluation

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (15) ◽  
pp. 2679-2689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peder Wolkoff ◽  
Peter A. Nielsen
2019 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 02017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mervi Ahola ◽  
Jorma Säteri ◽  
Laura Sariola

The Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (FiSIAQ) introduced a Classification of Indoor Climate, Construction Cleanliness, and Finishing Materials in 1995. The Classification of Indoor Climate has been revised to meet the new Decree on indoor air quality and ventilation, European standards and experience from users of the classification. The most significant change is that target values for concentration and the in/out ratio of fine particles have been added. Other adjustments have been made to ensure good indoor environment and energy efficiency, but with reasonable investments. The criteria for emissions from building material and furniture were also updated. The Building Information Foundation RTS sr has run the M1-labelling of building products since 1996. The voluntary approach has been proven to improve the IAQ in new buildings and to reduce emissions from building materials. The Classification of Indoor Environment 2018 is integrated part of the new RTS Environmental Classification system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 963-968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simo Ilomets ◽  
Targo Kalamees ◽  
Fitsum Tariku

This study tests the performance of an EN ISO 13788 occupancy modified model for indoor temperature and humidity in dwellings by comparing the model with the measured indoor temperature and relative humidity in Canada. The performance of EN ISO 13788 occupancy modified model is tested in 13 outdoor climates and compared with the simplified approach given in the ASHRAE 160 standard. It was found that the Estonian model’s proposed indoor temperature profile works reasonably well in accordance with the measured indoor temperatures in Vancouver, Canada, which are dependent on the outdoor climate; on the other hand, the ASHRAE 160 indoor temperature profile might not be the best for cold climates. Drawbacks were noted concerning the humidity loads given as a simplified approach in the ASHRAE 160 with the suggestions for the possible future renewal. A new approach for selecting the indoor humidity load for dwellings in cold climates is proposed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 07009
Author(s):  
Yumeng Cui ◽  
Yufeng Zhang ◽  
Huihui Zhao ◽  
Xue Lin

Moisture excess or lack in buildings has many adverse effects on human health, structural durability and building energy consumption, and moisture design for building materials is an important and efficient measurement for creating a stable indoor climate. However, the current quick test method (e.g., moisture buffer value test) can only evaluate the materials' moisture buffering abilities roughly, and the advanced numerical prediction method (e.g., using HAM models) is hardly applicable in practices due to insufficient materials’ hygrothermal properties and its long computing time. EMPD model can calculate with less input parameters and short time without sacrificing accuracy. While this paper found existing EMPD has limited application conditions, and further proposed modified multilayer EMPD model. A new approach can be applied to identify and predict the moisture performances of building materials. In this paper, two typical building materials with diverse hygric properties were simulated. Their key parameters of the modified model was easily inversed by a 24h standard box test instead of several months of material hygrothermal properties tests, based on which, the materials' actual performances under various conditions can be predicted. The presented approach was validated by comparing the numerical predictions with HAM results in the corresponding conditions. This study provides an easy and fast way to test and predict the moisture performances of building materials and indoor moisture in practices.


2017 ◽  
Vol 138 ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Waraporn Rattanongphisat ◽  
Tanyarat Prachaona ◽  
Antony Harfield ◽  
Kiyoharu Sato ◽  
Osamu Hanaoka

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Erik Ruud

Arable land is covering less than 3% of the total area of Norway, and is partly situated north from the Arctic Circle. The remaining part is mainly forests and mountains. The history of the Norwegian people and agriculture was hence a history about poverty. Before the industrial revolution in the middle of the 17th century, the population lived on small farms where they grew what they needed for their self-sufficiency. Farmers made their own farm buildings and equipment according to their own ideas and regional traditions. The buildings were small, specialized and normally had a short lifespan. Typical building materials were timber and stone. Indoor climate was far from good. The total workload was high, however, the work force was large as a lot of people lived on the farms.From approx. 1850 a big change took place in Norway as industrial products became available. A lot of people moved to the cities (or immigrated to USA) to live from industry or trade. The cities became a new market for agricultural products, the farmers got an income (as cash) and could buy “modern” factory built farm equipment. As people left the countryside for a better life (!?) in the city, farmers also had to select more efficient solutions to be able to run their farms with less hands involved. The monetary housekeeping also made it possible to loan money. Loan money was invested in more robust buildings, better solutions, e.g. for taking care of the manure and for storing food etc. As these buildings were more expensive, different productions were gathered in fewer buildings. What was called the “unity building” became the new standard. In those buildings, the manure was typically stored in the cellar, animals were kept on the main floor, and food was stored above there again. The gravity became the farmers “helping hand”. A great improvement in work load, animal welfare, hygiene and production was achieved, and traditional housing methods were soon forgotten, however, the debt increased.In the years after world war II, the spread of electricity and combustion motors made room for another change; mechanization replacing manual work and gravity. Milking machines replaced hand milking, and feed and manure work were mechanized using mass-produced equipment.Today mechanization has developed into automation, and at the same time market forces has multiplied production volumes. The unity barn is also replaced with wide one-level buildings. The normal situation today, is also that one person is normally running several farms. Hence, to raise new buildings the work load is too big for the farmer, and the result is that he have to buy both building materials as well as hands to build – and the debt is increasing even more…


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document