Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 77&78 (1998) 753—766

A comprehensive assessment of pedestrian comfort

including thermal effects
Michael J. Soligo*, Peter A. Irwin, Colin J. Williams, Glenn D. Schuyler
Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc., 650 Woolawn Road West, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2N9

Abstract

The effects of wind force on pedestrians have been a concern since it was realized that tall
buildings could greatly accelerate the wind at grade. The use of wind tunnels to assess
pedestrian level winds has lead to the development of criteria not only for safety but also for
comfort. More recently there have been increasing attempts to develop more comprehensive
criteria that include more of the overall microclimate rather than wind in isolation. This paper
describes new methodology developed by the authors. It includes the effects of wind speed,
temperature, relative humidity, clothing, activity, solar radiation, and exposure time. Thus not
only in wind force considered but also the impact of wind chill on exposed skin and a person’s
thermal comfort. The assessment model has been designed to allow for customization by the
various end-users and is capable of being upgraded to accommodate other imput parameters of
importance to pedestrian comfort, such as noise and air quality.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The 21st century will challenge urban designers, architects and engineers to respond
to society’s growing concerns about the environment and the quality of urban life. The
demands for “comfortable” living and a safe environment will be in the forefront.
Pedestrian comfort is affected by a number of external factors. Some of the more
relevant include: the force of the wind; the body’s thermal condition; wind chill of
exposed skin; noise; air quality; solar access; street-scape; and, aesthetics. This paper
focuses on the first three factors. New methodology and criteria are proposed that
synthesize the effects of these three comfort components. A criterion based on these
three components is by no means a final method of evaluation, however, assessment of
these three factors represents a significant advance over criteria based solely, or
primarily on wind force.

* Corresponding author.

0167-6105/98/$ — see front matter  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 8 9 - 5
754 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

The proposed methodology requires computational sun and shadow data, applica-
tion of thermal response data, wind velocity ratios acquired through wind tunnel tests,
and meteorological data from local weather stations. The system has been designed to
allow customization by various end-users and is capable of being expanded to
accommodate other input parameters related to pedestrian comfort, such as noise and
air quality.

2. Components of a pedestrian level comfort study

2.1. Wind force component

Many pedestrian level wind comfort criteria have been developed over the years.
Typically, these criteria categorize various wind velocity ranges as being appropriate
for certain types of pedestrian activity. These criteria have also included acceptable
frequencies of occurrence for the wind velocity values.
Since the wind velocity is a fluctuating quantity, it is necessary to define what type
of ‘characteristic’ velocity one is referring to when discussing criteria. Various defini-
tions for this characteristic velocity have been employed: the mean velocity ºM ;
a specifically defined gust velocity ºK ; and an effective gust velocity defined as ºM #Cp,
where p is the root-mean-square of velocity fluctuations and C is a selected multiplier
(constant). Various opinions exist concerning the most appropriate value to be used
for C, e.g. in the range 1.0 — 4.0. Selection of a C value in the range 3(C(4 implies
that it is the occasional peak gust that is considered most important to comfort. A low
value of C, say 1.5, implies that it is the more common gusts that best characterize the
wind conditions.
The authors have moved towards evaluating both the mean and gust values
by applying a gust equivalent mean (GEM) process. This method has also been
proposed by Lawson [1] and Durgin [2]. In summary, it looks at both the mean
and gust values. Both values are collected through wind tunnel testing at each
study location. The gust value is then divided by a gust factor (the authors have
chosen 1.85 as a representative value) and compared with the mean value collected.
The higher value is then evaluated against the established comfort criteria. This
approach is based on the assumption that in very turbulent winds it is the gust value
that is most important, whereas in less turbulent winds it is the mean value that is
important.
The wind velocity values used to categorize and associate comfortable pedestrian
activities with wind velocity, are dependent upon how often the wind velocities occur
(frequency of occurrence). Many past and present criteria have defined the comfort
categories and their associated wind velocity patterns, in terms of infrequently
occurring wind velocities, e.g. wind velocities occurring 1% of the time. It is the
authors experience that criteria based on these infrequent wind velocities are misun-
derstood by individuals not knowledgeable in wind engineering. This represents the
vast majority of end users of most pedestrian level comfort studies; namely developers,
architects, planners and the general public. A developer does not find it easy to
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 755

understand why a project fails a comfort criterion because a particular velocity is

exceeded 1% of the time. The frequent reaction is “well, this must mean it is
comfortable 99% of the time; so what is the problem?” To resolve this difficulty, the
authors have altered the criteria to answer the question “What will the wind
conditions be like most of the time?” rather than “How high will the wind speed be for
a small percentage of time?”
The criteria presented here are based on the author’s experience and practical
application over the past two decades, plus results from previous researchers includ-
ing: Lawson [1], Lawson and Penwarden [3], Hunt et al. [4], Melbourne [5],
Murakami et al. [6], Penwarden and Wise [7], Isyumov and Davenport [8], Soligo et
al. [25]. Papers produced by Ratcliff and Peterka [9] and Stathopoulos and Saathoff
[10] compared the criteria of many of the aforementioned researchers. Using these
references, the authors have converted these criteria to reflect mean wind speeds based
on a frequency of occurrence of 20%. The exceptions being values used to depict
dangerous wind conditions (for safety). The dangerous values were converted to mean
wind velocities with a 0.10% frequency of occurrence (24 h), which translates to three
events per year. The results of this conversion are given in Table 1 while a modified
Beaufort Scale is given in Table 2. The Beaufort Scale is as reported by Penwarden
[11], but modified to reflect wind velocities at 1.5 m above grade as opposed to 10 m.
There was some interpolation required in order to categorize each of the various
criteria into the headings of sitting, standing, walking and severe as each of the
individual researchers used various descriptions for their comfort categories. As well,
all gust velocities were factored (where applicable) to reflect the following:
ºK "º#3.5p, prior to being converted to a mean value. Also, Murakami’s values
represent daily maximum gust values, and were considered as a matter of interest.
The criteria considers two main aspects: (1) safety (2) levels of comfort for various
pedestrian activities. Considering the safety aspect, unsafe conditions are those which
range from difficulty with balance, to actually blowing people over. Calculations by
the authors, of the wind force on the projected area of a human being (Penwarden
[11]), and observations such as those of Melbourne and Joubert [12], have shown

Table 1
Various pedestrian level wind criteria converted to a common frequency of
return (20%) and mean wind velocity (km/h)

Sitting Standing Walking Severe

20% 20% 20% 0.10%

Lawson and Penwarden 8.5 13.9 20.3 66.3

Penwarden and Wise — — 18 —
Hunt et al. 10.4 15.6 — 39.7
Melbourne 9.7 12.6 15.5 46.2
Davenport and Isyumov 8 *14.5 **19.5 49.3
Lawson 10.6 15.8 21.1 48.9
Group Avg. 9.44 14.48 18.88 50.08
756 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

Table 2
Modified Beaufort Scale representing mean wind speeds recorded at 1.5 m height over land

Beaufort number Description Mean wind speed (km/h) Effect

0 Calm 0—1 Smoke rises vertically

1 Light air 1—4 Direction of wind shown by
smoke drift
2 Light breeze 4—9 Wind felt on face; leaves rustle;
wind vane moves
3 Gentle breeze 9 — 15 Hair disturbed; clothes flap;
wind extends light flag; leaves in
motion
4 Moderate breeze 15 — 22 Raises dust and loose paper;
hair disarranged; small
branches are moved
5 Fresh breeze 22 — 30 Small trees begin to sway; force
of wind felt on body
6 Strong breeze 30 — 38 Large branches in motion; um-
brellas used with difficulty. Dif-
ficult to walk steady
7 Near gale 38 — 48 Whole trees in motion; incon-
venience felt when walking
8 Gale 48 — 58 Generally impedes progress, dif-
ficulty with balance in gusts
9 Strong gale 58 — 68 People blown over

that gust speeds in the range 80—100 km/h or mean speeds of 43—54 km/h, are sufficient
to blow pedestrians over. The exact value depends on their weight, size, traction, cloth-
ing and other factors such as athletic ability of an individual. Therefore, the authors
criterion for safety is set so that a location is categorized as severe if ºM *52 km/h occurs
more than 0.10% of the time or three (3) occurrences per year (assuming 3 h events and
24 h per day). The term severe implies the occurrence of potentially dangerous
conditions at the particular location considered. The threshold value of 52 km/h agrees
nicely with the gale descriptors of the modified Beaufort Scale (Table 2).
Considering comfort, the approach has been to first select a characteristic wind
velocity range that is comfortable for a particular activity (e.g. sitting); and then to
require that this be satisfied for 80% of the time. This type of format is more readily
understood by end users, an important consideration in pedestrian wind comfort
studies. The choice of 80% of the time, rather than some other percentage is, to some
extent, flexible in that local planning authorities may wish to raise or lower the limit
slightly, based on local experience. However, it is noteworthy that Penwarden and
Wise [7] selected 80% based on discussions with developers and building managers.
Also, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) [13] has used 80% in indoor comfort applications. Table 3 summarizes
the wind force comfort criteria proposed by the authors. They are broadly consistent
with the research previously cited. However, the format has been designed to be
simple, and easily understood.
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 757

Table 3
Wind force criteria

Category Mean wind velocity Frequency

Sitting 0 — 9 km/h *80%

Standing 0 — 14 km/h *80%
Walking 0 — 18 km/h *80%
Uncomfortable '18 km/h '20%
Severe *52 km/h *0.10%

2.2. Thermal component

The assessment of thermal comfort involves examining the heat balance of a human
body to determine if excessive temperature change in the body is occurring after
a certain exposure time to ambient conditions. The evaluation of thermal comfort is
the most complex of the three comfort components. It is affected by temperature,
humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, clothing, activity, exposure time, and regula-
tory mechanisms that can maintain thermal comfort even under otherwise uncomfort-
able conditions. These variables have been incorporated into various mathematical
models of thermal comfort, two of the more well known being the Fanger [14,15]
model and the Pierce two-node [15] model. The Fanger model is a steady-state energy
balance model which assumes a state of equilibrium has been reached. The Pierce
model is a two-node model which evaluates the inner body temperature and skin
temperature. It is a transient model that allows variation of exposure time. Both of
these models were developed for indoor environments. However, a review of the
research conducted by Arens et al. [16] and Doherty and Arens [17] indicated to the
authors that the Pierce model was best suited for the intended application. The Pierce
model is based on the heat balance of two body compartments, the core and skin.
Given a set of environmental and personal conditions and an exposure time, the
model predicts core and skin compartment temperatures at the end of every minute
until the required exposure time has been reached. Based on the final body temper-
atures, thermal comfort is predicted. Modifications to the applications of this model
for outdoor use were developed by in-house research conducted at RWDI by Lamb
and Soligo [18].

2.3. TSENS Comfort Scale

The overall body temperature following the exposure time is converted into
a relative scale of human comfort [14—17,19]. There are various scales used to
evaluate the level of thermal comfort or discomfort. Three of the more well-known
scales are: the predicted mean vote index (PMV); the thermal discomfort index
(DISC); and the thermal sensation index (TSENS). These scales are similar in nature,
employing a numerical index with positive values representing the warm side of
neutral comfort and negative values representing the cool side of neutral comfort.
758 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

PMV scale is a seven point index while the DISC and TSENS are eleven point scales.
TSENS is based on the same scale as PMV with additional descriptors for $4 and
$5. DISC has different descriptions but reflects a similar scale to TSENS. For the
purpose of this application, the TSENS scale has been chosen to represent the level of
pedestrian thermal comfort. However, the analysis program has been constructed in
a manner that would allow the replacement of this scale should future information
and research warrant such a modification. The TSENS value is interpreted as shown
in Table 4.

2.4. Wind chill component

Wind chill combines wind velocity and air temperature to determine the chilling
effect on exposed skin. Unlike the body heat balance, wind chill is generally not
affected by clothing level in urban environments as the face, ears, and in many cases,
the hands are exposed even when pedestrians are clothed in heavy winter apparel.
Areas subject to seasonal temperatures less than 10°C should include a wind chill
component when assessing pedestrian comfort. The wind chill index (WCI) provides
an empirical estimate of wind chill [15]:
WCI"(10.45#10»!») (33!¹ ) kcal/(m h),
where » is the wind speed in m/s ('1.78 m/s) and ¹ the ambient temperature in °C
()10°C).
Another wind chill scale is the equivalent wind chill temperature, the ambient
temperature in still air required to give the same WCI:
¹ "!0.04544(WCI)#33°C,

where ¹ is the equivalent temperature in °C.


Table 4
TSENS comfort scale

Number Description

#5 Intolerably hot
#4 Very hot
#3 Hot
#2 Warm
#1 Slightly warm
0 Neutral
(comfortable)
!1 Slightly cool
!2 Cool
!3 Cold
!4 Very cold
!5 Intolerably cold
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 759

To determine if the wind chill criterion is met, a maximum allowable WCI value
must be determined based on a minimum acceptable equivalent temperature. An
equivalent temperature of !20°C, translating to a maximum WCI of
1166 kcal/(m h) is a reasonable limit.

3. Input parameters for the pedestrian comfort assessment program

As previously discussed, pedestrian comfort involves three primary components:

the mechanical force of wind; the body’s thermal comfort; and wind chill effects on
exposed skin. If any combination of these “comfort components” is not satisfied to
a particular level, then pedestrians will not be comfortable. In order to assess the effect
of developments on pedestrian comfort, the authors have developed a computer
program that evaluates the wind force, thermal comfort and wind chill levels. Various
input parameters are acquired from three primary sources namely: a computerized
sun/shade simulation; wind tunnel tests; and meteorological records. Predictions of
pedestrian comfort are then obtained by combining parameters from these three
sources. The evaluation takes place at pre-determined points, i.e. at locations where
wind velocity measurements were taken in the wind tunnel tests. These points are
referred to in this paper as sensor locations. The pedestrian assessment process is
summarized by the flow chart in Fig. 1.

3.1. Three-dimensional computer modelling and sun/shade data

The presence or lack of direct sunlight experienced by a pedestrian can have

a significant effect on thermal comfort. In order to determine if a particular location

Fig. 1. Flow chart of a pedestrian comfort assessment model.

760 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

will experience sun or shade for various dates and times throughout the year, it is
necessary to consider the angle of the sun and the geometry of the surrounding
buildings. Building geometry can be modelled using three-dimensional computer
graphics. The various times of year and times of day are represented in the computer
model by varying the solar angles thus making it possible to determine which sensors
are exposed to sunlight or shade. This process is repeated for every hour of the day for
each of the representative seasonal days. The output from this program produces a file
identifying the date and time each sensor location is exposed to sun or shade on an
hourly basis.

3.2. Wind tunnel testing

The characteristic mean ºM and gust ºK wind speeds are required for the wind force
assessment, while only ºM is required for the thermal comfort and wind chill assess-
ments. To determine these wind velocity values at each sensor location, boundary
layer wind tunnel tests are conducted on a physical scale model comprised of
structures, landscaping and topographical features of the study area and surround-
ings. Upstream of the turntable the terrain roughness is modelled by generalized
roughness distributed over the working section’s floor. In addition, specifically de-
signed turbulence generators are installed at the start of the working section. By
varying the floor roughness and turbulence generators the effects of various types of
terrain roughness upwind of the turntable can be reproduced at model scale. A de-
tailed explanation of these techniques is provided by Irwin [20]. In order to measure
the wind conditions on the scale model, specially designed probes have been de-
veloped. Two of the more common are: (i) The hot wire probe which determines
velocity based on the temperature of the probe; (ii) the Irwin sensor [23] which
measures wind pressure. Minimum requirements for the wind simulation are provided
in the ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice [21]. Since the properties
of the natural wind (see for example ESDU [22]) and simulation techniques have been
well documented in the literature no further elaboration will be given here.

3.3. Meteorological records

Meteorological data from the weather station closest to the study site are read into
an analysis program. The program adjusts wind speed readings to gradient height,
taking into account the anemometer height and upwind terrain. Hourly readings
contain the year, month, day, hour, wind direction and speed, ambient temperature,
relative humidity, amount and opacity of cloud cover and precipitation (optional).
Typically 30 years of such data are collected. This data must be further processed
before it can be used by the comfort criteria program.

3.4. Processing of data

In order to assess the overall pedestrian comfort level for each test location,
information determined and gathered separately for sun/shade exposure, wind
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 761

velocity, and meteorological data is merged and assessed simultaneously. However,

prior to this assessment, the meteorological data must be evaluated separately in
conjunction with site specific variables which will create parameters necessary for the
comfort evaluation. Once calculated, these parameter values will be assessed for, and
appended to, each hourly record of the meteorological data and used in the comfort
assessment. The parameters and respective input variables required for this program
evaluation are the effective radiant field (ERF), and clothing insulation value (clo)
[13].
The ERF from the sun is dependent on the angle of incidence of the sun’s rays, the
distance from the earth to the sun (which varies throughout the year) and the opacity
of cloud cover. The author’s software reads the raw meteorological data, converts
standard time to daylight savings time (DST), when appropriate, and determines the
altitude of the sun. Assuming a flat, horizontal ground surface and taking into account
the cloud cover, the direct and diffuse solar radiation is calculated. Reflected solar
radiation (from surrounding building and ground surfaces) is approximated by 20%
of the combined direct and diffuse radiation [16]. The ERF is then calculated using
the approximate body surface area exposed to direct sunlight, the absorptivity of skin
and average clothing, the atmospheric clearness number [24] based on geographic
location, and the diffuse, direct and reflected solar radiation. Two ERF values are
calculated: the first for shade, where the direct solar radiation is set to zero; and the
second for sunlight, where direct solar radiation is considered. These values are
calculated for, and appended to each hourly meteorological data record. Also cal-
culated at this time is the partial vapor pressure of water, a function of the relative
humidity and ambient temperature. This value is also appended to each hourly
meteorological record.
In order to predict thermal comfort, it is necessary to first predict the extent of
clothing worn by the subject. Although, typically, a particular level of clothing will be
associated with each season, day-to-day climate variations will produce day-to-day
variations in clothing. Furthermore, in reality, the subject has the ability to take off or
add clothing over the course of the day. To account for this, the program evaluates
thermal comfort for a finite set of clothing levels under a pre-defined set of parameters,
called the baseline. Since these conditions change from day to day, this process is
called the “floating baseline assessment”. The pre-defined set of clothing levels or clo
values are set based on the geographic location and customs of the general population
in the study area of concern. This baseline wardrobe may be altered to reflect warmer
or colder climates.
As it would be unreasonable to assume the average pedestrian would be able to
vary his/her clothing on an hourly basis throughout the day, the program evaluates
a level of clothing which best creates a comfortable condition during the daytime and
during the evening. This represents a realistic approach which allows pedestrians to
dress for the day’s activities then return home late afternoon/early evening and change
prior to leaving for their evening activities. A clothing insulation value is appended to
each hourly record in the meteorological data file for that day. The daytime value
appended to daylight hours and the evening value appended to evening hours. The clo
values appended to the records are the average of the clothing values determined to
762 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

provide thermal comfort at 8 : 00 a.m., 12 : 00 noon and 4 : 00 p.m. for the daytime,
and 8 : 00 p.m. and 12 : 00 midnight for the evening. Each of these clothing values is
selected from the set of eight baseline values previously selected to represent typical
city attire of the municipality in which the study is taking place. The value selected is
the one that produces the most neutral thermal sensation as predicted by the modified
Pierce model, under a specified metabolic rate, exposure time, wind exposure profile
and ERF, along with the meteorological conditions present.
These conditions simulate the environment under which the clothing decision is
made, while producing an “average” clothing value that will generally be comfortable
throughout the day, in sun or shade, and throughout the night without the benefit of
sunlight. An empirical formula is used to make a good first guess as to the appropriate
clo value, then heavier or lighter clothing levels are tested (if necessary) until the
modified Pierce thermal model predicts a thermal comfort level within $ 0.1 TSENS
of neutral. Only clothing values in the pre-selected baseline wardrobe can be tested. If
the heaviest or lightest value is still uncomfortable, that value is used. On occasion the
baseline condition may be so extreme that the subject cannot be thermally comfort-
able with any clothing level in the wardrobe. If even at the “best” clothing level the
thermal sensation is not within !0.75 to #1.0 TSENS of neutral, the baseline
condition has failed to meet the thermal criteria. A field is written to each hourly
meteorological record to indicate whether this has occurred.

4. Pedestrian comfort assessment

4.1. Overall comfort

At this stage of the program, three separate data files have been created:
(i) Sun/shade file — identifying when each test location is in sun or shade for each
hour of the day.
(ii) Wind tunnel velocity ratios — each sensor location is listed with a velocity ratio
of grade (1.5 m) to gradient speed, four sub files comprise this file, with each subfile
identifying the wind velocity ratios for separate seasons (if applicable).
(iii) Meteorological file — a meteorological file of raw meteorological data along
with ERF values and clo values appended to each hourly record.
These data files are used to define pedestrian comfort in terms of wind force,
thermal comfort and wind chill. The three comfort components are assessed individ-
ually as well as in combination, to determine an overall level of pedestrian comfort.
For overall comfort, the three comfort components are combined into a single overall
comfort evaluation for each of the three standard activities (sitting, standing, walking).
In order to pass overall comfort in any given hour, all three individual comfort
components must pass for that hour. For example, for an overall comfort level
conducive to sitting to pass a particular hour of meteorological data (at a particular
sensor location), the wind force (sitting), thermal (sitting), and wind chill components
must all pass that hour. If any one of the three components fail, the overall comfort is
categorized as failing that activity level for that hour. The purpose of assessing these
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 763

Table 5
Typical input file

Parameter Possible value

Maximum allowable WCI 1166 kcal/(m h)

(¹ "!20°C)

Wind force velocity ranges
sitting 0 — 9 km/h
standing 0 — 14 km/h
walking 0 — 18 km/h
severe *52 km/h
Metabolic rates
sitting 65 W/m
standing 75 W/m
walking 95 W/m
Exposure times
sitting 25 min
standing 25 min
walking 25 min
Pass limit for thermal comfort !0.75 to #1.0 TSENS

three comfort components individually is to identify which component(s) cause

a specific location to fail the overall pedestrian comfort analysis. By identifying
the component(s), the type of mitigation required to improve conditions can be
determined. In order to conduct the assessments, a number of input parameters are
required. These parameters can be tailored to reflect the most appropriate application
in the municipality of study. A list of the parameters is given in Table 5.

4.2. Outputs

The output lists the percentage of hours analyzed which passed in each category, for
each sensor. The period of analysis and the hours of the day are also reported. The
severe category is reported under the OVERALL section to emphasize potentially
dangerous conditions. If a location fails (i.e. exceeds 48 km/h more than 0.10% of the
time) that location receives a fail designation in the “category rating” column. Under
each thermal category, the percentage passing is reported, and the percentage failing is
split into two categories “cold” and “hot” which identifies the thermal sensation
causing the failure. An example of this output is presented in Table 6.
Specifically, Location 1 is identified as being thermally comfortable for sitting type
activities 90.8% of the time. The remaining 9.2% is shown to be comprised of
conditions being too cold 6.4% of the time and too hot 2.8% of the time. Table 6
indicates that for a location to be classified as comfortable for sitting, standing or
walking it must achieve overall comfort conditions a minimum of 80% of the time for
the respective category. The 80% limit is somewhat subjective depending upon
existing conditions and the individual municipalities views on development. There is
 764

Table 6
Pedestrian comfort analysis data output

Afternoon events (noon to 5 pm)

Period — of the year: 04/01P05 / 31
— of the day : 12 : 00P17 : 00

Loc. Wind chill Mechanical (%) Thermal (%) Overall (%) Category
rating
Pass Sitting Standing Walking Uncomf Sitting Standing Walking Sitting Standing Walking Severe
cold/hot cold/hot cold/hot

1 100.0 56.8 85.9 96.9 3.1 90.8 93.1 94.6 51.7 80.2 91.6 0.00 Standing
6.4/2.8 3.6/3.3 1.1/4.3
2 100.0 75.1 92.7 98.0 2.0 85.8 85.5 83.9 62.8 78.5 82.0 0.05 Walking
1.5/12.6 0.9/13.6 0.3/15.9
M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766
 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766 765

justification for the 80% value based on the authors past experience, research
conducted by Penwarden and Wise [7], and reference to ASHRAE [13].

5. Conclusions

The comfort methodology described in this paper synthesizes three major factors
affecting pedestrians, into a single model. The three factors are wind force (mechan-
ical), thermal comfort, and wind chill. These three components should be studied
concurrently to obtain a truly representative picture of the comfort conditions. The
format of presentation of comfort assessment results has been found to be very
important when dealing with the community of planners, developers, architects,
engineers and the general public. A format is proposed which is easily understood and
accepted. Emphasis is placed on what is happening most of the time rather than what
is happening infrequently.
An assessment model must be flexible in order to reflect the varying meteorological
conditions that occur regionally, and the different planning objectives of individual
municipalities. The input parameters of sun/shade simulation, wind tunnel tests, and
meteorological records, which reflect specific characteristics of each location, aid in
the customization of the assessment and comfort criteria. The present model is
limited to wind force, thermal comfort and wind chill effects. There are other
quantifiable components of the microclimate, such as precipitation, noise and air
quality, which impact pedestrian comfort. In principle, there is no reason why, in
future, these additional components could not be included in the comfort assessment.
The structure of the comfort model proposed herein lends itself to such future
extensions.

References
[1] T.V. Lawson, The Determination of the Wind Environment of a Building Complex Before Construc-
tion, Bristol University, Bristol, England, 1 May 1990.
[2] F.H. Durgin, Pedestrian level wind criteria using the equivalent average, J. Wind Eng. (1997) 215—226.
[3] T.V. Lawson, A.D. Penwarden, The effects of wind on people in the vicinity of buildings, Proc. 4th
Int. Conf. on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1976,
pp. 605—622.
[4] J.C.R. Hunt, E.C. Poulton, J.C. Mumford, The effects of wind on people: new criteria based on wind
tunnel experiments, Building Environ. 11 (1976) 15—28.
[5] W.H. Melbourne, Criteria for environmental wind conditions, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 3 (1978)
241—249.
[6] S. Murakami, Y. Iwasi, S. Morikawa, Study of acceptable criteria for assessing wind environment at
ground level based on resident’s diaries, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 24 (1986) 1—18.
[7] A.D. Penwarden, A.F.E. Wise, Wind environment around buildings, Building Research Establish-
ment Report, HMSO, 1975.
[8] N. Isyumov, A.G. Davenport, The ground level wind environment in built-up areas, Proc. 4th Int. Conf.
on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1976, pp. 403—422.
[9] M.A. Ratcliff, J.A. Peterka, Comparison of Pedestrian Wind Acceptability Criteria, Cermak Peterka
Peterson Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
766 M.J. Soligo et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 753–766

[10] T. Stathopoulos, P.J. Saathoff, Pedestrian Wind Environmental Criteria for the City of Montreal,
Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University, 1989.
[11] A.D. Penwarden, Acceptable wind speeds in towns, Build. Sci. 8 (1973) 259—267.
[12] W.H. Melbourne, P.N. Joubert, Problems of wind flow at the base of tall buildings, Paper presented at
the Int. Conf. on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, Tokyo, 1971, pp. 105—114.
[13] ASHRAE 1981, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, ANSI/ASHRAE Stan-
dard 55-1981.
[14] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering, Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, 1982.
[15] ASHRAE 1989, Fundamentals Handbook, Ch. 8: Physiological Principles, Comfort, and Health,
1989.
[16] E. Arens, R. Gonzalez, L.G. Berglund, Thermal Comfort Under an Extended Range of Environmental
Conditions, ASHRAE Trans. Part. 192 (1986).
[17] T.J. Doherty, E. Arens, Evaluation of the physiological bases of thermal comfort models, ASHRAE
Trans. Part. 294 (1988).
[18] D.G. Lamb, M.J. Soligo, The Development and Operation of a Comprehensive Pedestrian Comfort
Assessment System, RWDI Consulting Engineers, Guelph, Ontario, 1991.
[19] A.P. Gagge, Fobelets, L.G. Berglund, A standard predictive index of human response to the thermal
environment, ASHRAE Trans. Vol. 92, Pt. 2, 1986.
[20] P.A. Irwin, Design and use of spires for natural wind simulation, National Research Council of
Canada, N.A.E. Report LTR-LA-233, 1979.
[21] ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 67 — Wind tunnel model studies of
buildings and structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987.
[22] Engineering Sciences Data Units (ESDU), Wind Speeds and Turbulence, vols. 1a and 1b, September
1982 / July 1984.
[23] P. Irwin, A simple omnidirectional sensor for wind-tunnel studies of pedestrian level winds, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7 (1981) 219—239.
[24] ASHRAE 1985, Fundamentals, Ch. 27, Fenestration.
[25] M.J. Soligo, P.A. Irwin, C.J. Williams, Pedestrian comfort including wind and thermal effects, 3rd
Asia-Pacific Symp. on Wind Engineering, Hong Kong, December 1993.