ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 620

maximum acceptable temperature) and criterion 3 (ΔT, 0 hours exceeding Tupp) but marginally
failed criterion 2 by only 3 days during which We exceeded the limit. Overall, the building seemed
to be much more thermally comfortable compared to the previous roofing method (iron sheet
roof ). Figure 3 shows the thermal performance of the building during the entire year for thatched
and iron sheet roofs with adobe walls.

Figure 3: Thermal comfort condition for adobe walls with iron sheet (top) and thatched roofs (bottom).
4.2 Brick walls with iron sheet/thatched roof
The results of simulations revealed that adobe and brick walls had similar performances although
brick walls performed marginally better than adobe walls with iron sheet roof and slightly worse
than adobe walls with thatched roof. Similar to adobe, brick walls with iron sheet roof failed in all
three thermal comfort criteria. The building was thermally uncomfortable as the indoor operative
temperature was in 8% of the occupied periods above the maximum acceptable levels. Moreover,
for 56 days, We exceeded the acceptable limit. Regarding the third criterion, there were two days
during which ΔT exceeded the maximum acceptable temperature by more than the 4 K. Similar
to adobe construction, the situation considerably improved for the thatched roof. The building
passed criterion 1 and criterion 3 but failed in criterion 2 as there were 5 days during which We
exceeded the acceptable limit. Figure 4 summarises the results of simulations for brick walls with
iron sheet and thatched roof constructions.

618

ZEMCH 2015 | International Conference | Bari - Lecce, Italy