International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Applications Research (IJMCAR) ISSN 2249-6955 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 151-170 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

OPTIMIZATION OF THERMAL COMFORT IN OFFICE BUILDINGS USING NON-TRADITIONAL OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES

S.ELIZABETH AMUDHINI STEPHEN1, R.MERCY SHANTHI2 & A. JOE AJAY3
1

Associate Professor of Mathematics, Karunya University, Coimbatore, India

2

Associate Professor of Civil, Karunya University, Coimbatore, India

3

Scholar, Karunya University, Coimbatore, India

ABSTRACT
Due to the difficulty of controlling the indoor thermal environment, it is important to provide thermal comfortable conditions which meet occupants expectation. In order to realize the long-term thermal comfort in indoor environment, the microclimate in Karunya university campus in Coimbatore, Tamilnadu. India is measured through year. PMV model is applied to calibrate the climate parameters and environment elements .The results obtained are optimized using ten different nontraditional optimization models and compared to find which method is suitable in terms of number trails and minimum time taken. ASHRAE standards are verified.

KEYWORDS: Indoor Thermal Comfort, Hot-Humid Regions, Nontraditional Optimization Techniques INTRODUCTION
Thermal comfort is highly subjective, not only is it subject to personal preference but also to varying temperatures. Both internal and external temperatures sensing is integrated in such a way that the resulting effect would either move towards restoring deep body temperature or move away from it. A cold sensation will be pleasing when the body is overheated, but unpleasant when the core is already cold. At the same time, the temperature of the skin is by no means uniform. Besides variations caused by vasoregulation, there are variations in different parts of the body, which reflect the differences in vasculation and subcutaneous fat. The wearing of clothes also has a marked effect on the level and distribution of skin temperature. Thermal comfort for human is one of the major problems at present. Providing thermal comfort for occupants in buildings is really a challenging task because thermal comfort is not only influenced by temperature but also factors like relative humidity, air velocity, environment radiation, and activity level and cloths insulation. These entire six variables play a major role in providing thermal comfort. Thermal comfort can be calculated by an equation called Fangers Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) as given by Fanger. This equation gives the optimal thermal comfort for any activity level, clothing insulation and for all combinations of the environmental variables such as air temperature, air humidity, mean radiant temperature and relative air velocity. Human thermal comfort is defined by ASHRAE as the state of mind that expresses satisfaction with the surrounding environment (ASHRAE Standard 55). Maintaining thermal comfort for occupants of buildings or other enclosures is one of the important goals of design engineers. Thermal comfort is maintained when the heat generated by human metabolism is allowed to dissipate, thus maintaining thermal equilibrium with the surroundings. Any heat gain or loss beyond this generates a sensation of discomfort.

152

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

It has long been recognized that the sensation of feeling hot or cold is not just dependent on air temperature alone.The problem that we are going to deal with here is the thermal comfort of offices.

LITERATURE SURVEY
Human perception of air movement depends on environmental factors such as air velocity, air velocity fluctuations, air temperature, and personal factors such as overall thermal sensation, clothing insulation and physical activity level (metabolic rate) (Toftum, 2004). Air velocity affects both convective and evaporative heat losses from the human body, and thus determines thermal comfort conditions (Tanabe, 1988; Mallick, 1996). If we agree that thermal environments that are slightly warmer than preferred or neutral, can be still accepTable to building occupants as the adaptive comfort model suggests (deDear, Brager, 2002; Nicol, 2004), then the introduction of elevated air motion into such environments should be universally regarded as desirable. This is because the effect will be to remove sensible and latent heat from the body, so body temperatures will be restored to their comfort set-points. This hypothesis can be deduced from the physiological principle of alliesthesia (Cabanac, 1971). In hot and humid climates, elevated indoor air velocity increases the indoor temperature that building occupants find most comfortable. Nevertheless, the distribution of air velocities measured during these field studies was skewed towards rather low values. Many previous studies have attempted to define when and where air movement is either desirable or not desirable (i.e. draft) (Mallick, 1996; Santamouris, 2004). Thermal comfort research literature indicates that indoor air speed in hot climates should be set between 0.2 - 1.50 m/s, yet 0.2 m/s has been deemed in ASHRAE Standard 55 to be the threshold upper limit of draft perception allowed inside air-conditioned buildings, where occupants have no direct control over their environment (de Dear, 2004) The new standard 55 is based on Fangers (1970) draft risk formula, which has an even lower limit in practice than 0.2 m/s. None of the previous research has explicitly addressed air movement acceptability. Instead it has focused mostly on overall thermal sensation and comfort (Toftum, 2002).

RESEARCH METHODS
Outdoor Climatic Environment Under the Koppen climate classification, the Coimbatore city has a tropical wet and dry climate. It has mild winters and moderate summers. Karunya University office buildings lie in the latitude of 100 55 51.73 N and longitude of 760 44 40.60 E with elevation 1551 ft. The surveys in this study were performed in the May 2009 and September 2009 Subjects A Sample size of 220 subjects in 8 different office buildings in the Karunya University was collected in survey and field measurements. The offices interviewed are multi-story buildings. The volunteers participating in the study comprised both men and women. The average age of all respondents was 33.2 years, ranging from 23 to 57 years. All the participants were in good health. The questionnaire covered several areas including personal factors (name, gender, age, etc.), years of living in their current cities and personnel environmental control. The questionnaire also included the traditional scales of thermal sensation and thermal preferences, current clothing garment and metabolic activity. The thermal sensation scale was the ASHRAE seven point scale ranging from cold (-3) to hot (3) with neutral (0) in the middle. The three point thermal preference scale asked whether the respondents would like to change their present thermal environment. Possible responses were want warmer, no change, or want cooler. Clothing garment check list were compiled from the extensive lists published in ASHRAE -55, 2004. Metabolic

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

153

rates were assessed by a check of activities databases published in ASHRAE-55, 2004. The summary of the background characteristics of the subjects are presented. Table 1: Summary of the Sample of Residents and Personal Thermal Variables Sample Size Age (year) Metabolic rate Clothing insulation 220 Mean 33.2 Maximum 23 years Minimum 5 months 75(W/m2) 1.5 Clo

Data Collection Both physical and subjective questionnaires were obtained simultaneously in the visit of the field survey. This study investigates thermal environment and comfort of office buildings in the Karunya University. A total of 220 subjects in naturally ventilated 11 office buildings ( with occupant operable windows) provided 220 sets of cross-sectional thermal comfort data, first field campaign from Mar 15, 2010 to Mar24,2010 and second field campaign from Sep10,2010 to Sep 19, 2010 in Karunya University, Coimbatore. In both the set of data collections the same buildings were taken into account for data collection. Indoor climatic data were collected using instruments, with accuracies and response times in accordance the recommendations of ANSI/ASHRAE 55. All the measurements were carried out between 10:00 hours and 16:00 hours. A number of instruments were used to measure the thermal environment conditions, while the respondents filled in the subjective thermal comfort questionnaire. The instruments were standard thermometer for air temperature, whirling hygrometer for humidity, globe thermometer for radiant heat, kata thermometer for air velocity. Metabolic rate can be estimated using standard Table found in ISO 7730. Among the residential respondents, air temperature readings were taken at a minimum of two locations in each space and at two different levels corresponding to the body level and the ankle level corresponding to approximately 0.1 m and 1.2 m above the floor level, respectively. Instruments used in this study met the ASHRAE standards requirements for accuracy. During the survey period, there were no significant sources of radiant heat in residents apartments. Therefore the operative temperature is close to the air temperature. The insulation of clothing ensembles was determined using the Olsens 1985 summation formula: Icl= I
clu,i

where Icl is the insulation of the entire ensemble and I

clu,i

represents the effective insulation of the

garment i. The garments values published in the ANSI/ASHRAE Stand card 55-2004 was the basis for the estimation of clothing ensemble insulation. The general mean clothing-insulation value of 1.5 clo was recorded among all the respondents. The majority of the respondents were seated on partly or fully upholstered chairs at the time of survey. This appears to have been reflected in the generally higher mean value of 1.1 clo recorded among the subjects at home. The metabolic rates were determined from the activities filled by the subjects and as observed at the time of the survey. Uniform value of 75 W/m2 was assumed for respondents of the residential buildings. This assumption is based on the ISO 7730 Table of metabolic rates for provisions for relaxed seating which was assumed to be the case with all subjects in their homes.

154

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Subjective Questionnaire The subjective questionnaire consists of the following areas. All the surveys are right now surveys. It takes 15 minutes in average for a participant to answer those questions. Indoor Climate Table 2: Summary of Indoor Climatic Conditions in the First and Session for Office Thermal Comfort MEAN MAX MIN AVERAGE 25.61714 34 16 5.76569 0.50471 1 0.01 0.27496 22 24 20 1.1 0.536 1 0.01 0.298 27.9 29 27 0.6 MEAN MAX MIN AVG 25.4443 34 16 5.61777 0.50643 1 0.1 0.29892 21.5386 23.5 19.5 0.9935 0.55143 1 0.01 0.30961 27.9857 29 27 0.62491

The following values are taken from the data collected from questionnaire and measurements for further optimization using different non-traditional algorithms. The minimum and maximum values of each of these parameters were taken as the lower and the upper limits of the parameters. These values were taken from both the set put together which are taken in March and September so as to take a generalized thermal comfort of the university buildings. These values are used in the optimization techniques to optimize the final value and also to find the optimum value of the PMV. Table 3: Range of Values Min Max Fcl 0 1.5 Ta 16 34 Tmrt 19.5 23 Vair 0.1 1 Pa 0.01 1 Tcl 27 29 M(met) 75 75 Icl(clo) 1.5 1.5

In an attempt to reduce the processing time and to improve the quality of solution, and particularly, to avoid being trapped in local minima, the non- traditional optimization is used. In this problem, to find the optimum thermal comfort, ten non- traditional optimization techniques are used. Each one has its own characteristics. Twenty trial runs were performed for the problem in each of the ten methods. The performance of the different algorithms was compared. The characteristics led to different solutions and run times. The results were examined finally based on different criteria. Each algorithm with its own option set and stopping criteria was used. All the non-traditional optimization was run using MATLAB2010 to get the global optimum value for each of the parameter and also the final value of the thermal comfort. Therefore the Problem is to minimize PMV for office

Subject to the following constraints (bounds)

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

155

0 Fcl 1.5; 16 Ta 34 ; 19.5 Tmrt 23; 0.1 Vair 1; 0.01 Pa 1; 27 Tcl 29; M = 75;Icl = 1. Using different non-traditional algorithms. The minimum and maximum values of each of these parameters were taken as the lower and the upper limits of the parameters. These values were taken from both the set put together which are taken in March and September so as to take a generalized thermal comfort of the university buildings. These values are used in the optimization techniques to optimize the final value and also to find the optimum value of the PMV. Algorithms The following table4 and 5 are for the option set and stopping criteria for the entire ten Nontraditional algorithms respectively, which are used to optimize the thermal comfort of the office buildings of the University. Table 4: Option Set
GA Initial population: 20. SA Initial Temperature: 100. Annealing Function: Fast Annealing. Re annealing interval: 100. PS Poll Method: GPS positive Basis 2N Initial Mesh size: 1. PSO Max.Generation = 200. G-L Max.FunEvals = 10-5 Max. Iterations = 20 Fmincon Max.Iterations: 400 Max.function Evaluations: 100 No. of Variables Max.Time:. DE Min. Value to Reach = 10-6. Population Size = 10 D. Max. Iterations = 200. Step Size F = 0.8.

Elite count: 2.

Max. Time Limit= .

Cross over fraction as 0.8. Max Time Limit: .

Expansion Factor: 2.

Average change in fitness value= 10 -6

Min. Iterations = 2

Time Limit: .

Contraction Factor: 0.5

Time Limit =

Total. Iterations = 15

Max. Function Tolerance: 10 6 .

Max Generations: 100

Max.function evaluation: 3000 No. of variables. Max. Iterations: . Function Tolera: 10 . Objective Lim: 10

Mesh Tolerance: 10 .

Function Tolerance= 10-6

Function Tolerance = 10-4

Cross Over Prob = 0.5.

Fitness Limit: .

Max. Iteraon: 100 No. of Variables Max. Fun Eva: 2000 No. of Var Max. Time Limit: . Function Tolerce: 10

Cognitive Attraction = 0.5

Strategy=7 (DE/rand/1/bi n)

Selection: Stochastic.

Popn Size = 40

Social Attraction = 1.25

Table 5: Stopping Criteria

GA If the maximum generation s is reached (100). If maximum time is reached (). If average change in function value < 10 . SA Max. Time reached. PS Mesh Tolerance: 10 . Max. Iteration: 100 No. of Variables. Max. Function Evaluion: 2000 No . of Variables. Max. Time Limit: Inf. PSO G-L Max.Fu nEvals = 10-5. Fmincon Function Tolerance : 10-6 DE Max.Iterations =200 LGO If the current best solution did not improve for the last iteras GlcClu Max.Gen = 200. Function Tolerance =10-7 GlcSol Max.Iterations is exceeded > No. of variables 1000. Max.function evaluations > No. of variables 2000.

The avg change in obj fun is < 10 .

Max. Time Limit= .

Max. Iteratio ns = 20.

Max.Itera tions > 400

Max.Value of function reached= 10-6

Program execution time limits > 600 sec.

Tolerance of Variables = 10-5

Max. Iterations are reached. If the number of fun evalutions reached. If the best obj fun value is <or= to the value of Obj limit it is stopped.

Average change in fitness value= 10-6

Min. Iteratio ns = 2.

Max.Tim e: Inf.

first local search phase ends, if the fun difference is < 10-6

Maximum Function count = 10000

If the difference of objective function is < 10-6

Time Limit = .

Functio n Toleran ce = 104

Max Wait cycle: 20

If max. constrain violation exceeds

Maximum Iteraons =10000

Function Tolerance: 10

Function Tolerance = 10-6

Total. Iteratio ns = 15.

156

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Table 6: Comparative Results of Optimization Methods for Office Thermal Comfort

PMV PPD -OFFICE Methods GA SA PS PSO Godlike Fmincon DE optimization SOLUTION LGO glcCluster glcSolve Fcl 0.7018 0.7109 0.75 0.80697 0.84890 0.86431 0.88907 1.2668 0.76 0.75 Ta 21.097 20.647 25 22.19925 22.66393 23.18258 23.46064 25.8503 24.9946 19 Tmrt 20.734 21.367 19.545 21.58457 20.96814 21.26676 21.36051 20.8447 21.4981 22.83333 Vair 0.5073 0.5418 1 0.54836 0.44038 0.555685 0.664525 0.1 0.852 0.25 Pa 0.2702 0.5946 0.255 0.47377 0.555895 0.53481 0.44529 0.2887 0.3922 0.0528 Tcl 28.118 28.231 28 27.85813 28.04283 28.22689 28.20742 28.5338 28.6711 27.3333 PMV -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.368 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 PPD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 TIME 0.539065 4.103220 0.397420 0.0954566 3.0026599 14.68332 0.55702425 1.0661718 0.6147302 0.79695503 ITERS 51 3001 26 51 4 2288 12000 3883 1532 1771

35

30

GENETIC ALGORITHM SIMULATED ANNEALING PATTERN SEARCH PSO GODLIKE

25

20 NON LINEAR NUMERICAL optimizaion SOLUTION LGO glcCluster 10 glcSolve Analytical 5

15

0 Fcl Ta Tmrt Vair Pa Tcl PMV PPD TIME

-5

Figure 1: Comparative Graph for Office Thermal Comfort From the above chart, we see that PMV and PPD have the same value as -0.5 and 5 for all the ten optimization techniques except for DE, which has 0.36 as PMV. The elapsed time is maximum for fmincon and minimum for PSO and PS. All the other parameter values are more or less the same for all the ten optimization techniques. Now, the parameter values are taken separately and the ten optimization techniques need to be compared so as to find which method is the best method of optimization.

PARAMETERS
Ratio of Clothed Body Surface area to Body area Exposed when Undressed (Fcl): The heat produced must be dissipated to the environment, or a change in body temperature will occur. The deep body temperature is about 37C, whilst the skin temperature can vary between 31C and 34C under comfort conditions. Variations occur in time, but also between parts of the body, depending on clothing cover and blood circulation. There is a

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

157

continuous transport of heat from deep tissues to the skin surface, from where it is dissipated by radiation, convection or (possibly) conduction and evaporation. Table 7: Fcl Results in all 10 Methods Trails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Avg GA 0.856 0.847 0.857 0.66 1.5 0.588 0.39 0.584 0.807 0.772 0.462 0.664 0.486 0.636 0.758 0.522 0.703 0.661 0.529 0.746 0.701 SA 0.37 0.74 0.62 0.59 1.1 0.71 0.45 0.53 0.72 0.93 1.21 0.39 1.01 0.48 1.25 0.93 0.36 0.34 0.35 1.04 0.71 PS 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PSO 0.87 0.59 1.46 0.65 0.65 1 0.74 1.13 0.62 0.67 0.68 0.67 0.92 0.68 1.14 0.86 0.57 0.61 0.45 1.07 0.8 G-L 0.921 0.798 0.884 0.667 0.774 0.36 0.576 1.238 0.788 1.2641 1.3031 0.616 0.684 1.198 0.994 0.856 0.806 0.551 0.603 1.089 0.848 fmincon 0.48 0.33 1.17 0.61 1.3 1.32 0.69 1.19 1.13 0.9752 0.58 0.63 0.75 0.67 0.7 1.27 0.78 1.08 0.83 0.71 0.86 DE 0.99 1 0.43 0.34 1.28 1.46 0.46 0.5 1.32 0.5029 1.28 0.44 0.57 1.12 0.52 0.78 0.66 1.48 1.2018 1.36 0.88 LGO 1.2 1.2 1.2 166 166 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 glcCluster 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 glcSolve 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

glcClu

glcSol DE GOD-L NLP PSO SA GA LGO PS

1 0 1 0 2 1

1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 1 .0 0 .5 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 1 0

1 .0 0 .5 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2

T r a ils

Figure 2: Graph for Fcl Results in all 10 Methods Air Temperature-Ta It is the temperature of the air surrounding the occupant. Operative temperature is the uniform temperature of an imaginary enclosure in which the occupant would exchange the same heat by radiation and convection as in the actual environment. When air temperature is low, convective heat loss increases with air motion associated with increased activity, thereby decreasing the heat load on the body evaporative system and resulting in a wider range of activity before discomfort is felt.

158

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Table 8: Ta Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA 25.1 25.6 24.5 22.2 16 22.3 17.4 16.0 22.0 24.3 18.0 22.9 19.4 23.8 22.55 18.12 20.67 16.01 19.6 24.61 21.09 SA 16.82 17.17 22.01 16.97 27.33 22.54 17.44 21.34 18.79 25.29 25.97 17.17 24.80 16.00 26.87 20.48 16.28 16.40 17.70 25.48 20.64 PS 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 PSO 23.0 21.1 25.0 21.7 21.4 24.7 21.8 26.0 21.6 20.4 21.5 22.1 22.4 17.3 25.5 25.5 18.4 18.6 18.9 26.1 22.1 GL 22.1 23.2 19.7 21.7 23.3 17.5 19.8 26.4 21.7 24.9 26.4 19.9 24.1 24.6 25.3 22.5 23.1 20.9 21.6 23.5 22.6 fminc 21.7 18.0 28.0 21.3 27.4 26.3 21.8 26.4 26.2 22.4 20.2 22.7 24.1 21.0 24.0 26.6 18.2 23.7 25.0 17.5 23.1 DE 24.6 26.1 19.5 19.3 26.8 27.9 22.2 19.3 27.5 20.7 27.1 17.9 18.1 27.5 21.0 25.1 17.3 28.2 26.3 25.7 23.4 LG 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25. 5 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 glcClu 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 glcSolve 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

glcSol glcClu LGO NLP PSO PS SA DE

20 18 28 26 24 22 28 26 24 30 25 20 25 20

GA

GOD-L

25 20 25 20 28 26 24 22 25 20 15

25 20 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T r a ils

Figure 3: Graph for Ta Results in all 10 Methods Mean Radiant Temperature-Tmrt It is the uniform surface temperature of an imaginary black enclosure in which an occupant would exchange the same amount of radiant heat as in the actual non uniform space. The MRT affects the rate of radiant heat loss from the body. Since the surrounding surface temperatures may vary widely, the MRT is a weighted average of all radiating surface temperatures within line of sight. In winter, levels of wall, roof, and floor insulation together with window treatments such as double glazing, blinds, and drapes contribute to Mean Radiant Temperature.

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

159

Table 9: Tmrt Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA 20.71 20.33 19.50 19.50 19.5 21.69 20.81 19.78 19.5 22.32 22.49 22.46 22.34 19.50 22.55 20.96 20.60 19.50 20.09 20.49 20.73 SA 22.30 22.58 20.16 20.37 20.40 22.07 22.19 20.09 20.92 20.75 23.06 19.52 21.00 23.06 23.41 23.35 20.54 20.94 20.75 19.77 21.36 PS 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 19.54 PSO 22.85 22.82 23.29 21.11 22.06 20.84 21.27 20.08 21.09 22.78 20.55 22.86 21.97 22.23 20.38 22.15 21.13 20.22 20.61 21.29 21.584 G-L 20.56 22.95 21.42 20.51 19.83 20.08 22.43 21.55 20.80 20.24 20.31 21.78 20.20 21.00 19.77 22.06 20.82 19.70 20.03 23.20 20.96 fmincon 19.5 19.86 20.12 21.17 22.25 23.49 21.03 22.64 19.79 19.53 19.96 23.40 21.18 22.01 21.11 22.53 22.57 22.95 20.64 19.50 21.26 DE 22.59 20.42 22.94 19.82 21.27 22.33 20.13 21.52 21.62 19.99 21.68 23.43 21.16 20.47 23.29 20.43 21.22 20.56 20.26 21.96 21.36 LGO 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 glcClu 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 21.49 glcSol 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83

glcSol glcClu LGO DE NLP GOD-L PSO PS SA GA

26 24 22 20 24 22 20 22 20 18 24 22 20 24 22 20 24 22 20 24 22 20 22 20 18 24 22 20 22 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T ra ils

Figure 4: Graph for T mrt Results in all 10 Methods Velocity of Air-Vair Air motion significantly affects body heat transfer by convection and evaporation. Air Movement results from free convection from the occupants body movements. The faster the motion, the greater the rate of heat flow by both convection and evaporation. When ambient temperatures are within acceptable limits, there is no minimum air movement that must be provided for thermal comfort. The natural convection of air over the surface of the body allows for the continuous dissipation of body heat. When ambient temperatures rise, however, natural air flow velocity is no longer sufficient and must be artificially increased, such as the use of fans.

160

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Table 10: Vair Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GA 0.416 0.604 0.433 0.332 1 0.573 0.821 0.207 0.321 0.957 0.529 0.521 0.544 0.669 0.342 0.369 0.237 0.100 0.364 0.798 SA 0.7753 0.1059 0.8629 0.1619 0.8993 0.3882 0.6605 0.5283 0.1864 0.88 0.3384 0.6171 0.7406 0.501 0.7251 0.1291 0.6345 0.7779 0.7888 0.1365 PS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PSO 0.489 0.714 0.432 0.570 0.375 0.821 0.529 0.831 0.685 0.585 0.342 0.611 0.460 0.138 0.744 0.874 0.368 0.190 0.584 0.619 G-L 0.255 0.695 0.163 0.417 0.213 0.702 0.479 0.885 0.332 0.291 0.538 0.412 0.688 0.273 0.664 0.208 0.343 0.526 0.460 0.254 fmincon 0.6415 0.9994 0.6074 0.567 0.9583 0.4962 0.5311 0.5357 0.4584 0.1832 0.5444 0.8145 0.6327 0.4636 0.5247 0.7674 0.1614 0.3627 0.7431 0.121 DE 0.631 0.928 0.693 0.844 0.320 0.904 0.931 0.468 0.920 0.727 0.327 0.651 0.197 0.813 0.856 0.926 0.143 0.807 0.422 0.773 LGO 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 glcClu 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 glcSolve 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

glcSol

1 0

glcClu LGO DE NLP PSO SA GA GOD-L PS

1 0 1 0

1 .0 0 .8 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 .0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0 .8 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 .8 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 2 1 0

1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T r a ils

Figure 5: Graph for Vair Results in all 10 Methods Partial Water Vapour Pressure-Pa The upper and lower humidity limits on the comfort envelope are based on considerations of respiratory health, growth, and other moisture-related phenomena in addition to comfort. Humidification in winter must be limited at times to prevent condensation on cold building surfaces such as windows. The environmental parameters of temperature, radiation, humidity, and air movement are necessary for thermal comfort, depending upon the occupants clothing and activity level.

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

161

Table 11: Pa Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA 0.0103 0.1861 0.0101 0.6014 0.01 0.1797 0.7775 0.307 0.0817 0.4146 0.2691 0.2602 0.2023 0.3043 0.532 0.0101 0.323 0.1524 0.7578 0.0151 0.270235 SA 0.7548 0.9133 0.3263 0.032 0.2761 0.5892 0.9469 0.1032 0.5557 0.6343 0.7721 0.3943 0.8484 0.6394 0.355 0.5949 0.8534 0.5505 0.7585 0.995 0.594665 PS 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 PSO 0.8702 0.2186 0.8067 0.2864 0.2417 0.7388 0.6058 0.6619 0.5796 0.1956 0.9625 0.5266 0.8204 0.1425 0.1572 0.1722 0.4676 0.6684 0.2693 0.0834 0.47377
glcSol
1 0 1 0

G-L 0.3869 0.5445 0.5456 0.4623 0.1333 0.5641 0.3472 0.5777 0.4128 0.7044 0.5936 0.5395 0.4447 0.8951 0.7064 0.1576 0.7404 0.6486 0.9328 0.7804 0.555895

fmincon 0.2421 0.9971 0.2652 0.4379 0.9412 0.8329 0.2651 0.0216 0.6802 0.6243 0.1339 0.368 0.4833 0.5914 0.1132 0.9948 0.4501 0.6277 0.8272 0.799 0.53481

DE 0.7851 0.8293 0.1335 0.3616 0.7354 0.2958 0.2399 0.1991 0.1219 0.0632 0.476 0.1718 0.0609 0.0455 0.8489 0.6686 0.8153 0.5438 0.7245 0.7857 0.44529

LGO 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887 0.2887

glcCluster 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922 0.3922

glcSolve 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528

glcClu

DE

NLP GOD-L PSO SA GA

LGO PS

1 0

1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 1 0

1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T r a ils

Figure 6: Graph for Pa Results in all 10 Methods Surface Temperature of Clothing-Tcl Clothing, through its insulation properties, is an important modifier of body heat loss and comfort. The insulation properties of clothing are, a result of the small air pockets separated from each other to pre air from migrating through the material. When preferred amount of clothing worn by building occupants decreased, then correspondingly the preferred temperatures increased. These seasonal clothing variations of building occupants allow indoor temperature ranges to be higher in the summer than in the winter and yet give the occupants comfort. During winter, additional clothing lowers the ambient temperature necessary for comfort and for thermal neutrality.

162

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Table 12: Tcl Results in all 10 Methods Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA 28.0343 28.6377 27.8734 28.6582 27 28.8552 27.6683 27.0357 27.0081 28.222 28.2853 28.9803 28.61 28.5787 28.8937 27.7346 28.2076 27.0332 28.8991 28.1517 28.0343 SA 28.2802 28.4896 27.1308 28.1565 28.5898 28.8899 27.5867 28.4858 27.6864 27.8903 28.9631 27.7324 27.505 27.0949 28.8449 28.6846 28.6065 28.1958 28.8226 28.9908 28.2802 PS 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 PSO 28.0381 27.7812 27.6006 27.6288 28.4315 27.3482 27.3373 27.6236 27.6522 27.0123 28.4505 28.2508 27.1591 28.4994 27.2806 28.5605 27.5137 28.745 28.0425 28.2066 28.0381 G-L 27.1729 27.9704 27.2568 28.0892 28.8363 28.7253 28.0491 27.9811 27.5502 27.2606 27.7716 27.9468 28.6017 27.6636 27.7013 28.6793 28.3673 28.2285 28.6328 28.3717 27.1729 fminconn 28.9569 28.7899 28.9529 27.8729 28.8146 28.7517 27.4699 28.6283 28.0671 27.1956 27.0043 28.5431 28.4621 27.8835 28.9058 28.5129 27.7677 27.9079 28.3517 27.699 28.9569 DE 27.5455 27.9805 28.5143 28.9641 28.4921 28.5948 28.6477 28.1279 28.4612 27.471 28.7873 27.6912 28.3709 28.2907 28.4928 28.0196 28.3515 28.4806 27.5471 27.3176 27.5455 LGO 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 28.5338 glcClu 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 28.6711 glcSolve 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333 27.3333

glcSol glcClu LGO DE NLP PSO GOD-L PS SA GA

30 25 30 25 30 25 30 28 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 8 6 9 8 7 9 8 7 6

30 28 26 3 2 2 3 2 2 0 8 6 0 8 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T r a ils

Figure 7: Graph for Tcl Results in all 10 Methods Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) It is an index that predicts the mean value of the votes of a large group of persons on the seven point thermal sensation scale. The existing conditions may not be amendable to every occupant. Each person has a distinct perception of too hot, too cold, and comfortable. The objective in designing a common thermal environment is to satisfy a majority of occupants and to minimize the number of people who will inevitably be dissatisfied.

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

163

Table 13: PMV Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 SA -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 PS -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 PSO -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 G-L -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 fmincon -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 DE 0.1317 0.3486 0.3758 0.3095 0.3896 0.798 0.4113 0.3861 0.425 0.4183 0.399 0.4174 0.3551 0.1632 0.4765 0.2925 0.4286 0.3521 0.1079 0.3738 0.368 LGO -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 glcClu -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 glcSol -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

glcSol

0 -1

glcClu LGO NLP GOD-L GA PSO SA DE

0 -1 0 -1 0 .8 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

PS

T R A IL S

Figure 8: Graph for PMV Results in all 10 Methods Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) An index that establishes a quantitative prediction of the percentage of thermally dissatisfied people determined from PMV. As PMV changes from zero in either the positive or negative direction, PPD increases. Determination of the PMV and PPD indices and Specification of the Conditions for Thermal Comfort uses, limits on PMV as an explicit definition of the comfort zone.

164

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

Table 14: PPD Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Avg GA 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 SA 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 PS 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 PSO 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 GL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 fmincon 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 DE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LGO 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 glcClu 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 glcSol 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

glcSol glcClu LGO DE NLP GOD-L PS SA GA PSO

6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T R A IL S

Figure 9: Graph for PPD Results in all 10 Methods Elapsed Time CPU time is the time for which the CPU was busy executing the task. It does not take into account the time spent in waiting for I/O (disk IO or network IO). Since I/O operations, such as reading files from disk, are performed by the OS, these operations may involve noticeable amount of time in waiting for the I/O subsystems to complete their operations. This waiting time will be included in the elapsed time, but not in CPU time. Hence CPU time is usually less than the elapsed time.

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

165

Table 15: Elapsed Time Results in all 10 Methods

Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Avg GA 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.53 SA 5.16 4.1 3.71 3.43 6.138007 4.343375 4.167754 4.234063 3.682238 3.680518 4.137636 4.064644 3.63953 3.121178 5.400893 3.347213 4.270551 4.720778 3.256275 3.444622 4.103 PS 0.825115 0.377779 0.359182 0.365426 0.378375 0.371941 0.38865 0.378278 0.375717 0.37874 0.373859 0.373993 0.401204 0.376038 0.370777 0.379511 0.372559 0.373777 0.357336 0.370143 0.397 PSO 0.097091 0.093681 0.09827 0.092962 0.100452 0.091094 0.091199 0.096344 0.089281 0.093782 0.098879 0.094448 0.098272 0.090875 0.101924 0.096871 0.097384 0.100313 0.094422 0.091588 0.095 G-L 3.029002 3.22748 2.646517 3.022442 2.566037 3.410476 3.065694 2.268675 3.435452 2.810391 2.4456 2.808384 3.492864 2.991398 2.70929 3.776228 3.294535 3.141239 2.929281 2.982213 3.002 fmincon 16.644831 15.156049 12.908819 14.302752 12.178776 22.832664 12.406242 13.12545 14.589927 14.232938 15.477548 14.847826 16.01366 14.238594 14.628195 13.542012 17.647416 13.588538 12.314453 12.98971 14.6833 DE 0.545845 0.562279 0.524903 0.575298 0.52307 0.602935 0.58226 0.584369 0.540372 0.544269 0.562864 0.563216 0.559404 0.538761 0.530171 0.564129 0.553767 0.527886 0.574358 0.580329 0.557 LGO 0.956907 1.132054 1.326114 1.255759 1.080224 1.138645 1.069755 1.01494 1.039328 1.033702 1.069969 1.026883 1.024515 1.073316 1.038982 0.986438 0.954037 0.97541 1.071272 1.055186 1.066 glcCluster 0.724438 0.542579 0.620507 0.522383 0.60312 0.662002 0.523577 0.670174 0.686226 0.556734 0.683852 0.586134 0.67979 0.578231 0.597836 0.567322 0.686948 0.586635 0.657122 0.558994 0.6147 glcSolve 0.720697 0.899943 0.718765 0.692557 0.898273 0.897523 0.747152 0.902511 0.728462 0.821457 0.912196 0.760455 0.844765 0.742261 0.82484 0.832487 0.700963 0.655894 0.898889 0.739011 0.796

glcSol glcClu LOG DE NLP PSO PS GA SA

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.0 0.60 0.55 20 15

GOD-L

4 3 2

0.100 0.095 0.090 0.8 0.6 0.4 6 4 2

0.55 0.54 0.53 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Trails

Figure 10: Graph for Elapsed Time in all 10 Methods Iterations Iteration is a computational procedure in which a cycle of operations is repeated, often to approximate the desired result more closely. Iteration means the act of repeating a process usually with the aim of approaching a desired goal or target or result. Iteration in computing is the repetition of a process within a computer program. It may also refer to the process of iterating a function i.e. applying a function repeatedly, using the output from one iteration as the input to the

166

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

next. Another use of iteration in mathematics is in iterative methods which are used to produce approximate numerical solutions to certain mathematical problem Table 16: Iterations Results in all 10 Methods Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 avg GA 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 SA 3006 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3002 3001 3001 3002 3001 3003 3001 3001 3001 3001 3002 3001 3001 3001 3001.5 PS 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 PSO 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 GL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 fmincon 2282 2282 2254 2296 2324 2303 2282 2275 2289 2310 2268 2261 2310 2282 2289 2296 2275 2338 2289 2268 2288.6 DE 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 LGO 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 3883 glcClu 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 1532 glcSol 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771 1771

glcSol

1 1 1 1

9 8 7 6

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

glcClu LGO NLP GOD-L PSO PS SA

1600 1500 1400 4000 3500 65 60 55

DE GA

2350 2300 2250 5 4 3 55 50 45 28 26 24 3005 3000 55 50 45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T r a ils

Figure 11: Graph for Iterations Results in all 10 Methods The following Table exhibit the consistency of the methods for different parameters and the corresponding values.

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

167

Table 17: Comparative Table for Parameters in all 10 Methods Using all the above Figures Variable Fcl Ta Tmrt Vair Pa Tcl PMV PPD Time Iters X -0.5 5 X GA X X X X SA X X X X X -0.5 5 X PS 0.75 25 19.54 1 0.255 28 -0.5 5 0.39 26 -0.5 5 0.095 X -0.5 5 4 X -0.5 5 X X -0.5 5 X PSO X X X X GL X X X X Fmincon X DE X X X X LGO 1.26 25.8 20.84 0.1 0.28 28.533 -0.5 5 X Glc Cluster 0.76 24.9 21.49 0.852 0.39 28.67 -0.5 5 X Glc Solve 0.75 19 22.83 0.25 0.05 27.33 -0.5 5 X

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

With the two extreme values of parameters from survey, the optimization is carried out with different solvers. As they are of the stochastic type, their results may vary from trial to trial and the problem is made to run for 20 trials (Elbeltagi, Tarek Hegazy, & & Grierson, 2005) and an average of all trials is taken as the final value of the parameter, by the solver. The solvers are compared with three different criteria. 1. Consistency The consistency Table gives the parameters that remain constant for all the trials. All the solvers give the same value of PMV& PPD for all the runs except DE, which in turn indicate that the comfort requirements are in the acceptable range. Fcl Ta - P.S & glcSolve (0.75), glcCluster (0.76), LGO (1.26) - P.S (25), glcSolve (19), glcCluster (24.9), LGO (25.8)

Tmrt - P.S (19.54), glcSolve (22.83), glcCluster (21.49), LGO (20.84) Vair - P.S (1), glcSolve (0.25), glcCluster (0.852), LGO (0.1) Pa Tcl runs. 2. Minimum Run Time For a minimum run time of the problem, we got PSO (0.095 seconds), Pattern Search (0.39 seconds). 3. Minimum Evaluation This criterion will determine the effectiveness of the algorithm. From the result table, we see that the Pattern Search and GODLIKE algorithms have minimum evaluation of 26 and 4 respectively. - P.S (0.255), glcSolve (0.05), glcCluster (0.39), LGO (0.28) - P.S (28), glcSolve (27.33), glcCluster (28.67), LGO (28.53)

So we see that the solvers Pattern Search, glcSolve, glcCluster& LGO remain constant throughout their

168

S.Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen, R.Mercy Shanthi & A. Joe Ajay

4.

Simplicity of Algorithm Of all the algorithms we have taken, the Pattern Search algorithm is the most simplest followed by GA, PSO, DE, Simulated Annealing, GODLIKE, Non-Linear, Direct algorithm.

5.

Results According to Standards This is the most important criterion that determines whether the solver is standard values for a naturally ventilated building from ASHRAE as: practical or not. We got the

Humidity: 30% to 60% (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/i-beam/text/hvac.html) This gives that the Pa should lie within the range of:0.0765 to 0.501 Operative Temperature: 17.75 to 28.5 Air velocity:0.2 to 0.8 ms-1(1 ms-1 only at extreme conditions) With the above standards the solvers which adhere to the standard are: Air-Velocity: Fmincon, GA, SA, PSO, GL, DE, glcSolve. Partial vapour pressure: GA, PS, PSO, DE, LGO, glcCluster, glcSolve Operative temperature: GA, SA,PS, PSO, Fmincon, DE, GL, LGO, glcCluster, glcSolve

The following Table gives a summary of all the criteria for the solvers: Table 18: Summary of all the Criteria for the Solvers Criteria Result according to ASHRAE Consistency Min-Run Time MinEvaluation Simple Algo GA 3/3 =100% SA 2/3 =67% PS 2/3 =67% PSO 3/3 =100% Fmincon 2/3 =67% DE 3/3 =100 % GL 2/3 =67% LGO 2/3 =67% glcClus 2/3 =67% glcSolve 3/3 =100%

Thus it is seen that the Pattern Search solver satisfies all the criteria and scores 67% for its practicality in giving result according to ASHRAE. So the appropriate algorithm, for optimization of thermal comfort is suggested as Direct search algorithm & the solver is PATTERN SEARCH

CONCLUSIONS
This study investigates thermal environment and comfort of office buildings in the Karunya University. A total of 220 subjects in naturally ventilated 8 office buildings ( with occupant operable windows) provided 220 sets of crosssectional thermal comfort data, first field campaign from Mar 15, 2010 to Mar24,2010 and second field campaign from Sep10,2010 to Sep 19, 2010 in Karunya University, Coimbatore. In both the set, the same buildings were taken into account for data collection. Indoor climatic data were collected, using instruments with accuracies with the recommendations of ANSI/ASHRAE 55. All the measurements were carried out between 10:00 hours and 16:00 hours. In the experiment conducted using ten non-traditional optimization techniques, the thermal sensation takes the value -0.5, which is in the acceptable range , where the acceptable range is -0.5 to +0.5 (ANSI/ASHRAE55-2004, 2004).

Optimization of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings Using Non-Traditional Optimization Techniques

169

From the thermal comfort value, we can conclude that the thermal comfort of the office buildings of the Karunya University is in the acceptable range and hence the thermal comfort in this area is optimum. Here, ten non-traditional optimization algorithms were presented. These include: GA, SA, PS, PSO, GL, FMINCON, EA, LGO, glcCluster, glcSolve. A brief description of each method is presented along with a Pseudo code to facilitate their implementation. MATLAB programs were written to implement each algorithm. The thermal comfort problem for the offices of the Karunya University was solved using all algorithms, and the comparative results were presented.

REFERENCES
1. ANSI/ASHRAE55-2004. (2004). Thermal Environmental conditions for Human occupancy. Atlanda, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 2. 3. Cabanac.M. (1971). Physiological role of pleasure. Science , V17, 1103 - 1107. de Dear, R. a. (2002). Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings:revisions to ASHRAE Standard55. Energy and Buildings , 34 (6),pp 549-561. 4. 5. de Dear, R. (2004). Thermal comfort in practise. Indor Air , vol 14, 32-39. Elbeltagi, E., Tarek Hegazy, 1., & & Grierson, D. (2005). . Comparison among five evolutionary-based optimization algorithms. . Advanced Engineering Informatics , 19, 43-53. 6. Fanger.P.O. (1970). Thermsl comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill. 7. Mallick, F. (1996). Thermal comfortand building Design in the tropical climates. Energy and buildings , 23, 161 167. 8. Nicol, F. (2004). Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hot humid tropics. Energy and Buildings , 36, 628 637. 9. Santamouris, M. (2004). Adaptive Thermal comfort and ventilation,Air Infiltration and ventilation, 18-24.

10. Tanabe, S. (1988). Thermal comfort requirements in Japan. Waseda Univeristy: Doctoral Thesis. 11. Toftem, J. (2002). Human response to combined indoor environment exposures. Energy and Buildings , 34(6),601-606. 12. Toftum, J. (2004). Air movement - Good or bad? Indoor Air , 14,pp 40 -45.