Thermal comfort for fitness center

Houcine, the computer model method is only applicable for met values between 1.0 and 2.0, so occupancy types such as a fitness centre cannot be calculated. The graphical method is even more restrictive, for only 1.0-1.3 met and 0.5-1.0 clo values. See James Del Monaco's earlier comments regarding exclusion of spaces with high metabolic rates. In Canada there is a CIR to exclude these spaces, but I'm not sure about what is required for a US submission. Does anyone else have a specific CIR reference or CaGBC instructions on how to exclude spaces with high metabolic rates?

Hi Houcine, Funny...I was just checking in here to see if any new information had been posted about Fitness Centers, updating the post below from James Del Monaco. We put in a CIR on a project with included six indoor tennis courts with a spectator viewing area, which was naturally ventilated. We got the following response from the CIR: "The applicant requests clarification on how to comply with ASHRAE 55-2004 for spaces served by natural ventilation which are outside of the standard range of metabolic rates. The graphic comfort zone in the standard pertains to spaces where occupants have metabolic rates between 1.0 and 1.3 met. The metabolic rate for occupants involved in highly physically activity fall outside the range governed in the standard, therefore, thermal comfort conditions must be based on acceptable practices. The project should utilize an alternative compliance method or extrapolation of existing data to show compliance with the credit for the spaces which fall outside the range of standard 55-2004. ASHRAE 55-2010 has a revised computer simulation method which accommodates MET levels up to 5.0. Therefore, if the project team wishes to use that standard as an alternative compliance method to show compliance with the credit, that would be acceptable. It is unlikely that a relative humidity of 80% would be considered acceptable for the indoor tennis courts. The ASHRAE 55-2004 graphic comfort zone, and computer modeling method show that people feel increasingly uncomfortable as humidity levels increase. Keep in mind that this credit is meant to promote thermal comfort as measured by a defined standard. If the project cannot provide thermal comfort for a number of its occupants, it should not necessarily be allowed to exclude those occupants. The remaining spaces, including offices, locker rooms, lounge areas, and spectator seating areas should be designed to follow compliance with ASHRAE 55-2004. These spaces should be documented separately in the credit documentation." Ultimately we decided not to mess with documenting EQc7.1 on that project based on the CIR comment about 80% humidity, which we couldn't get under without A/C. Now I'm about to document another project with a lab on the top floor and a fitness center in the basement. Before we dropped more $$ and bought ASHRAE 55-2010, I checked in here to see if anyone had new guidance on fitness centers and found your question. So I guess our best path forward is to use the revised computer simulation method from the 2010 version, which accommodates MET levels up to 5.0, based on my CIR. Based on the CIR above, it doesn't appear they are likely to allow us to simply "exclude" these areas.

Hi Nadja, I having the similar situation where my project include space with MET > 2.0. ASHRAE 55-2010 tool seems not to accommodate MET > 2.0 as this condition apprently is not covered by ASHRAE 55-2010. Appreciate if you can share your submission approach on this situation.

Do the fitness center users occupy the space for less than an average of an hour per day per person? The IEQ Space Matrix indicates (footnote #2) that if that's the case, the space type should be considered not regularly occupied for IEQc7.1 purposes.