Assessing visitors' thermal comfort in historic museum buildings: Results from a Post-Occupancy Evaluation on a case study

Accepted Manuscript Assessing visitors' thermal comfort in historic museum buildings: Results from a PostOccupancy Evaluation on a case study Antonio Martinez-Molina, Paola Boarin, Isabel Tort-Ausina, José-Luis Vivancos PII:

S0360-1323(18)30069-6

DOI:

10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.003

Reference:

BAE 5287

To appear in:

Building and Environment

Received Date: 16 November 2017 Revised Date:

30 January 2018

Accepted Date: 4 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Martinez-Molina A, Boarin P, Tort-Ausina I, Vivancos José-Luis, Assessing visitors' thermal comfort in historic museum buildings: Results from a Post-Occupancy Evaluation on a case study, Building and Environment (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.003. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

ASSESSING VISITORS’ THERMAL COMFORT IN HISTORIC

2

MUSEUM BUILDINGS: RESULTS FROM A POST-OCCUPANCY

3

EVALUATION ON A CASE STUDY Antonio Martinez-Molinaa*, Paola Boarinb, Isabel Tort-Ausinac, José-Luis

4

Vivancosd

RI PT

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

a

14

Abstract: Adaptive reuse of historic buildings as museums is an effective strategy for

15

retaining heritage architectures while achieving environmental sustainability objectives.

16

Building adaptation, retrofitting and preserving optimal environments for artwork and

17

exhibit preservation are inherently complex, multifaceted tasks. However, indoor

18

microclimates do not only affect collections; occupants and visitors must also be

19

considered. The aim of this research is to explore whether artwork preservation

20

constraints in reused historic building affect patrons. The authors thereby promote a

21

more comprehensive approach, combining the objectives of exhibit conservation,

22

preservation of heritage buildings and adequate indoor conditions, particularly thermal

23

comfort. Data was gathered using the Post-Occupancy Evaluation process applied to a

24

case study where a combination of microclimate monitoring and questionnaire surveys

25

was carried out over a 12-month period. Results demonstrate that: i) the existing

26

microclimate did not always provide visitors with adequate thermal conditions, showing

27

dissatisfaction during the cooling season (July-September), with average TSV values

28

ranging from -1.03 to -1.13; ii) TSV and PMV values were significantly divergent

29

throughout the year, with TSV mainly included within the (-1, 0, +1) band and PMV

30

mainly within the (0, -2) band; and iii) questionnaires show that visitor choice of clothing

Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain. School of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Creative Arts and Industries (CAI), University of Auckland, 26 Symonds Street, 1010 Auckland, New Zealand. c Department of Applied Physics, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain. d Department of Engineering Projects, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain. * Corresponding Author.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

b

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT is made according to outdoor conditions, with some gender-related variations in the clo

32

level (higher for women), not ensuring thermal comfort inside the museum during the

33

warm season. Results of this research highlight the limitations of Fanger’s model when

34

applied to such typology of buildings, emphasising the need for more research in this

35

field.

36

Keywords: Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Thermal Comfort, Indoor Environmental

37

Quality, Historic Buildings, Museum Buildings.

38

1. Introduction and background

SC

RI PT

31

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) defines a museum as a, “non-

40

profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the

41

public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible

42

and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education,

43

study and enjoyment” [1]. Buildings not specifically designed for this purpose host a

44

significant portion of current culture-related activities, thereby serving as de facto

45

museums. This use poses additional challenges not only from the artworks’

46

preservation perspective, but also from the viewpoint of architecture conservation,

47

which is especially testing when heritage architecture is involved. Despite the added

48

complexity, adaptive reuse is an effective strategy for the conservation of cultural

49

heritage, as well as for the retention of redundant buildings, which can otherwise

50

become obsolete and deteriorate due to insufficient funds for their upgrading and

51

maintenance. As building adaptation could be an answer to functional obsolescence

52

caused by societal, economic and environmental changes [2], the reconversion of such

53

heritage into culture-related uses (e.g. museums, galleries, libraries, etc.) represents

54

an important asset for starting positive regeneration processes and has been

55

extensively investigated by scholars [3–6].

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

39

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Although the retrofit of historic buildings has become a recurrent choice when

57

dealing with adaptive reuse for museum uses, the embedded heritage value could

58

represent an additional constraint in the process due to preservation requirements that

59

can limit the range of intervention from an architectural and technological point of view.

60

However, it is to be noted that traditional constructions could also contribute to reduce

61

indoor microclimate variability, particularly when thick walls and porous hygroscopic

62

materials are present, contributing to the indoor environment with a mitigation effect [7].

63

Additionally, authors working with historic architectures have recognised the positive

64

role played by traditional materials and constructions in passively controlled museums’

65

indoor environments [8,9]. The so-called ‘environmental metabolism’ of traditional

66

buildings is not only related to the physical characteristics of building materials, but

67

also to an architecture and layout, which promote the building’s self-control (through

68

elements such as under-roof cavities or other transitional spaces acting as buffers)

69

and, therefore, a more constant response to external climatic solicitations [10].

M AN U

SC

RI PT

56

The importance of a comprehensive assessment of indoor environmental

71

conditions for the purpose of artworks’ preservation has been overtaken by a focus on

72

energy performance, particularly when adapting a historic building such as a museum.

73

For instance, Lucchi developed a simplified method for assessing and comparing

74

“Environmental and Energy Quality” (EEQ) of museum buildings in order to support

75

decision-making processes through preliminary evaluations of the identification of

76

potential risks for future interventions [11]. The method defined “qualitative

77

performance indicators” that have an impact on EEQ, which were tested on 50 case

78

studies across eight European countries, evaluating both new and retrofitted buildings.

79

The research shows that, in general, the focus is more on a building’s environmental

80

performance than on the energy performance and reliance on active systems, which

81

emphasises the interest towards the building and conservation of collections. With the

82

aim of avoiding damage over time to collections and vulnerable objects exhibited in

83

museum buildings, Corgnati, Fabi and Filippi pointed out the importance of

AC C

EP

TE D

70

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT microclimate conditions and their medium/long-term monitoring, suggesting a

85

“Performance Index” to examine different parameters at the same time [12]. The

86

relevance of indoor microclimate conditions and the importance of environmental

87

monitoring in museum spaces has also been underscored by a number of guidelines

88

[13–17] and by a variety of case studies [8,18–20], demonstrating the complexity of the

89

subject. On the other hand, D’Agostino et al. argued that, since the monitoring of

90

indoor environmental conditions and related controlling systems is not common in

91

museum buildings, it is preferable to focus on a preventive strategy accounting for all

92

the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors and “aimed to the microclimatic

93

assessment of museum environment, the quantification of factors responsible for the

94

degradation processes and the choice of most appropriate interventions to improve the

95

state of conservation” [21].

M AN U

SC

RI PT

84

The literature cited above highlights the importance of microclimate conditions for

97

museum facilities and the collections exhibited and conserved inside them. Monitoring

98

environmental conditions therefore becomes essential for defining preservation or

99

retrofit strategies, as well as activities for preventive conservation. In the first instance,

100

when performing such monitoring in historic environments on either a short-term basis

101

(few months) or as a part of a long-term, continuous campaign, particular care must be

102

given to the installation of sensors, for the avoidance of damage to historic surfaces

103

and to guarantee reliability of measurements over the entire period [22]. Positioning of

104

measuring equipment can also potentially affect data collection, as the choice

105

regarding the location of sensors can be complex when working with museums placed

106

in historic buildings. For instance, installation could be limited by the exhibition or room

107

layout, the presence of decorated, unstable or damaged surfaces, the presence of

108

factors interfering with the monitoring (such as windows) and the position of power and

109

sockets [23].

AC C

EP

TE D

96

110

The existing literature shows a plethora of research focused on microclimate and

111

environmental monitoring in historic buildings and, particularly, in museum facilities, 4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT demonstrating the significant role of field investigations. In many cases, environmental

113

monitoring has been performed with the ultimate goals of risk assessment and/or

114

preventive conservation [24,25], as a base for short or long-term control over

115

significant variations of the different environmental factors involved [12,26,27], for

116

understanding causes of deterioration and defining remediation strategies [28], or for

117

assessing and optimising the building’s thermal and energy performance and

118

dimensioning HVAC systems accordingly [29,30]. The focus has only shifted to the

119

visitors after the preservation of the buildings themselves and the collections they

120

house was thoroughly addressed. Human presence and interaction has only been

121

marginally considered and visitors’ satisfaction in historic museum facilities is a field of

122

research not yet fully investigated. The challenge of building preservation,

123

safeguarding museum objects and, at the same time, accounting for human comfort

124

has often led to the heavy integration of HVAC systems, with an important impact on

125

architecture. In this regard, this paper attempts to promote a shift from the building and

126

collection perspective to the users’ perspective. This approach aligns well with the idea

127

of a “dynamic museum” [31] where the visitor is central to the process and the recipient

128

of the experiential activity. This view does not suggest that the building and its

129

collections are less important than users and visitors, but that a balance between the

130

two should be sought while defining effective strategies for conservation, retrofit and

131

adaptation of historic museum buildings. A similar goal was pursued by Pisello et al.

132

who performed a microclimate analysis that dealt with artwork preservation and

133

occupants’ comfort as contextual objectives [32]. Jeong and Lee investigated effects of

134

the physical environment of museums on visitors’ satisfaction [33]. They distributed

135

questionnaires and observed people’s behaviours in 30 museums located in Seoul and

136

its vicinities, collecting general information on visitors, actual circulation path through

137

the exhibition and individual perception of the museum environments, including thermal

138

comfort.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

112

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Although the recognised importance of thermal comfort assessment in historic

140

buildings is increasing [34], museum buildings are still not amongst the most

141

investigated uses [35] and literature on this regard is limited. This current gap is mainly

142

related to the many challenges connected to the contextual presence of heritage

143

values and pieces of art, whose importance tends to overcome the need to provide

144

visitors with a comfortable environment. However, some researchers have tried to

145

combine visitors’ thermal comfort evaluation with indoor microclimate monitoring in

146

museums, mainly in the attempt to reach a balance with conservation needs and

147

energy reduction by means of climate optimisation. This is the case of the investigation

148

conducted by Silva et al. [36], who, by highlighting the limited applicability of ISO 7730

149

[16] and ASHRAE 55 [37] for museum environments, defined a reduced thermal

150

sensation scale according to typical clothing ensembles documented by observing the

151

visitors. In fact, people visiting the museum were dressed according to the outdoor

152

climate and not for the indoor environment and, additionally, the length of their visit

153

indoors was limited. These considerations were used to assess Predicted Mean Vote

154

(PMV) and Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) for visitors and this information

155

was then used both to assess the current thermal comfort in the national museum

156

building in Portugal and to optimise the indoor operative temperature and relative

157

humidity [36]. The conflict between people's comfort and the preservation of works of

158

art was also considered by La Gennusa et al. [38]. In this study, a comparison between

159

indoor requirements relating to people's thermal comfort and those for preserving

160

artefacts was performed, introducing a new “simultaneousness index” (IS), defined as

161

“the ratio between the (possible) common area for people's comfort and preserving

162

works of art, and the whole area representing the conditions of comfort” [38]. With the

163

main aim of reducing the overall energy consumption of a museum building in the

164

Netherlands, Kramer et al. [39] introduced visitors’ thermal comfort as a parameter

165

affecting the definition of the optimum set-point strategy. They did this by implementing

166

an adaptive model derived from ASHRAE 55, remarking on the lack of guidelines on

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

139

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT thermal comfort specifically defined for museums and taking into consideration

168

people’s adaptability and expectations. Additionally, three relevant thermal comfort

169

studies in buildings were conducted by Mishra et al. [40,41] and by Kotopouleas and

170

Nikolopoulou [42], where authors also examined transitional thermal responses of

171

visitors and travellers.

RI PT

167

The aforementioned studies agree on the lack of research related to thermal

173

comfort evaluation in historic museum buildings and the consequential need to adapt

174

existing standards and guidelines for such conditions, rather than specifically

175

addressing this issue. This research attempts to contribute to this field by implementing

176

a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process that will enable the collection of

177

qualitative and quantitative data on heritage museum buildings. Although a shared

178

definition of POE does not exist (as it is actually a very flexible methodology), it is

179

intended as “the process of ascertaining the quality and standards of design and

180

construction” [43], or “the process of evaluating any type of buildings in a systematic

181

and rigorous approach after they have been built and occupied” [44]. POE is a very

182

useful method for collecting data on redundant buildings in order to inform their

183

improvement and enhancement. In the case of historic museum facilities, POE is often

184

implemented to assess thermal comfort or, more widely, the overall IEQ, mainly

185

through quantitative monitoring [32,45] and, only in very few studies, with the support

186

of qualitative investigations such as questionnaires [34,46].

187

2. Goals of the research and methodology

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

188

SC

172

This research paper aims at verifying the relationship between human thermal

189

comfort and indoor microclimate in historic buildings adaptively reused as museums,

190

thus contributing to the current disciplinary conversation regarding the achievement of

191

a balance between preservation issues and visitors’ satisfaction by promoting a shift

192

from a conservation-centric approach to an integrated approach which includes the

193

people’s perspective as well. 7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A case study building was used for this study, which is the Museu de la Història

195

de València (Valencia History Museum) in Spain. The research rationale was grounded

196

within the investigation on issues related to the thermal environment inside the historic

197

building, as some visitors claimed thermal discomfort during both summer and winter

198

seasons.

RI PT

194

The research implemented a POE methodology, combining quantitative

200

(measurement of indoor microclimate parameters) and qualitative (questionnaires to

201

visitors) investigations to assess and verify visitors’ satisfaction with the thermal

202

environment. Field measurements and thermal comfort questionnaires were carried out

203

throughout a full year to capture figures during both heating and cooling seasons. The

204

indoor thermal satisfaction questionnaires were thus handed to the visitors while the

205

indoor and environmental monitoring campaign was simultaneously ongoing. Collected

206

data were analysed in order to:

M AN U

SC

199

assess the visitors’ Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV);

208

compare the visitors’ TSV with the visitors’ Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) by using

209

Fanger’s model;

210

assess the visitors’ clothing insulation pattern in relation to indoor and outdoor

211

temperatures.

213

EP

3. Case study description

AC C

212

TE D

207

This research was carried out in a museum building in Valencia (39’28 N – 0’22

214

W), a city on the Mediterranean coast of Spain. According to the Köppen-Geiger

215

classification system [47], Valencia has a hot Mediterranean/dry-summer sub-tropical

216

climate (Csa-Mediterranean Climate). The evaluated building is approximately 8 km

217

away from the Mediterranean Coast and 30 m above the sea level. Monthly

218

temperatures range from a mean of 22ºC during the hottest month and a mean of 10ºC

219

during the coldest months. The annual mean temperature is 18.4ºC with low levels of

220

precipitation, mostly occurring in fall. 8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The building was built in 1850 as a main potable water reservoir for the city of

222

Valencia (9,000 m3 of water could be contained inside the construction) and was used

223

as such for over a century (Figure 1). In 1998, the local government began a process

224

of restoration and adaptation of the building in order to transform it into what today is

225

the Valencia History Museum. The museum is not listed but it is considered as a

226

‘building of cultural interest’.

227 228 229

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

221

Figure 1. Construction site photo (above) and original building plan (below). Source: Ministry of Development of Spain

230

The construction has a flat roof supported by a brick structure composed of 11

231

barrel vaults and a grid of 200 masonry columns. The building is developed on one

232

floor only with no openings in the side walls or in the roof, except for five auxiliary

233

metallic doors and the main entrance. The lack of fenestrations is derived by the

234

original use of the building as a cistern and has been preserved in the adaptive reuse 9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT project as a distinctive quality of the historic construction. The building envelope is

236

composed of 95 cm thick uninsulated masonry external walls, an 18 cm thick air cavity

237

and an 18 cm thick external layer of brick veneer. The main façade of the museum has

238

a ceramic tile finishing underneath a waterfall, which falls from the roof to the side of

239

the building (Figure 2). The flat roof is composed of a 20 cm waterproof reinforced

240

concrete slab.

243

Figure 2. Internal (above) and external (below) building appearance. Source: Valencia History Museum

AC C

241 242

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

235

From the thermal perspective, the most important characteristic of this building is

244

its underground development for over 50% of the volume. Moreover, on top of the flat

245

roof there is a public green area with a small garden, a fountain and two basketball

246

courts. Table 1 summarises the thicknesses and thermal transmittance of the building

247

envelope. Because the building is partially underground and without any fenestrations,

248

natural ventilation does not exist and the building is therefore ventilated continuously

249

(24 hours a day, seven days a week) by means of a mechanical system of ceiling

250

ducting (Figure 3). 10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Most of the building’s central area (main cistern’s volume) is used for the

252

exhibition, although the perimeter area is used for small rooms such as storages,

253

toilets and other service rooms. Connected internally to the west side of the main

254

museum building is a newly added office where the administrative personnel work.

255

Museum opening hours are from 9:30am to 7:00pm, Tuesday through Saturday, and

256

9:30am to 3:00pm on Sundays.

257

RI PT

251

Table 1. Thickness and thermal transmittance of the building envelope and openings

2

M AN U

SC

Building Component Thickness [m] U-value [W/m K] External walls* 1.240 0.623 Flat roof 1.100 0.150 Ground slab 0.850 0.263 Side doors 0.160 3.124 Main door 0.020 5.207 *Weighted average value between the wall above the ground and the wall below the ground.

AC C

EP

TE D

258

259 260

Figure 3. Museum plan with data loggers’ locations (red spots) and HVAC units and ducting placement

261

and distribution (blue boxes and lines)

262

4. Environmental monitoring

263

To assess thermal aspects of the building’s Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ),

264

a meticulous monitoring campaign was carried out by measuring indoor air 11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 265

temperature and relative humidity, as well as external environmental parameters

266

(Table 2). More detailed probabilistic results are shown later in Figure 7 which gives a

267

comprehensive overview of the indoor environmental conditions. Table 2. Indoor and outdoor average conditions during the survey period for the days analysed

RI PT

August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016

Outdoor Conditions Air Relative Solar Temperature Humidity [%] Radiation 2 [°C] [W/m ] 26.00 63.00 253 22.00 62.00 197 19.00 65.00 133 15.00 61.00 121 13.00 69.00 82 13.00 56.00 85 13.00 48.00 131 14.00 49.00 198 16.00 56.00 250 18.00 58.00 280 22.00 59.00 316 25.00 60.00 296

SC

Month

Indoor Conditions Air Relative Temperature Humidity [°C] [%] 22.44 64.23 22.15 64.28 21.97 63.75 21.74 55.65 21.28 51.81 21.34 46.74 21.48 43.51 21.77 41.89 22.12 49.39 21.81 56.85 22.21 63.74 22.21 67.53

M AN U

268

269

The monitoring period was a full calendar year, from August 2015 to July 2016,

271

and data were collected hourly. Internal monitoring was carried out with the use of a

272

network of data loggers evenly distributed throughout the building (Figure 3). Each

273

device was installed at a height of 1.10 m from the ground and at least 1 m away from

274

any external walls, thereby meeting the requirements of ASHRAE 55 [37] for standing

275

occupants (Figure 4). Regarding the external environment, data were collected from a

276

meteorological station located 3 km away from the building. Specifications of the

277

instruments for data gathering are presented in Table 3.

AC C

EP

TE D

270

278 12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 279

Figure 4. Data loggers placed inside the building (as per the red spots in Figure 3)

280

Table 3. Characteristics of monitoring devices

Brand & Model

Measuring Range

Precision

Response

Siemens-Symaro

-30ºC to 50ºC

±0.2 ºC

60 s

Siemens-Symaro

0% to 100% RH

±5%RH

60 s

Indoor Air Speed

Testo – 435-2 Hot Wire Probe

0m/s to 20m/s

0.03m/s

0.5 s

Vantage Pro2

-40ºC to 65ºC

-

2.5 s

Vantage Pro2

1% to 100% RH

±2%RH

2.5 s

Vantage Pro2

1 to 320Km/h

±1Km/h

2.5 s

±5% ±0.2mm

50 s -

Outdoor Air Temperature Outdoor Relative Humidity Outdoor Wind Speed & Direction Solar Radiation Rain

0 to 1800W/m -

SC

Vantage Pro2 Vantage Pro2

2

RI PT

Measured Physical Variable Indoor Air Temperature Indoor Relative Humidity

281

283

Valencia during the study are represented in Figure 5. Additionally, Figure 5 shows the

284

indoor and outdoor temperatures and solar radiation during the same period of time.

35

25 20 15

250 200 150

EP

Temperature (°C)

300

TE D

30

350

10

AC C

5

100 50 0 Jul-16

Jun-16

May-16

Apr-16

Mar-16

Feb-16

Jan-16

Dec-15

Nov-15

Oct-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

0

Solar Radiation

Minimum Temp.

Average Outdoor Temp.

Maximum Temp.

Average Outdoor RH

Minimum RH

Relative Humidity (%) & Solar Radiation (W/m2)

Temperature and Relative Humidity values (minimum, average and maximum) in

M AN U

282

Maximum RH

285 286

Figure 5. Solar radiation, outdoor temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH) values (minimum, average

287

and maximum) in Valencia during the study

288

5. Thermal comfort survey 13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT To evaluate the subjective opinions on the occupants’ thermal comfort,

290

questionnaire surveys were designed following the parameters of ASHRAE 55 [37] and

291

Fanger’s Model [48]. Questionnaires were handed out to the visitors by the museum

292

staff who also provided a brief description of the study in order to clarify the purpose of

293

the questionnaire and to obtain more reliable answers.

294

RI PT

289

5.1. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed with the goal of extracting honest and reliable

296

responses with the following considerations in mind: brevity and simplicity. Indeed, it

297

was unlikely that visitors would have filled out the questionnaires if they were too long

298

to complete or too difficult to understand, and responses would not have reflected the

299

real experience. Additionally, the survey was translated into four languages: Spanish,

300

Valencian, English and Italian, as these are the main languages spoken by the visitors

301

of the museum. Questionnaires were offered to adults only (aged 18+ years), in order

302

to avoid problems related to the understanding of thermal comfort conditions, which

303

can be an issue for young people and children [34]. Visitors were given the

304

questionnaire at the entrance and had to return it at the end of their visit, in order to

305

capture their full experience inside the museum.

TE D

M AN U

SC

295

The filled questionnaires received were 440 out of 18,483 visitors within the

307

study period. However, before the study started, a trial period was set up during which

308

105 questionnaires were filled by the museum staff over a two-month span (June and

309

July 2015). This testing period was very useful for setting up the protocol and for fine-

310

tuning the questionnaire before distributing it to the visitors, thus minimising any

311

potential misunderstandings of the questions and ensuring trustworthy and sincere

312

answers. Questions aimed at obtaining as much information as possible about the

313

subjective thermal comfort opinion of each visitor during their visit indoors, in addition

314

to collecting the necessary data to calculate the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) according

315

to Fanger’s method. The questionnaire included questions about:

AC C

EP

306

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT date and time of arrival to the museum and time of the answer to the questionnaire;

317

age (bands arranges as 18-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 or +61), origin (from Spain or

318

from other country) and gender of the visitor (male or female);

319

indoor and outdoor Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV), according to ASHRAE 55’s

320

seven-point sensation scale (-3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3);

321

clothing insulation, with the most typical fourteen articles of clothing (based on

322

ASHRAE 55) included as choices in the answer options, to help fill the

323

questionnaire;

324

visitors’ domestic experience with HVAC units (whether he/she owned an HVAC unit

325

at home and whether he/she typically had used it before the visit);

326

visitors’ Metabolic Rate based on transportation method (walking, running, biking or

327

motorized transportation), and indoor air quality (very good, good, neutral, bad, very

328

bad) and humidity (very dry, dry, neutral, humid, very humid) through a series of

329

simplified questions;

330

visitor´s preference for the indoor temperature (much cooler, cooler, slightly cooler,

331

neither warmer nor cooler, slightly warmer or warmer much warmer);

332

visitors’ opinion about any other aspect regarding their thermal comfort that they

333

might wanted to highlight.

SC

M AN U

TE D

EP

335

5.2. Clothing Insulation and Metabolic Rate Clothing insulation (clo) and metabolic rate (met) are the two human factors in

AC C

334

RI PT

316

336

Fanger’s method; the other measurements collected during the monitoring campaign

337

were considered to be environmental aspects. A set of garments that are typically worn

338

in a mild climate was used to create the different options comprising in the survey

339

taker’s outfit (Table 4), according to ASHRAE 55. In an effort to streamline the survey

340

answers, the available garment selections were simplified and stripped down to the

341

basics. Afterwards, clothing insulation was calculated for each filled survey on the clo

342

values given by ASHRAE 55. 15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 343

Table 4. Garment Insulation Options Iclu [clo] included in the questionnaire, according to ASHRAE 55

Iclu [clo]

Garment item Underwear Panties T-shirt

0.03 0.08 Sweaters 0.25 0.36 0.44 0.12 0.19 0.25 0.34

SC

0.06 0.24 0.23

M AN U

Shirts and Blouses Sleeveless/scoop-neck blouse Short-sleeve dress shirt Long-sleeve dress shirt Long-sleeve sweatshirt Trousers Short shorts Straight trousers Skirt Footwear Shoes 0.02 Boots

RI PT

Long-sleeve (thin) Long-sleeve (thick) Blazer

344

0.02 0.10

Since the average visitor spend 1-2 hours per visitation, the authors followed

346

ASHRAE 55’s directions (Table 5) and did not take into account the method of

347

transportation to the museum. Instead, a 2.0 met rate (walking slowly throughout the

348

museum) was applied for the purpose of PMV calculations.

349

Table 5. Comparison between the standard activities (and metabolic rates) based on ASHRAE 55 and the

350

methods of transportation monitored in the case study during the survey

AC C

Walking Running Biking

Motorised Transport

351

Activity (according to ASHRAE 55)

EP

Activity (surveyed methods of transportation)

TE D

345

Walking (0.9 m/s, 3.2 Km/h, 2.0 mph) Calisthenics/Exercise Calisthenics/Exercise Driving Public transportation

Metabolic Rate (according to ASHRAE 55) 2

[W/m ]

[met]

115 175 - 235 175 - 235

2.0 3.0 - 4.0 3.0 - 4.0

60 - 115

1.0 - 2.0

6. Results of the research

352

This section presents the findings of the quantitative full-year monitoring

353

campaign and the results of the qualitative data gathered through questionnaires,

354

which were used to evaluate visitors’ opinions on indoor environmental conditions. The

355

recorded data were used to calculate and evaluate Fanger’s thermal comfort values

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT based on ASHRAE 55 [49] by using MATLAB, and following ISO 7730, Annex D [50].

357

In this research, indoor environmental conditions such as air temperature, air speed

358

and relative humidity data were measured [51]. Due to the building’s very high thermal

359

mass, radiant temperature was estimated based on the approximation that air

360

temperature is close enough to radiant temperature (Tair = Tradiant). Human factors

361

identified in Fanger’s method, such as metabolic rate and mechanical power, were also

362

estimated based on the answers to the questionnaires (according to ASHRAE 55 [49]).

363

Finally, clothing insulation was calculated for each answer based on visitors’ replies,

364

according to ISO 7730 [50].

SC

RI PT

356

Figure 6 summarises indoor and outdoor temperature and relative humidity

366

values monitored during the study, showing a mainly stable average indoor

367

temperature, possible thanks to the building’s high thermal mass, hypogeum space

368

and absence of windows. Figure 7 illustrates a histogram of operative temperatures

369

recorded in the museum, over the complete survey campaign. It shows that indoor

370

temperatures vary within a very narrow range of ~3 ºC. Figure 7 also illustrates the

371

cumulative probability distribution curve of the indoor operative temperatures. This

372

curve shows a more detailed distribution of temperatures and was obtained using the

373

cumulative values (temperatures in ºC) that are equal to or lower than the operative

374

temperature value at each particular plots on the curve.

EP

TE D

M AN U

365

80

AC C

30

Temperature (°C)

60

20

50

15

40 30

10

20 5

10

375

Average Outdoor RH Average Outdoor Temp.

Jul-16

Jun-16

May-16

Apr-16

Mar-16

Feb-16

Jan-16

Dec-15

Nov-15

Oct-15

Sep-15

0 Aug-15

0

Average Indoor RH Average Indoor Temp.

17

Relative Humidity (%)

70

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 6. Indoor and outdoor relative humidity and air temperature average values during the study in

377

Valencia

378 379

Figure 7. Histogram and cumulative probability distribution curve of the indoor operative temperatures

380

recorded in the museum.

6.1. Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) values assessment

TE D

381

M AN U

SC

RI PT

376

Results show that there was a negative correlation between outdoor and indoor

383

temperature, and thermal sensation. As Figure 8 shows, the warmer the outdoor

384

temperatures, the colder the visitors felt inside the museum and vice versa. This

385

means that visitors felt discomfort inside the museum due to the temperature gap

386

during the summer and winter seasons. Although the same correlation existed between

387

indoor temperature values and thermal sensation, it should be noted that the real

388

indoor temperature values were practically always constant. This is due to the building

389

being mechanically ventilated 24/7, as thermal consistency is necessary for artwork

390

and artefact preservation. Hence, we can assume that the differences in the visitors’

391

answers were affected only by outdoor temperatures and, therefore, by the difference

392

between indoor and outdoor temperatures (thermal leap).

AC C

EP

382

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 30.0 24.5 22.4

22.1

21.9 19.6

20.0

17.2

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Indoor Temperature

-3, -2

Outdoor Temperature

-1, 0, +1

Indoor Temperature

Outdoor Temperature

+2, +3

Figure 8. TSV ranges against average indoor and outdoor temperatures

M AN U

393 394

Outdoor Temperature

SC

Indoor Temperature

RI PT

Temperature (°C)

25.0

To further support this consideration, there is a clear correlation between outdoor

396

and indoor temperatures and the visitors’ answers ranges (>1, 1 - -1, <-1). Figure 8

397

also proves the theory that the warmer the outdoor temperatures, the colder the visitors

398

feel. The difference between the visitors who felt neutral and hot is very limited and it is

399

therefore considered negligible. On the other hand, individuals who felt cold were more

400

affected by outdoor temperatures than the other two groups, following the tendency

401

previously presented.

TE D

395

Environmental temperatures and Thermal Sensation Votes (TSV) were evaluated

403

by using Pearson product moment correlation [40]. If p is smaller than the significance

404

level (default is 0.05), then the corresponding correlation in r is considered significant.

405

As such, TSV had a significant correlation with the indoor temperature (r= -0.34, p <

406

0.001). This correlation, although statistically significant, is quite weak. The plots for

407

TSV VS operative temperature for a whole period (1 year) are shown in Figure 9. It

408

may be observed that the correlation, although significant, is still quite weak.

AC C

EP

402

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 2 y = -0.0899x + 1.4666 y = -0.7797x + 16.877

-1 -2 -3 0

5

10

15 20 Temperature (ºC)

Outdoor Temperature Linear (Outdoor Temperature)

RI PT

0

25

30

35

SC

TSV

1

Indoor Temperature Linear (Indoor Temperature)

Figure 9. Correlation between Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) VS outdoor and average indoor temperatures.

412

The influence of gender in indoor thermal comfort opinions can be seen

413

seasonally in Figure 10. Generally, gender did not prove to be very influential on

414

thermal comfort perceptions, but there was a seasonal caveat. During summer months,

415

the answers within the middle range (-1, 0, +1) were different, with an 82% satisfaction

416

for males and only a 68% satisfaction for females across the band. Additionally, during

417

the same period, answers showed gender-based differences with 17% of males and

418

27% of females who reported feeling either cool or cold. Some gender variations were

419

noticeable in winter and spring, although values remained in the central comfort band:

420

a 15% gap was present in correspondence to the ‘neutral’ value in winter and in the

421

‘slightly cool’ in spring, with men feeling slightly warmer than women in winter and

422

women feeling slightly cooler than men in spring. During the remaining periods, values

423

by gender varied only slightly and thermal comfort ranges values were very similar. In

424

addition to providing a gender perspective, Figure 10 supports the earlier finding of a

425

negative correlation between warmer outdoor temperatures and visitors’ cooler thermal

426

sensations.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

409 410 411

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Male

Summer

Female

60% 49% 50%

50%

18% 15%

20% 11%10% 7%

9% 2%

2% 2% 1% 0%

10% 1%

-1

0

+1

+2

-3

60% 50%

42%

30%

21%

+3

Male

Female

25%

20%

11% 6% 0%2% 0%

+2

40%

30% 20%

+1

40%

32% 19%

0

54% 50%

M AN U

40%

-1

Spring

Female

57%

50%

-2

Male

Winter 60%

+3

SC

-2

12%13%

4% 0% 0% 0%

2%

0% -3

RI PT

18% 15%

0%

6%4%

10%

0% 0%

0%

4% 4% 0% 0%

14% 5%

5% 0% 0% 0%

0%

-3

-2Figure -110. Comparison 0 +1 +2 +3 male and female -3 TSV -2 values -1 by 0season +1 between

+2

+3

TE D

427 428

28% 25%

30%

23%

20%

10%

42% 40%

40%

30%

10%

Female

60% 50%

40%

Male

Fall

Figure 11 depicts the Thermal Sensation Votes of visitors. Data were

430

summarised monthly, using the average and the standard deviation values. Even

431

though the mean values showed that occupants felt comfortable almost the entire year

432

(a part from July, August and September when average values move below the -1

433

band), the standard deviation demonstrated a wider amplitude of values during the

434

cooling season (particularly June, August and September), with visitors feeling

435

uncomfortable (cool or cold), while, during the heating season (December, January and

436

February), visitors did report feeling comfortable.

AC C

EP

429

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3

2 1.32 0.76

TSV

0.51

0.41

0.03

0.02

0

1.18 0.27

0.00

0.00

-0.38

-0.50 -0.76

-1

-1.03

-1.06

-1.13

-1.14

-2.16

Jul-16

Jun-16

May-16

Mar-16

Feb-16

Jan-16

Dec-15

Nov-15

Oct-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

SC

-2.33

Apr-16

-2.07

Figure 11. Average and standard deviation of overall TSV values by month

M AN U

440

-0.73

-1.39

-3

439

-0.43

-0.45

-1.82

-2

437 438

-0.67 -1.11

-1.26

0.49

-0.20

-0.32 -0.64

0.87

0.74

0.67

0.48

RI PT

1

6.2. Comparison between Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) values and Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) values

Figure 12 compares the calculated Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) average values

442

and measured Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) average values, by month. While TSV

443

values were mainly concentrated in the neutral area (-1, 0, +1), PMV values were

444

mainly lower than TSV values and shifted towards the cooler bands, except for the

445

cooling session months (May-September) during which occupants reported to be

446

colder. According to Fanger’s model, visitors should feel uncomfortable due to the

447

HVAC system performance; however, since the results in this investigation exhibited

448

fairly stable TSV values in the comfort zone, Fanger’s model does not prove to be

449

reliable in this case.

AC C

EP

TE D

441

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3.00

0.79

0.41 0.00

0.27

-1.06

-0.73

-1.17

-1.13

SC

Jul-16

Jan-16

-1.03

Jun-16

-2.04 Feb-16

-1.99 Dec-15

Oct-15

Sep-15

Nov-15

-2.30 Aug-15

0.21 -0.17

RI PT

-1.28

-2.00 -3.00

-0.45

0.01

-0.54 -1.01

Average PMV

Average TSV

Figure 12. Comparison between PMV and TSV average values by month

M AN U

450 451

-0.20

May-16

-1.03 -1.00

0.00 -0.32

-0.38

0.00

Apr-16

1.00

Mar-16

TSV values

2.00

As argued by other researchers [36], visitor metabolic rate is a critical factor

453

when using Fanger’s model for museum buildings. In order to take as many factors as

454

possible into consideration, the transportation method employed by each visitor to

455

arrive at the museum was considered according to the options as directed in the

456

ASHRAE 55 [49] and listed in

TE D

452

Since the average visitor spend 1-2 hours per visitation, the authors followed

458

ASHRAE 55’s directions (Table 5) and did not take into account the method of

459

transportation to the museum. Instead, a 2.0 met rate (walking slowly throughout the

460

museum) was applied for the purpose of PMV calculations. Table 5. Since the average visiting time was between 1 and 2 hours, a fixed

AC C

461

EP

457

462

value for metabolic rate has been assigned for all visitors to calculate PMV values

463

(slowly walking 2.0 met). Therefore, PMV and TSV average values were calculated

464

and measured, respectively. As depicted in Figure 13, while TSV values remained

465

within the neutral range (-1, 0, +1) throughout the year, PMV values had diverse

466

results. TSV values lingered between 0 and -1, independent of the transportation

467

method, in accordance to Mishra et al.’s [40] results, while PMV values were quite

468

different. In particular, visitors who used motorised transportation had average PMV

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 469

values of +2.1, whereas the PMV values for methods of transportation with higher

470

metabolic rates were as follows: biking +1.0, walking +1.3 and running +1.2.

3 2.1 1.3

1.0

1.2

1 0 -1

-0.4

-0.4

-0.2

Biking

Motorized transport

Walking

-3 PMV

TSV

SC

-2

RI PT

PMV & TSV values

2

-0.3

Running

Figure 13. PMV and TSV average values comparison between transportation methods for visitors staying

473

less than one hour.

474

M AN U

471 472

6.3. Clothing insulation assessment

In public buildings, such as museums, occupants do not have any control over

476

indoor temperature or natural ventilation, therefore adding or removing garments is the

477

only adaptive choice that is available to them. The type and amount of clothing worn is

478

thus a very important factor to consider while assessing subjective thermal comfort.

479

Figure 14 shows the average clothing levels and standard deviations for each month of

480

the monitoring campaign. It is very clear that during colder months, visitors’ clothing

481

level was much higher than during the warmer ones. Looking at the standard deviation,

482

values were very stable, reaching a gap between the highest and lowest values around

483

0.30 clo or even 0.40 clo. There was a slight reduction in this standard deviation

484

amplitude during the coldest months (January and February) which may have been

485

due to the very uncertain weather conditions.

AC C

EP

TE D

475

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1.00

0.95

0.90 0.84 0.78

0.70

0.77

0.69

0.58

0.56

0.58

0.57

0.38

0.61

0.42

0.40

0.27

0.18

0.46 0.32

Jul-16

May16

SC

Mar-16

Feb-16

Jan-16

Dec-15

Sep-15

Oct-15

Nov-15

0.00

Jun-16

0.17

0.10 Aug-15

0.58

0.51

0.47

0.25

486 487

0.83

0.70

0.35

0.30 0.20

0.88

0.69

0.48

0.47

0.40

0.73

0.66

0.58

0.50

0.73

0.91

RI PT

0.60

0.88

Apr-16

Clothing level

0.80

0.88

Figure 14. Average and standard deviation of clothing levels by month

Figure 15 displays the correlation between clothing levels and outdoor

489

temperature by gender. Outdoor temperatures are obviously very unstable. Clothing

490

levels, as expected, decreased when outdoor temperatures increased. Finally, male

491

and female choices were slightly different when considering the same outdoor

492

temperatures, with females choosing a slightly warmer clothing combination.

TE D

M AN U

488

1.4 1.2

y = -0.0238x + 1.0933

EP

y = -0.0264x + 1.1092

0.8 0.6

AC C

Clothing level

1

0.4 0.2 0

0

Male visitor

5

10

15 20 Outdoor Temperature (°C)

Female visitor

Linear (Male visitor)

25

30

35

Linear (Female visitor)

493 494

Figure 15. Correlation between clothing level and outdoor temperatures by gender for each survey answer.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 495

7. Discussion The case study investigated in this research offers an opportunity to understand

497

occupants’ satisfaction with a thermal environment in which their stay is limited to a

498

short amount of time (1-2 hours), but yet affects their overall experience. Being mainly

499

a hypogeum space with no windows, which is an important component of the building’s

500

heritage value that has been preserved and integrated in the adaptation project, the

501

building offers a peculiar environment for art collection and for visitors at the same

502

time. On one side, more stable conditions in terms of air temperature and relative

503

humidity offer the most suitable microclimate conditions for the preservation of

504

artefacts and the building itself; on the other, the few times that visitors reported

505

discomfort, this discomfort was generated by the gap between indoor and outdoor

506

temperatures. In order to guarantee indoor microclimate stability for conservation

507

purposes while providing the airflow rates suitable for its use, the building is equipped

508

with a mechanical system working on a 24/7 basis which generates more challenging

509

situations for human thermal comfort, mainly due to the temperature gap between the

510

inside and outside. Therefore, the negative thermal leap affects visitors’ satisfaction

511

with the thermal environment, while the positive gap does not, as participants did not

512

express any discomfort during the winter season.

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

496

Some minor fluctuations in the indoor air temperatures were, however, registered

514

during the field monitoring, mainly during the winter season (November-March), with a

515

drop of 1.2ºC (Figure 6). This demonstrates the effectiveness of the building’s thermal

516

masses (roof and walls), along with the hypogeum development of the building,

517

producing a positive effect in mitigating the heat transfer and in keeping the indoor

518

temperatures more stable, despite the combined effect of: i) the heat transfer through

519

the uninsulated extended flat roof surface; ii) the almost absence of winds cooling

520

down the roof’s surface; and iii) the unobstructed surrounding environment, with no

521

shadows from adjacent buildings. If the thermal mass is an effective hygrothermal

AC C

513

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 522

barrier during the warm and hot seasons, it appears to affect the indoor environment

523

negatively in the cold season. An interesting point worth-discussing is the divergence between TSV and PMV,

525

as shown in Figure 14. The PMV values calculated according to Fanger’s model

526

suggest that visitors should have expressed satisfaction with the thermal environment

527

between May and November only, with a limit condition in August shifted towards the

528

warmer side of the central band (-1,0,+1), and feeling cool or cold for the rest of the

529

monitored period. In reality, visitors expressed a different opinion, as the average

530

calculated TSV sits within the central band for almost the entire year, with the

531

exception of the summer season, as discussed before. This worth-mentioning

532

difference points out the fact that the metabolic rate does not have a significant impact

533

on the visitors’ thermal comfort sensation in this building. The divergence between TSV

534

and PMV is clear when analysing the method of transportation utilised by the visitors to

535

arrive at the museum (even though PMV values were calculated with the same met

536

rate of 2.0 met) (Figure 13). Once again, PMV show values out of the neutral band,

537

while TSV values are within the neutral band. The most relevant result is related to the

538

use of motorised transportation, where metabolism levels are very low and, according

539

to PMV results, people should feel cool or cold in fall, winter and spring, and

540

comfortable in summer, a result in contrast with TSV values. Overall, results

541

demonstrate the limits of Fanger’s model when used in museum environments and in

542

mechanically controlled climates, as in the case study investigated in this research.

SC

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

543

RI PT

524

A possible direction for mitigating summer discomfort could be working with

544

indoor temperatures in summer, currently ranging between 22.21ºC and 22.44ºC, by

545

moving the set-point towards the upper threshold of the temperature range

546

recommended for artwork conservation (21ºC-24ºC), in order to reduce the

547

temperature gap between outdoors and indoors. This will have a positive effect not

548

only on visitors’ thermal comfort, but also on the museum’s management due to the

549

energy savings resulting from a lower pressure on the cooling system during the hot 27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT season. However, moving forwards from Fanger’s model, considering seasonal

551

temperature variations in the set-up of optimal temperature conditions in indoor

552

environments would produce positive effects on occupants’ comfort, artwork

553

preservation and museum environments. In fact, the application of an adaptive

554

approach would account for the human response to fluctuations related to different

555

seasons [52], establishing a direct connection between outdoor and indoor thermal

556

conditions that would not necessarily affect the requirements for the preservation of art

557

and the built heritage in a negative way, as long as it is associated with the extension

558

of the temperature bandwidth, producing positive effects on overall energy savings as

559

well [39,53].

SC

RI PT

550

A final reflection should be made on the visitors’ participation in the survey. If

561

compared to the total amount of people visiting the museum during the research period

562

(18,483), those who accepted to undertake the questionnaire (440) were only 2.4%.

563

This means that the issue of visitors’ thermal comfort in museum buildings is still

564

understood as a secondary aspect and people do not engage with this enough.

565

Considering the scarcity of resources on this topic, more research needs to be done, in

566

order to contribute to the development of an integrated approach towards a combined

567

conservation and human comfort based adaptive reuse and building retrofit.

568

8. Conclusions

TE D

EP

AC C

569

M AN U

560

This paper investigated the relationship between human thermal comfort and

570

indoor microclimate in a historic building in Valencia, which has been adaptively reused

571

as the Valencia History Museum. The research implemented a Post-Occupancy

572

Evaluation methodology, performing a field monitoring on indoor microclimate

573

conditions and a questionnaire survey to visitors over a period of one year, in order to

574

assess the level of comfort perceived by the visitors during their stay inside the

575

heritage building.

576

The main results of the research are: 28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT TSV assessment: visitors showed more dissatisfaction with the indoor thermal

578

environment during the cooling season (July-September), possibly because of the

579

gap between indoor and outdoor temperatures, with males and females generally in

580

agreement on this;

581

comparison between TSV and PMV: Fanger’s model for calculating PMV does not

582

prove to be representative of the real thermal environment as perceived by visitors

583

in this case study, as TSV and PMV values were significantly divergent across the

584

year, also in regard to metabolic rates;

585

clothing assessment: visitors choose a clothing combination according to outdoor

586

conditions; however, this choice does not appear to be successful during their visit

587

in the museum, mainly during the summer season, contributing to discomfort.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

577

The paper suggests that the conservation criteria of artworks should not be the

589

only parameters to be taken into account, rather, a more comprehensive approach

590

should be considered that also includes human thermal comfort. The resulting

591

integrated approach should assess the suitability of the indoor microclimate to foster

592

artwork preservation, heritage adaptation and indoor environmental quality for

593

occupants. Also, when retrofitting heritage buildings and adapting them to new uses,

594

this combination could have a significant impact on existing historic structures. Similar

595

to the role of structural monitoring for the upgrade of existing structures, environmental

596

monitoring should be performed in historic buildings to understand their indoor

597

microclimate and its variations compared to the external environment, in order to

598

inform the retrofit project. Monitoring techniques should be non-invasive and, possibly,

599

contactless, in order to avoid any damages to the existing materials and surfaces.

AC C

EP

TE D

588

600

Historically, the adaptation of heritage buildings into museums has been driven

601

by the goal of achieving optimal environmental conditions for artwork conservation.

602

This single objective has often resulted in the integration of very intrusive plant systems

603

in the building in order to provide the required hygro-thermal conditions, to the

604

detriment of existing materials and to the neglect of the cultural value of the building 29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT itself. This approach has exacerbated the loss of materials in buildings originally

606

constructed for different uses and later adapted to museums, as adaptive reuse itself

607

can have high impacts on building fabrics due to compliance with mandatory

608

requirements (such as structural, mechanical, fire protection, etc.). On the contrary,

609

more recent approaches [54] promote a convergence between the conservation of the

610

building and the conservation of artefacts by taking fully advantage of both passive and

611

active systems, thus limiting the loss of materials and, consequently, of heritage value.

612

Ultimately, this approach will improve the level of sustainability of the overall

613

intervention, from an environmental (reduced energy consumption and improved indoor

614

environmental quality), social (reduced impact of heritage value as manifestation of a

615

social responsibility) and economic (reduced operation costs) point of view, in an

616

attempt of achieving a comprehensive, yet respectful adaptation process [55,56].

617

9. Acknowledgements

M AN U

SC

RI PT

605

This research would not have been possible without the co-operation of the

619

Valencia History Museum, Spain, and the valuable contribution of the director of the

620

museum, Javier Martí, staff and visitors.

TE D

618

This research has been supported by the Performance-Based Research Fund

622

(PBRF), year 2017, round 1 (Project n. A1707; Principal Investigator Dr Paola Boarin)

623

of the School of Architecture and Planning, The University of Auckland.

AC C

EP

621

624

The authors would like also to acknowledge Priscila Besen for her support in the

625

research and for the graphic elaborations related to the case study.

626

10. References

627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635

[1] [2] [3]

[4]

International Council of Museums (ICOM), ICOM Statutes, 2016. S. Wilkinson, H. Remøy, C. Langston, Sustainable building adaptation: innovations in decisionmaking, Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. B. Plevoets, K. Van Cleempoel, W.I.T.T. on the B. Environment, Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of cultural heritage: A literature review, in: 12th Int. Conf. Struct. Repairs Maint. Herit. Archit. STREMAH 2011, Chianciano Terme, 2011: pp. 155–164. doi:10.2495/STR110131. D. Misirlisoy, K. Günçe, Assessment of the adaptive reuse of castles as museums: Case of Cyprus, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 11 (2016) 147–159. doi:10.2495/SDP-V11-N2-147-159.

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14] [15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22] [23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

RI PT

[9]

SC

[8]

M AN U

[7]

TE D

[6]

K. Günçe, D. Misirlisoy, Adaptive reuse of military establishments as museums: Conservation vs. museography, in: WIT Trans. Built Environ., 2014: pp. 125–136. doi:10.2495/DSHF140111. H. Barranha, J.V. Caldas, R.N.N.D. Silva, Translating heritage into museums: two architectural strategies inside Lisbon Castle, J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 7 (2017). doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2016-0033. D. Camuffo, R. Van Grieken, H.-J. Busse, G. Sturaro, A. Valentino, A. Bernardi, N. Blades, D. Shooter, K. Gysels, F. Deutsch, M. Wieser, O. Kim, U. Ulrych, Environmental monitoring in four European museums, Atmos. Environ. 35 (2001) 127–140. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00088-7. V. Zivkovíc, V. Džikíc, Return to basics—Environmental management for museum collections and historic houses, Energy Build. 95 (2015) 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.023. K. Fabbri, M. Pretelli, A. Professor, Heritage buildings and historic microclimate without HVAC technology: Malatestiana Library in Cesena, Italy, UNESCO Memory of the World, Energy Build. 76 (2014) 15–31. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.051. V. Belpoliti, G. Bizzarri, P. Boarin, M. Calzolari, P. Davoli, A parametric method to assess the energy performance of historical urban settlements. Evaluation of the current energy performance and simulation of retrofit strategies for an Italian case study, J. Cult. Herit. (2017) 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.08.009. E. Lucchi, Simplified assessment method for environmental and energy quality in museum buildings, Energy Build. 117 (2016) 216–229. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.02.037. S.P. Corgnati, V. Fabi, M. Filippi, A methodology for microclimatic quality evaluation in museums: application to a temporary exhibit, Build. Environ. 44 (n.d.) 1253–1260. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.09.012. D. Camuffo, Microclimate for cultural heritage: conservation and restoration of indoor and outdoor monuments, n.d. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780444632968 (accessed May 12, 2017). M. Cassar, Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries, 1st ed., Routledge, 1994. AHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 552013, (2013). ISO, 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. Standard 7730, (2005). EN 15251 Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings- addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics. CEN, Brussels., Brussels, 2007. K. Gysels, F. Delalieux, F. Deutsch, R. Van Grieken, D. Camuffo, A. Bernardi, G. Sturaro, H.-J. Busse, M. Wieser, Indoor environment and conservation in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp, Belgium, J. Cult. Herit. 5 (2004) 221–230. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2004.02.002. F. Sciurpi, C. Carletti, G. Cellai, L. Pierangioli, Environmental monitoring and microclimatic control strategies in “La Specola” museum of Florence, Energy Build. 95 (2015) 190–201. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.061. R.P. Kramer, Clever climate control for culture: energy efficient indoor climate control strategies for museums respecting collection preservation and thermal comfort of visitors, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2017. V. D’agostino, F.R. d’Ambrosio Alfano, B.I. Palella, G. Riccio, The museum environment: A protocol for evaluation of microclimatic conditions, Energy Build. 95 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.009. S. Raffler, S. Bichlmair, R. Kilian, Mounting of sensors on surfaces in historic buildings, Energy Build. 95 (2015) 92–97. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.054. J. Ferdyn-Grygierek, Monitoring of indoor air parameters in large museum exhibition halls with and without air-conditioning systems, Build. Environ. 107 (2016) 113–126. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.07.024. C. Dogan Sahin, T. Coskun, Z.D. Arsan, G. Gökçen Akkurt, Investigation of indoor microclimate of historic libraries for preventive conservation of manuscripts. Case Study: Tire Necip Pa a Library, ˙ Izmir-Turkey, Sustain. Cities Soc. 30 (2017) 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.002. M. Andretta, F. Coppola, L. Seccia, Investigation on the interaction between the outdoor environment and the indoor microclimate of a historical library, J. Cult. Herit. 17 (2016) 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2015.07.002. T. Hu, W. Jia, J. Cao, R. Huang, H. Li, S. Liu, T. Ma, Y. Zhu, Indoor air quality at five site museums of Yangtze River civilization, Atmos. Environ. 123 (2015) 449–454. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.022. F.-J. García-Diego, M. Zarzo, Microclimate monitoring by multivariate statistical control: The renaissance frescoes of the Cathedral of Valencia (Spain), J. Cult. Herit. 11 (2010) 340–345. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2009.06.002. A. Caratelli, A.M. Siani, G.R. Casale, A. Paravicini, K. Hermann Fiore, D. Camuffo, Stucco panels of Room VI in the Galleria Borghese (Rome): Physical–chemical analysis and microclimate characterization, Energy Build. 61 (2013) 133–139. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.013.

EP

[5]

AC C

636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702

31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37] [38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42] [43]

[44] [45]

[46]

[47] [48] [49]

[50]

[51] [52]

RI PT

[33]

SC

[32]

M AN U

[31]

TE D

[30]

S.P. Corgnati, M. Filippi, Assessment of thermo-hygrometric quality in museums: Method and infield application to the “Duccio di Buoninsegna” exhibition at Santa Maria della Scala (Siena, Italy), J. Cult. Herit. 11 (2010) 345–349. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2009.05.003. J. Ferdyn-Grygierek, Indoor environment quality in the museum building and its effect on heating and cooling demand, Energy Build. 85 (2014) 32–44. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.014. N.G. Kotler, Museum strategy and marketing: designing missions, building audiences, generating revenue and resources, San Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass Publishers c1998., San Francisco, Calif., 1998. A.L. Pisello, V.L. Castaldo, C. Piselli, F. Cotana, Coupling artworks preservation constraints with visitors’ environmental satisfaction: Results from an indoor microclimate assessment procedure in a historical museum building in central Italy, Indoor Built Environ. 0 (2017) 1–24. doi:10.1177/1420326X17694422. J.-H. Jeong, K.-H. Lee, The physical environment in museums and its effects on visitors’ satisfaction, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 963–969. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.004. A. Martínez-Molina, P. Boarin, I. Tort-Ausina, J.-L. Vivancos, Post-occupancy evaluation of a historic primary school in Spain: Comparing PMV, TSV and PD for teachers’ and pupils’ thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 117 (2017) 248–259. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.03.010. A. Martínez-Molina, I. Tort-Ausina, S. Cho, J.-L. Vivancos, Energy efficiency and thermal comfort in historic buildings: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61 (2016) 70–85. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.018. H.E. Silva, F.M.A. Henriques, T.A.S. Henriques, G. Coelho, A sequential process to assess and optimize the indoor climate in museums, Build. Environ. 104 (2016) 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.023. ASHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, (2004). M. La Gennusa, G. Lascari, G. Rizzo, G. Scaccianoce, Conflicting needs of the thermal indoor environment of museums: In search of a practical compromise, J. Cult. Herit. 9 (2008) 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2007.08.003. R.P. Kramer, M.P.E. Maas, M.H.J. Martens, A.W.M. van Schijndel, H.L. Schellen, Energy conservation in museums using different setpoint strategies: A case study for a state-of-the-art museum using building simulations, Appl. Energy. 158 (2015) 446–458. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.044. A.K. Mishra, M.T.H. Derks, L. Kooi, M.G.L.C. Loomans, H.S.M. Kort, Analysing thermal comfort perception of students through the class hour, during heating season, in a university classroom, Build. Environ. 125 (2017) 464–474. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.09.016. A.K. Mishra, R.P. Kramer, M.G.L.C. Loomans, H.L. Schellen, Development of thermal discernment among visitors: Results from a field study in the Hermitage Amsterdam, Build. Environ. 105 (2016) 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.026. A. Kotopouleas, M. Nikolopoulou, Evaluation of comfort conditions in airport terminal buildings, Build. Environ. 130 (2018) 162–178. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.031. R. Hay, F. Samuel, K.J. Watson, S. Bradbury, Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: experiences and perspectives from UK practice, Build. Res. Inf. 0 (2017) 1–13. doi:10.1080/09613218.2017.1314692. W. Preiser, H. Rabinowitz, E. White, Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1988. A.L. Pisello, V.L. Castaldo, G. Pignatta, F. Cotana, Integrated numerical and experimental methodology for thermal-energy analysis and optimization of heritage museum buildings, Build. Serv. Engeneering Res. Technol. 37 (2016) 334–354. doi:10.1177/0143624415609910. J. Mundo-Hernández, M.C. Valerdi-Nochebuena, J. Sosa-Oliver, Post-occupancy evaluation of a restored industrial building: A contemporary art and design gallery in Mexico, Front. Archit. Res. 4 (2015) 330–340. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2015.09.003. Institute for Veterinary Public Health, World Maps of Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification, (2011). P Ole Fanger, Thermal Comfort: Analysis and applications in environmental engineering, McGrawHill. (1970). G. Paliaga, L.J. Schoen, P.F. Alspach, E. a Arens, R.M. Aynsley, R. Bean, J. Eddy, T.B. Hartman, D. Int-hout, M. a Humphreys, E.E. Khalil, M.P.O. Rourke, P. Simmonds, J.L. Stoops, S.C. Turner, K.W. Cooper, W.F. Walter, D.S. Abramson, C.S. Barnaby, S.J. Emmerich, J.M. Ferguson, R.L. Hall, R.M. Harrold, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy AHSRAE 55, ASHRAE. (2013). doi:ISSN 1041-2336. ISO, 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. Standard ISO 7730, Geneva, 2005. ISO 7726 - Ergonomics of the thermal environment -- Instruments for measuring physical quantities, ISO, Geneva, 2012. R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Title Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998) 1–18. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qq2p9c6 (accessed January 19, 2018).

EP

[29]

AC C

703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769

32

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

SC

[56]

M AN U

[55]

TE D

[54]

R. Kramer, L. Schellen, H. Schellen, Adaptive temperature limits for air-conditioned museums in temperate climates, Build. Res. Inf. (2017) 1–12. doi:10.1080/09613218.2017.1327561. M. Rota, S.P. Corgnati, L. Di Corato, The museum in historical buildings: Energy and systems. The project of the Fondazione Musei Senesi, Energy Build. 95 (2015) 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.008. Green Building Council Italia, GBC Historic Building. Sistema di verifica GBC Historic Building®, Green Building Council Italia, Rovereto, Italy, 2014. P. Boarin, Bridging the gap between environmental sustainability and heritage preservation: towards a certified sustainable conservation, adaptation and retrofitting of historic buildings, in: J. Zuo, L. Daniel, V. Soebarto (Eds.), Fifty Years Later Revisiting Role Archit. Sci. Des. Pract. 50th Int. Conf. Archit. Sci. Assoc. 2016, School of Architecture and Built Environment, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2016: pp. 675–684. http://anzasca.net/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/69-1120-675-684.pdf (accessed May 5, 2017).

EP

[53]

AC C

770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783

33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of a museum in a historic reused building is performed.



Quantitative monitoring and qualitative assessment are used for one year.



Customized questionnaires for visitors are developed to assess visitors' thermal comfort.



Artwork conservation, heritage adaptation and indoor environmental quality are considered.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

