ll ;. \ Ln :l I N 2 5 I." ”1.4.. b 2 2.. 2.... Huh... *2... 2 a I D I it ‘I' ‘ .--..l .2- 3.4..- . ‘BQJV... 2.. 1.. 3‘}. v... w. .2... ,» ~22 B. .22 .... . . .2...-.~..7..1LJ. fun... . 222.5 2. . . .....24 ..-...4. . . ...2....-2.-1...2 10.3.32... . .l. .-...22 . I ‘tlLtny .2Y.|--2 at «I V. . ....-. .. ..l 2221.2..2fi202 F2 2 ...... .- .2 x}... .2 ...22I2. . 2.2 2.2- . . «2...-.. 2.12...2..2|... .-- . Q 22-“ ......zww. 2...... «2N..2~muw..w¢n. . . m . .... ......“ .22.... . ..., w.$...m.%§..b-r.n§2 .... gm . .... A. $22....2....w2%....%u. ,éamfi ... . .2 u. .N 222‘.‘ ...i ... m~2 . .115ch h :me 2.4.1:".“33. . s ......23... .. . . ... .....a. an... 4...... ... , . fiéwfiunwfiwihm. ...“... umuumfl. . . 2 .8.-. z 1. 22 g .. . a 1 t “in. 2.03““. I . h. L .. . «4%.? ........%2.r.....fiy. . - _. kflmufiw a Var ...!- . 1.2V..v.d . .l flux. 2.- ..nr 5 ...... ..flnindmcgfi... ......w..m....m.mr-u> ’3 (1.5.... -29-... \ . 2ifilu a... hit... .....HM‘ . 2. YA-’ 22 . ‘ It . u . ”5.2....mnM; khfififir ...meuuWWF. t................2. - 2 .. . . . . . . .. 42.95. 4?... . . .... x £59.". 12.. 2.2.2.3.... . . . .. ......2 - 3 . 1.2.... - . .Pti. .. . V laud... Hm. ...... . . . .5... ......2..h§.....2$2. .... .....- .34.... .9. ...... 2.2.1! 42011.. . . 2 .. 2lu.\ ..v I! . . v}!!! 1%! ...VZIIHH: .22... b.l‘.\.d.ndm.v.0 ".24.; ..uwn. Q . lit... .. ....22 . .... 23.2.45: a. ...vvuLdr.:.2P... . .. . ... . . . ME... . . .32.... .... .... .. . 5.1.2.... . . . .2... .g. . . 22A 122...“... ...... .2 . 2922.2 2-.....9 . 2.2.2.1.... . . . {3296.42 ..H»Mm& ....2hquWw... whxnwm.._.nu 5......2. . . 4.2.2.2.... -22.”...2.....3.2...!. . .2. “mm: ..1 .. .... ... . . -..». 2 .. .. .2. ........2 . . ......uh .........u...u.l.2.|2..H.......J..22.2.2.2...th..:¢.1” I II. III. 10" 1. I 1!. It C‘ Q ....) WW"... . uni». .... .a .22 . 22.5. ...). ...... . .2. .....u-..|.n. .13..." I... 12.. ...u... .2 2.2. 2 . . .29...- fl: . .... .... 1.2.2.5222... . .. .22...- ... 2.x ......ILHNZ.h.....,.....5222.2.....l22.l.....h- ..2 . . 14.2.. it... .3. . _ . . . .2. . . . ......2...d.. ..2 .... ..-... . .... .23...» ..-...7.I.2 -. -. 2.21222!!! 2... - I. Lufl . . . . l O! 2“... V- . v..’.r.V 29 .. ... -..! 2%..-... 2 {w . .|. 2 . 22...: V22. 2.1! .1322 . 22.2U~.| Iooll2vat-2n cl... .. t- II... 3:). .... ! ”civiir a w‘ 2“. 2 .... M2 22 : T212 22 K N 2|| 2.. I“-.. 2 avg... . . Hum... “2 .uu. . .....m. ......u... v... ...kuwkamm.)....I..J........h.....u........ «var. ...m. .. ...un2.nu.2.2...2h-c.. r...~..2.....h...... 22......u2LLH222222duh . ....u _ .. .... 1 ... . ,. .. - ....W. 2 a... 2..-... - ...... . . .. .2... ..-- 2:... 3...»..- - .. . . 2!. It; . 2| .II I . : L... . H. 2.31“... ‘1... 2.2 .| 22229153 .12 . . ‘1‘...le2! 2 2 '2. . V fa 2‘92!!! .22 -nmi... .1... .. 2%.. 0.2.2.2932 . . . . 1w.“ 2%...222. . .¢_.2J...h2.2..2..w.wb $2...- . . .21.... ¢.J.r2.222u.....2..n:|.2.2...uz 21.5.21)..ou . 2..2 éaivcnullu. 2 2!. pl . 5.. u. . 22 chXéghlL. 2.... '2 . ..‘k...\'.2 . 2| ..-. 22. 1.22.1.1 ...2 .2.. . kufivg 2.. 2 ..2I2. 22 2222...: 2.. 5222.“? . L}. AW... Hummus... RhXV‘u. ... . . . . . . 12 222221.22LJ ... 2.2. . 1W2: .22... ...22. 5‘. 3|: .2 . . 2.27»... .2. .2142 . . - . - . . . -.. .. ......NI . 2.14.17... .... “...: 2.32.2... .1112.-- ......1. . 3%.... ......u........2......- . .. ... y . . a... ...... 3». . .......l..2.22l.. 222.. ..k....... .1... ......Ilv...lh . - "0......gfifl. HI--...2b...25u_..Fw..mfi.....a.u...éafinunrh..- $33.22... 22. ...... . llh..lu.»... 1......14H... -.....A... an H .52.: .7 I r I: gunnflhud "23.2.22. ......Iv...” .02 Clvdlltifihbltfltfiihhfi .2 . .. ...: .. 221...... 2.22.5.2... 4Wl.2.2l.....2u....|.2! (2. “2.12.3493 _. 222......ll2 .Xio. .h.......!2... .VVJ‘IYL... ...2.. U2. u ......uv . .23.... .2322. 292lll.2¢n2.22 .21-. L0,}. '22 2.2.4014» 2.1. - --2 ..-2 ..2. .. .. ! 2 v2 2 ...-will. 1‘... WV .Ii $1.23... .22....2MJ... 2 unfifil. . ..--.22)....... l .. 2.. . i . ...... $9“?!leka fi§hhufln§drifié .... .-. .. 2... rill-m... .... .nnu..-2122.i2.n.. . .. . ...... ...22...m........2.. ......w. . . . . . . . . . .66....2..v 2.12 ....2. .2 . . .. ..2...2L.. .mu..n......2...2.... 1. v . f- 2.29.2 ‘24.- a..- ‘urfiuoflufii r2. ...2... 2.12.... .-wrihhkofi. 2. . 2222222... 4. 2. .. \ . D t... 2‘. .le-Nm2 22 2.0 2202...! n II 222. hunk! Isl 3RD. ., .. . . aging. .32 .2. 552...}... 22......n 2 .... . .W 2 lgnflli. |.2.. 2 o. 2!? (- fair 2 :Vvv 2K? 2. {v.12 .... I... .. 221.22. ...-5!. Cut. .252 Av; .(02 r int-it! 2 21 .. I l. 2 v . 1| .2 i2112.2'.82. 2...». {£223.42}? .52... . vobfiu... 7.2.3.2222 .... 2.22.5... \‘ . had.€h9h1.......l322..3§ ...u... .352.» $3222». .. 3gb... . .... .....2...nv...~....2.....«. 3.....- ....-.w. m. 5215..-“... 3.2.2.. > I v.23-.. 2...... ......Iu. -522...2..2.....22.um ...»..ILH....... -... . . ll.‘ ‘4 ' ..‘Jp'a‘ >1'l!t"4.1l‘.'-KA-.- VM' . 41' I. I O“... . K‘I ‘ z n’svt‘§ J .5. n. . . . IQ Ill-I... 2I\l2 21.0- .22. ... ... III! £2.22)... o I1). .2. .2 .1221. 2.2..22- 20 ll-.. ‘1. . ...2..h.2....2........3.l.v...2..22.2 .... .rvnfi2mnosasihflnum..n ...tuniihil...2flh}wnhuw..42n ......u “swank... .... 3...... - 4.22...- .2.. 2m...“ .1.....22..2......H22....2.H.. 2%....‘23H2I. 2 22223...- «2.22.2224 (22.22% 3.1.5.1... 13.». .2». 22 a. .. ...nvflhbfl 23.22...- 2. 2.1.2. .2. ... .-.. (.132. 2.5222- .-.. 232-22.324.25... 2.....- 2. .....u. 2 . 2... ......\2 .-. I..- {2.2 I..- I: I vt|..21.‘-7.2-.. {2.2.2. 22.2. 22. 2‘22 2.2.242!- 2 L 12'er >52... . ...22.22.2OA|.JP’D. ‘5‘“.‘1..I\02:)2 ~lolltaxll.‘ ...“!I 1 . I 2 -2 2. 2.22! «flit..- . . . Ir 722,222.22! ... 2.22.1 ,. . If... ...2.. 3.1.32. . rl II‘O‘é'z .2 .l'tl'é‘. '1 .‘a I. I II). "’C. 1.5 H. 2022...... into! bl. 0 ll 0.. 2.22.... . 222!).2|.2l22\l. 2 . . .92).- .2 2 ..-.2 3.12.3. 2.1.4..--22 -.. 2.2-1.23“... .-.)... . , 2| . .... ..-... . . ......fl..29222... .22 I‘dflfllv..- 2 22.!2Nu.‘ . 1| .. -22.... k K'Lflpl .22....2 2... 9.2.21.6»... .. . 114.21.12.22: 2 .. . . ...q... .25 2...-.. . -..- «wk... fiManfifi...1.¥§! ...» ‘2'. . 2. 1- 2 r-‘l'pul‘n .2 ‘7..."... 2 t!l‘2l\\ . V- I1! I152 - ..b. 11...... .... .i. 2 ...H. L ......fumt...” ...-«322.42%.2 RNA... .w. ...»..2. 2..... o I‘MVIN ‘26...|..-.2l\.2.1‘..vs21. ... ......t...........2 2.5. .2 12...... 2). .I 3.02.22. 3.22.2.2 ...... ..- . .... .. 5.2.2... ..hl...-‘2-2022. . 2..- 31.5.1.2. . .2414: .....- ...... .1.) 23:221..“ H.1idYWH.... . .-..2 1. .l2l. ......2...u.....2..2..2...2..u..\ .-.: 6... 5.-.... 2..”3..|...... . .2 . z.-. rvazv‘l.\a 22-..... \f. v.«2 .tyleriVIVv. . 1.22042‘1kfihflfi. ......Kiav 9:2 .v 22..\.. 222.. .... I. 2.22-2 222.. .2 2. 2. 11.2.5.229 ..II .7212}. 2- ... .. 2|. .l2..|.. ..I22 22.612.292.\.21.21... ...22l22...’ ... . . n...|oh(‘l.....222--.2.2.2 122..-...‘2hnarlio 22-1....222222 L12... .I- I..- 222..22.2I.....I22222g...2...2.22h...2..22.. 2.2.2.223...) . . 21.53.01! .2...2.n.-....22..22......2,... ...»..ufi...!......o.......22...2 . .. 2.2.... -22.... .... .. .2.|.-..2-.......l¢ub..u.u0.... . .04. '2...Inl.~' . .Iv' 2212.62.12} {Hunt-.2 . . .2 In! I2J.H2. At. 322.. {fiat/.21.-.. 2.2...» 22.. ... 1.2.5.». I. ...2..-)....2..222-2 . - . 2212......22220w2o‘i 2120!...2 Ill... 222.1..0222 ..2.’. ltnL .‘ . 2.22.12-2L222 .125: ‘2‘ ‘20 .22J2 . . .v.r..2222 232.12’2 .v . ‘VI2 .2...- V.‘.II72...2. . .2 I-.2.¢2IO2.. 02.. 2 122022021. '22-’22“ ...20..\4.2.. . -.- .22 - . 1.4225335... .-....wjiunzld. ... 2.....2. U21 . ._ 2.7.221. 0.222. .... ...... 12. 2.. .2... . .P 22. ...2.22.|...2.:....226.!. 2.5.0.. .. THESiS iUlHJUlWIIIINNIHIUIlfll'UIIUHUIUIHWWII 301565 0231 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled "Simulation and Evaluation of Ventilation Management Practices in a Cold Confinement Naturally Ventilated Dairy Freestall Barn." presented by Richard James Tillotson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Technology and Systems Management @27/1 Main professor Date October 24, 1996 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE ll REI'URN BOX to remove thie checkom from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. r—-———_—_——I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU is An Affinnetive ActiorVEquel Opportunity lnetituion Wm: SIMULATION AND EVALUATION OF VENTILATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A COLD CONFINEMENT NATURALLY VENTILATED DAIRY FREESTALL BARN by Richard James Tillotson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Engineering 1996 ABSTRACT SIMULATION AND EVALUATION OF VENTILATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A COLD CONFINEMENT NATURALLY VENTILATED DAIRY FREESTALL BARN by Richard James Tillotson During winter, cold confinement naturally ventilated dairy freestall housing is designed to maintain the inside temperature no more than a few degrees warmer than the outside temperature. However, to keep the building warmer for the benefit of man or machines, ventilation may be reduced or the building over-stocked. This may result in an unhealthy animal environment. Evidence of this potentially unhealthy condition is less obvious when the roof is insulated. Condensation or frost will not occur as rapidly and a "close or "barny" odor may then become the management tool used to identify underventilation. To study the effect of different wintertime ventilation rates and roof insulation levels on a naturally ventilated cold confinement dairy freestall barn environment, a simulation model was developed that predicted the steady state nighttime ventilation rate, air temperature, relative humidity, air exchange, roof condensation or frost formation, and carbon dioxide concentration. When soffit openings were less than minimum design area, a roof insulation thickness of 12.7 mm reduced the probability of roof condensation to less than 100%. Doubling the roof insulation thickness to 25.4 mm caused relatively insignificant reductions in potential roof condensation. However, even with roof insulation the potential for roof condensation still existed. Closing the barn ventilation to less than minimum design area reduced the air exchange, maintained inside relative humidity at an unhealthy level, and prolonged a damp, virulent, condensing environment that was detrimental to the structure and animal health. Conversely, unobstructed soffits, ridge, and open end doors caused the lowest.CIn concentration and relative humidity as well as the greatest air exchange and should be considered as a minimum.ventilation recommendation for an uninsulated cold confinement dairy barn during winter. To my wife, Becky, and my four adult children Jim, Amber, Sarah, and Carrie My greatest supporters. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Dr. Bill Bickert for the graduate assistant position, research area, and time invested in the development and review of this dissertation. I would also like to thank Rick Stowell for his willing help providing research ideas, barn monitoring data, and friendship; Dr. Nurnberger for his instruction in two very useful courses, guidance on psychometric properties, and efforts in dissertation review; and Dr. Person and Dr. Ferris for their guidance in the structure of this dissertation. For befriending a very old graduate student, thank you Tim Harrigan, Bob Fick, Jean Steavens, and Marty Schipull. How can I thank a wife and children who were willing to leave a stable home as a high school senior, a college freshman, a wheelchair confined teenager, a college junior, or a part time nurse; to move to a new high school, new college, new people, different living conditions, and a full time nursing job? Maybe the best way is to say IT'S DONE. Through this, and much more, I can say that I know I am loved; and I think we can all say that it was a great experience. Finally, I would like to thank my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. You have led us through this effort and what a blessing it has been. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1 1.2 Objective 2 1.2.1 Simulation Model Development 2 1. 2. 2 Environmental Evaluation 2 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 Reduced Ventilation and Wintertime Animal Health . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Reduced Ventilation and Building Deterioration . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Confined Cattle Air Quality Recommendations . . . . . 9 2.4 Weather Conditions Typical for This Model . . . . . .13 2.5 Historical Developments in Natural Ventilation . . . . . .15 2.5.1 Comparison of Warm and Cold Confinement Barns. . . . . .15 2.5.2 Resurgence of Interest in Cold Confinement. . . . . .16 2.5.3 Cold Confinement Ventilation Opening Recommendations. . . . . .16 2.5.4 Existing Natural Ventilation Models . . . .18 2.6 Natural Ventilation Equation Development. 25 2.6.1 Thermal Buoyancy Ventilation . . .25 2.6.2 Wind Induced Ventilation . . . . .31 2. 6. 3 Combined Thermal and Wind Induced Ventilation. . . . . . .32 2.7 Livestock Heat Production and its Partitioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 vi Chapter Page II. LITERATURE REVIEW (Continued) Discharge Coefficient Selection. .85 Pressure Coefficients Selection. .86 4.1.5.1 External Pressure 2.8 Pressure Coefficients . . . . .41 2. 8.1 External Pressure Coefficient . .41 2.8.2 Internal Pressure Coefficient . .43 2.9 Discharge Coefficients . . . . . . . . .44 2.10 Building Infiltration . . . . . . . . .46 2.11 Roof Temperature Calculation . . . . . .46 III. MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . .49 3.1 Validation Barn Data. . . . . . . . . . .52 3.2 Simulation Model Data . . . . . . . . . .58 3.3 Calibration Barn Data . . . . .66 3.4 Roof Surface Temperature Measurement. . .67 3.5 Carbon Dioxide Measurement Data . . . . .70 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . .72 4.1 Simulation Model Development. . . . . . .72 4.1.1 Building Heat Loss . . . . . . . .72 4.1.2 Building Infiltration. . . . . . .76 4.1.3 Building Heat Gain . . .78 4.1.4 4.1.5 Coefficients. . . . . . .86 4.1.5.2 Internal Pressure Coefficient . . . . . . .87 4.1.6 Neutral Pressure Plane . . . . . .88 4.1.7 Carbon Dioxide Concentration . . .89 4.1.8 Psychometric Calculations . . . .90 4.1.9 Roof Inside Surface Temperature. .90 4.2 Model Calibration . . . . . . . .94 4.2.1 Differences Between the Calibration and Validation Barns .94 4.2.2 External Pressure Coefficients . .94 4.2.3 Partitioning of Sensible and Latent Heat. . . . . . . . . .95 4.3 Model Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . 118 4.3.1 Weather Data . . . . . . 118 4.3.2 Rate of Milk Production . . 120 4.3.3 Outside Relative Humidity Level 123 4.3.4 Wind Speed . . . . . . . . . . 125 4.3.5 Building Heat Loss . . . . . . . 127 4.3.6 Discharge Coefficients . . . . . 128 vii Chapter Page IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Continued) 4.4 Model Validation and Validity . . . . . 129 4.4.1 Model Validation . . . . . 129 4.4.1.1 Validation Barn Building Temperature . . 129 4.4.1.2 Validation Barn Relative Humidity . . . . . . . 131 4.4.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Validation. . . . 133 4.4.1.4 Validation Barn Roof Temperature . . . . . . 133 4. 4. 2 Model Validity . . . 140 4.5 Wintertime Simulation Model Analysis of Typical Freestall Dairy Barns . . . . . 142 4.5.1 Four Row Uninsulated Barn Simulation From -20.6°C to 4.4°C 142 4.5.1.1 Roof Frost/Condensation Conditions . . . 143 4.5.1.2 Absolute Humidity and Relative Humidity . . . 147 4.5.1.3 Dew Point Temperature . 152 4.5.1.4 Inside Temperature . . 152 4.5.1.5 Carbon Dioxide Concentration . . . . . 155 4.5.1.6 Air Exchange Rate . . . 158 4.5.2 Four Row Insulated Barn Simulation at -20.6°C to 4.4°C . . 160 4.5.2.1 Roof Frost/Condensation Conditions . . . 160 4.5.2.2 Absolute Humidity and Relative Humidity . . . 168 4.5.2.3 Dew Point Temperature . 174 4.5.2.4 Inside Temperature . . 178 4 5 2.5 Carbon Dioxide Concentration . . . . . 180 4. 5.2. 6 Air Exchange Rate . . . 182 4.6 Simulation Model Applications . . . 184 4.6.1 Effect of Inlet Area Restrictions Upon Condensation Potential . . 184 4.6.2 Effect of Inlet Area Restrictions Upon Air Quality . . 190 4.6.3 Management Decisions Affected by Adding Roof Insulation . . . . . 193 4.6.4 Ventilation Management Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 195 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 197 5.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 5.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 viii Chapter Page VI. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 202 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Sample Thermal Buoyancy Calculation Results . . . . . . 205 APPENDIX B. Simulation Barn specifications . . . 206 APPENDIX C. Sample Combined Thermal Buoyancy and Wind Ventilation Calculation Results and Cell Values. . . 208 APPENDIX D. Sorted and Averaged Validation Barn Weather Data . . . . . . 218 APPENDIX E. Simulation Barn EnvirOnment at Different Ventilation Opening Areas and Latent Heat Adjustments. . . . . 231 APPENDIX F. Surface Conductance and Resistance for Air . . 242 APPENDIX G. Sample Internal Pressure Coefficient Calculation Results and Cell Values. 243 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 ix Table 2.1 LIST OF TABLES Page Recommended Winter Relative Humidity . . . . . . . . 11 Maximum Recommended Concentration of Noxious Gases . 12 Hourly Temperature Occurrences per Year, 99% Winter Design Dry Bulb Temperature, and Mean Winter Wind Speed at Select Cities . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Comparison of Stack Ventilation Calculated by Five Different Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Pressure Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Typical Wintertime U Value Calculation . . . . . . . 74 Latent Heat Values for 500 kg Dairy Cattle at Various Outside Temperatures Used as Reference or Base Values for Linear Regression Calculations . 81 Validation Herd Calculated Latent and Sensible Heat Production Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Effect of External Pressure Coefficients On Air Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Percent of Original Value in the Partitioning of Sensible and Latent Heat to Reduce Variability Between Measured and Calculated Inside Temperature and Relative Humidity for the Calibration and Validation Barns . . . . . . . . . .101 Final Percentage Adjustment in Validation Barn Calculated Latent Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Validation Barn Mean Outside and Inside Temperature, Wind Speed, and Relative Humidity at 2.8 °C (5 °F) Increments for the Months of December, January, and February 1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Table 4.8 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Average Outside Wind Speed and Relative Humidity From Six Monitored Freestall Dairy Barns in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan for the Months of December, January, and February, During the Years of 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92 Sensible Heat Production and Inside Environment Conditions as Affected by Milk Production in a Barn With an Insulated Roof Sensible Heat Production and Inside Environmental Conditions as Affected by Milk Production in an Uninsulated Barn Difference Between Calculated Environmental Values for Milk Production Rates of 32. 8 kg/day. and 43.5 kg/day at —17. 8 H2 . . . . . . . Barn Environment as Affected by Wind Speed at 10% and 343% Ventilation Openings . . . . . Comparison of Discharge Coefficients on Inside Temperature at ~17.8 W2 H)°F) Ambient Temperature and a 4.5 m/s (10 mph) Wind Speed . . . . . . Validation Barn Roof Surface, Temperature Measurements . . Calculation of Roof Lower Surface Temperature from Averaged Data Uninsulated Simulation Barn Inside-Outside Temperature Difference at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes and Three Outside Temperatures Effect of Roof Insulation on Simulation Barn Outside to Inside Temperature Rise at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes and Three Outside Temperatures . . . xi Page .119 .120 .122 .123 .125 .128 .136 .137 .155 .178 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Logarithmic Plot of the Survival of Pneumococci Sprayed from Broth Culture Into Atmospheres of Various Relative Humidities at 22.2 %2 Ideal Ventilation Rate Basic Ridge Vent Designs for Naturally Ventilated Barns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ventilation Airflow When the Neutral Pressure Plane (NPP) is Located Within a Ventilation Opening Location of the Neutral Pressure Level Airflow Due to Difference in Pressures on Internal and External Building Surfaces Caused by Wind Variables Affecting Dairy Barn Natural Ventilation. Flow Chart of Barn Environment Variables and Equations Validation Barn Floor Plan and Wind Angle Used When Sorting Weather Data . . . . . . . Validation Barn East or West Elevation. Model Barn Gable End Elevation. Model Barn Floor Plan and Wind Directions Included in Weather Data Summary Typical Model Barn Ventilation With 10% of Soffit Vents Open. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Model Barn Ventilation with Upwind Soffit Blocked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Model Barn Ventilation With 100% Open Soffits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page .10 .17 .24 .26 .42 .50 .51 .53 .54 .59 .60 .61 .62 .63 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page 3.10 Typical Model Barn Ventilation with Soffits and East End Cattle and Feed Alley Doors Open . . . . . .64 Animal Heat Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Calibration Barn Inside Relative Humidity From Measured Data, Calculated Total Heat Partitioning, and Calculated and Adjusted Total Heat Partitioning .97 Validation Barn Inside Relative Humidity From Measured Data, Calculated Total Heat Partitioning, and Calculated and Adjusted Total Heat Partitioning .98 Calibration Barn Inside Temperature From Measured Data, Calculated Total Heat Partitioning, and Calculated and Adjusted Total Heat Partitioning . . .99 Validation Barn Inside Temperature From Measured Data, Calculated Total Heat Partitioning, and Calculated and Adjusted Total Heat Partitioning . . 100 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Wind Between 0 and 2.25 m/s (0 and 5 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Winds Between 0 and 2.25 m/s (0 and 5 mph), Calculated From an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Winds Between 2.25 and 4.5 m/s (5 and 10 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Winds Between 2.25 and 4.5 m/s (5 and 10 mph), Calculated from an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Winds Between 4.5 and 6.75 m/s (10 and 15 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Validation Barn Relative Humidity for Winds Between 4.5 and 6.75 m/s (10 and 15 mph), Calculated From an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 xiii LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 4.12 Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 0 and 2.25 m/s (0 and 5 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat. Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 0 and 2.25 m/s (0 and 5 mph), Calculated From an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 2.25 and 4.5 m/s (5 and 10 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 2.25 and 4.5 m/s (5 and 10 mph), Calculated From an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 4.5 and 6.75 m/s (10 and 15 mph), Calculated From an Adjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat Validation Barn Temperature for Winds Between 4.5 and 6.75 m/s (10 and 15 mph), Calculated From an Unadjusted Ratio Between Latent and Sensible Heat Measured and Calculated Inside Barn Temperature -- Uninsulated Validation Barn Measured vs. Calculated Relative Humidity —- Uninsulated Validation Barn Measured vs. Calculated Carbon Dioxide Concentration in a 61 Meter by 13.3 Meter Freestall Barn . Comparison of Calculated Dew Point and Inside Roof Temperature at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10% (5.5 nfi), 50% (11.3 at), 100% (18.7 n?) & 343% (64 a?) of Fully Open Soffits) For an Uninsulated Barn at 4.4 W: (40 °F) Outside Temperature Comparison of Calculated Dew Point and Inside Roof Temperature at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10% (5.5 at), 50% (11.3 HE), 100% (18.7 n?) & 343% (64 n?) of Fully Open Soffits) for an Uninsulated Barn at -6.7 °C (20 °F) Outside Temperature xiv Page 111 112 113 114 115 116 130 132 134 144 145 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page 4.23 Comparison of Calculated Dew Point and Inside Roof Temperature at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10% (5.5 HF), 50% (11.3 m”), 100% (18.7 m’) & 343% (64 m2) of Fully Open Soffits) for an Uninsulated Barn at -17.8 %2 (0 °F) Outside Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . 146 4.24 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Absolute Humidity at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%,100%,& 343% of Fully Open Soffits) at Different Outside Temperatures .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 4.25 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Relative Humidity Under Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%,& 343% of Fully Open Soffits) at Different Outside Temperatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4.26 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Roof Dew Point Temperature Under Two Ventilation Conditions (Vent Openings at 10% & 343% of Fully Open Soffits) . . . 153 4.27 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Inside Temperature at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%, & 343% of Fully Open Soffits) . . . 154 4.28 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%, & 343% of Fully Open Soffits) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 4.29 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Air Exchange at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%, & 343% of Fully Open Soffits). . . . . . 159 4.30 Typical Freestall Barn Insulated and Non—insulated Roof Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 4.31 Dew Point and Roof Temperature at -17.7’°C Outside Temperature and 12.7 mm Roof Insulation . . . . . . 162 4.32 Dew Point and Roof Temperature at -17.7’°C Outside Temperature and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation . . . . . . 163 4.33 Dew Point and Roof Temperature at -6.7 °C Outside Temperature and 12.7 mm Roof Insulation . . . . . . 164 4.34 Dew Point and Roof Temperature at -6.7’°C Outside Temperature and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation . . . . . . 165 XV LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 4 .35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .40 .41 .42 .43 .44 .45 .46 .47 Dew Point and Roof Temperature at 4.4 °C Outside Temperature and 12.7 mm Roof Insulation Dew Point and Roof Temperature at 4.4 °C Outside Temperature and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Relative Humidity at Four Ventilation Rates (10%, 50%, 100%, and 343% of fully open soffits) and 12. 7 mm Roof Insulation . . Relative Humidity at Four Ventilation Rates (10%, 50L 100%, and 343% of fully open soffits) and 25. 4 mm Roof Insulation . . . . Relative Humidity at Two Ventilation and Two Insulation Levels (10% and 343% Ventilation Openings and 12.7 mm and 24.4 mm Levels of Roof Insulation) Effect of Insulation On Dew Point Temperature at the 10% Ventilation Rate and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Levels. Effect of Insulation On Dew Point Temperature at the 343% Ventilation Rate and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Levels. Ventilation Area and Insulation Level vs. Dew Point Temperature (10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm Insulation Levels). Inside Building Temperature at 10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation levels. . Carbon Dioxide Concentration at 10% and 100% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm of Roof Insulation. Building Air Exchange at 10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm of Roof Insulation Uninsulated Barn Roof Temperature and Dew Point Temperature at Outside Conditions of: 4.4 °C, 4 m/s Wind Speed, and 95% Relative Humidity Insulated Barn Roof Temperature and Dew Point Temperature at Outside Conditions of: 4.4 °C, 4 m/s Wind Speed, and 95% Relative Humidity xvi Page 166 167 170 171 173 175 176 177 179 181 183 186 187 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page 4.48 Uninsulated Barn Roof Temperature and Dew Point Temperature at Outside Conditions of: 4.4 °C, 6.8 m/s Wind Speed, and 70% Relative Humidity . . . 188 4.49 Insulated Barn Roof Temperature and Dew Point Temperature at Outside Conditions of: 4.4 °C, 6.8 m/s Wind Speed, and 70% Relative Humidity 189 xvii LIST OF SYMBOLS Symbol A Area, m2 C Concentration, ppm Cd Discharge coefficient Cp Pressure coefficient D Days pregnant E Wind effectiveness factor F Heat transfer rate, W/mK f Air film or surface conductance, W/mfic g Acceleration due to gravity, 9.8 m/s2 h Convective heat transfer coefficient, W/mH( h Height above a datum, m hp Neutral pressure plane height, m k Thermal conductivity, W/mK L Latent L Length, m m Mass, kg p Perimeter distance, m P Pressure, Pa Q Heat production, Watts QL Latent heat production, Watts/kg q Heat flow, Watts or Joules/sec. xviii LIST OF SYMBOLS (continued) Symbol R Resistance, an/W T Temperature, %2 t Temperature, °K U Uhit area conductance, W/ch V Volume, nP/s or ppm v Velocity, m/s W Width, In W Watts x Homogeneous material Y Milk production, kg/day a 29(49/9.) A Change in an item AP Pressure difference, Pa 6 Emissivity p Density, kg/m3 0 Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, W/mHC V“. (Cpo,n-Cp.) Q h1,~l»,,/ozu Subscripts a Number of items in a group or series C Conductive f Floor g gauge pressure 1 Inside or internal iaf Inside air film xix LIST OF SYMBOLS (continued) Subscripts (continued) Symbol L Latent ls Lower surface m One horizontal opening in a group or series n One non-horizontal opening in a group or series 0 Outside or external p Production” uP/s r Roof rt Reference temperature, %2 s Sensible T Total t Thermally induced us Upper surface w Wind x A specific homogeneous material y An item in a group or series I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Prdblem Ideally, the purpose of livestock housing ventilation is to provide warm weather temperature moderation and cold weather moisture and air quality control so as to promote animal productivity and maximum economic gain. Often this goal is compromised by placing the needs of people and equipment ahead of the needs of animals (Bickert, 1994). Cold confinement naturally ventilated freestall dairy housing is designed to maintain the inside temperature no more than a few degrees warmer than the outside temperature during winter. However, to keep the building warmer for the benefit of man or machines, ventilation may be reduced or the building may be over-stocked. This may result in an unhealthy environment for the animals. Evidence of this potentially unhealthy condition is less obvious when roof components of the cold confinement dairy housing are insulated. Condensation and frost formation will not occur as rapidly and a "close" or "barny" odor may then become the "early warning" management tool that may be used to identify potential underventilation. Absence of roof insulation would cause visible condensation 2 to occur at warmer temperatures and provide a more sensitive management tool to signal potential underventilation. 1.2 Objective 1.2.1 Simulation Model Development To develop a simulation model that would predict the steady state, nighttime, ventilation rate, air temperature, relative humidity, air exchange, roof condensation or frost formation, and carbon dioxide concentration, in modern insulated and uninsulated freestall dairy barns during winter. 1.2.2 Environmental Evaluation To evaluate the influence of the environmental conditions mentioned in Section 1.2.1 upon potential wintertime ventilation management practices. II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Reduced ventilation and Wintertime Animal Health Cattle health is influenced by air quality which, in turn, is related to ventilation. This fact was mentioned as early as 1925 when F. E. Fogle wrote in the Michigan Quarterly Bulletin, "Ventilation is necessary for the health and comfort of animals. It will preserve the building and contents from mold and rot, due to excessive moisture, and will aid in the prevention and control of disease. ... With the advent of tight buildings, comes the necessity for ventilation. For best results we must admit fresh air, remove stale air, and control temperature and humidity." (Fogle, 1925). More recently, Curtis (1983) stated that closed houses - and in particular the gases, particles, odorous vapors, and ions in the air — are sometimes blamed for poor animal health and performance. Also, Hartung (1994) states that increased herd size and close contact between confined animals favors a quick passage of pathogens, leading to increased virulence and infection pressure. Although the exact relationship between these factors is not fully understood, empirical observations and field trials suggest that the aerosol spread of pathogens between cattle and the influence of air pollutants on pulmonary 4 defense mechanisms are important, especially to respiratory health (Bickert and Herdt, 1985). Noble (1969) notes that a number of reports can be found of infection attributed to direct airborne transfer in hospital wards and army barracks. This transfer is by way of droplet or dust particle vectors in the air and is affected by the size and number of these dust particles. A microbe's ability to withstand aerial transport is an important determinant of its distribution pattern and contagiousness. This ability is mainly a function of the microorganism's resistance to temperature change, desiccation, and ultraviolet radiation. Other factors include air-movement patterns, ventilation rate, and animal density (Curtis, 1983). Songer (1966) found that a temperature of 10 °C and 90% relative humidity favored maximum survival of viruses in a dynamic system. Wright et al. (1969) also found that.Mycoplasma pneumonia survival was best at relative humidities below 25% or greater than 90% and at lower temperatures. Certain pathogens may actually multiply in dust when the atmospheric humidity approaches the saturation point (Lidwell and Lowbury, 1949). Typical results of experiments with pneumococcus at three different relative humidities are presented in Figure 2.1. Illustrated is the capacity of microorganisms to survive for long periods at both very low and very high relative humidities, but not at intermediate values (Dunklin and Puck, 1947). 2000 E < {L C) )- C) C) L Q a: D U u 0 a: u: a. a) .2 £12 .2 .4 <9 0: 9’ c: a: $2 .2 L C? C) 2' Z 30 4O 50 60 70 BO 50 100 HO IZO 30 ISO TIME 2AFTER iNTRODUCTION OF MICROORGANISMSWINUTES) Figure 2.1 Logarithmic Plot of the Survival of Pneumococci Sprayed From Broth Culture Into Atmospheres of Various Relative Humidities, at 22.2°C. Lipid—containing viruses seem to survive better at low humidities, whereas viruses composed only of proteins and nucleic acids survive better at higher vapor pressures. Also, airborne bacteria survive better at relative humidities either higher or lower than the most lethal 50 to 80 percent range. For both airborne bacteria and viruses, the higher the air temperature, the quicker they die (Curtis, 1983). The interaction of air quality with pulmonary defense mechanisms might play a substantial role in bovine 6 respiratory disease as well. Noxious gases apparently suppress the ability of pulmonary alveolar macrophage to kill ingested bacteria (Bickert and Herdt, 1985). In a fifteen stall dairy barn, Malecki et a1. (1993) noted a 7.8 fold increase (from 67 x ioflhm to 525 x IOLHW) in airborne bacteria when the outlet ventilation openings were closed. Conversely, dilution of the microbic cloud and noxious gases so that they no longer constitute a significant dose is one way to reduce the infection challenge. This can be accomplished by increasing the ventilation rate or by reducing animal density. At best, one air change can theoretically reduce the concentration of air pollutants by 63.2% (Curtis, 1972). Increased ventilation could also potentially reduce the building relative humidity and thereby speed the wintertime microbial death rate. Lapedes (1978) defines health as a state of dynamic equilibrium between an organism.and its environment in which all functions of mind and body are normal. Hartung (1994) goes on to state that, when health is a balance between internal and external factors, environmental conditions can decisively tip the balance out of level. Many diseases in modern animal farming are thought to have a direct link to the environment. 7 2.2 Reduced ventilation and Building Deterioration As previously cited, early concern about adequate ventilation in Michigan barns was mentioned by F. E. Fogle in a 1925 bulletin. Regarding building deterioration, he wrote that "it (ventilation) will preserve the building and contents from mold and rot, due to excessive moisture" (Fogle, 1925). Similarly, in an investigation of condensation in uninsulated livestock buildings, Andersen (1987) stated that during the winter period, condensation can be so serious that the lifetime of the building materials is greatly reduced. In winter, typical Michigan equilibrium moisture contents for lumber in exterior use would be near 20% (dry basis) at -1?C (301F) and 90% relative humidity (Harrigan, 1985). Fiber saturation point however is near 30% (dry basis) for most species. Prolonged exposure to high relative humidities alone is not sufficient to raise the moisture content above the fiber saturation point (USDA, 1974). However, free water exposure (possible during condensation, melting frost, or exposure to rain or snow) at joint interfaces, fastener holes, and seasoning checks could raise the moisture content to the saturation level. If this happened, wood decay, loss of mechanical strength, and metal fastener corrosion could occur. Moisture contents above 20% were considered suitable for metal fastener corrosion and, above 25% moisture, wood decay was imminent (Harrigan, 1985). 8 In a survey of ten naturally ventilated Michigan dairy barns, Harrigan (1985) found a positive relationship between signs of underventilation and wood moisture contents in excess of 20%. Barns with wood moisture contents in excess of 30% typically exhibited obstructions to natural ventilation that delayed drying after wetting had occurred. Cobwebs, mold, and mildew formations were evidence of the underventilation that occurred in those buildings. Similarly, it was not uncommon to find steel that had rusted through at the contact surfaces between the insulation and the steel in Michigan dairy barns having insulated roofs and signs of underventilation. Bird damage, insulation shrinkage, mechanical damage, or poor construction practices compromised the vapor barrier provided by most rigid insulation roof boards. Moisture laden air moved through the insulation voids, contacted the roof steel, condensed, and wetted the steel. This poorly ventilated cavity then stayed wet long after exposed structural members had dried, thus promoting accelerated metal corrosion. 9 2.3 Confined Cattle Air Quality Recommendations Early systems for environmental control in livestock buildings used a safe carbon dioxide concentration as the criterion for defining minimum ventilation rates (Brannigan and McQuitty 1971). An example of this mindset was the King system of ventilation (devised by F. H. King of the Univer- sity of Wisconsin in the 1890's). Popular in the early 1900's, this confinement ventilation system admitted air near the ceiling and removed it near the floor to remove the heavier-than-air carbon dioxide (Fogle, 1925). However, in most confinement ventilation systems today, carbon dioxide concentration is not used as a ventilation system design parameter. Curtis (1983) states that if animal housing is ventilated to maintain heat and moisture balances, the ventilation rate will be sufficient to provide adequate oxygen and keep carbon dioxide levels low enough. Brannigan and McQuitty (1971) would qualify Curtis's statement by adding that the minimum ventilation rate criterion based on moisture removal may not be valid in all cases. Other contaminants such as dust, bacteria, and noxious gases may set the lower limit on building ventilation. Two common noxious gases found in dairy barns are ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Under normal wintertime conditions, neither of these two gases appears to be of environmental concern (Bruce, 1987; Clark and McQuitty 1987). Clark and McQuitty (1987) point out, however, that definitive data on the effects of long-term exposure to low concentrations of ammonia on dairy cows is not available. 10 Bruce (1987) stated that carbon dioxide is enjoying a resurgence as a general indicator of air quality and as a criterion for ventilation design in livestock buildings. Clark and McQuitty (1987), in an Alberta study of air quality in six freestall dairy barns, also found that average ventilation rates can be estimated by measuring building carbon dioxide concentrations. 3mm // VEMMIDN M15 , mum mm Figure 2.2 Ideal Ventilation Rate A graphical representation of an ideal ventilation rate that would control temperature, moisture, and pollutants is seen in Figure 2.2 (ASHRAE, 1989). The thicker line represents the ideal ventilation rate under varying environ- mental conditions. The shape of the curve would vary, however, depending upon the choice of maximum allowable 11 values for temperature, moisture, and pathogen control. Temperature control ventilation in Figure 2.2 is intended to reduce heat stress and, therefore, is usually not a wintertime problem. The wintertime recommendation to maintain inside temperature a few degrees (3 to 6 degrees Celsius) higher than outside temperature (Bickert and Stowell, 1990; Albright, 1990) is used as a guide to keep moisture and pathogens at a safe level. If moisture content, not temperature, is used as the guide to minimum ventilation requirements, less agreement is found between sources. A major reason for the difference in recommendations is that warm confinement is assumed. Several sources that were specifically dealing with cold confinement (the last three recommendations in Table 2.1) recommend lower maximum relative humidities. Table 2.1 Recommended Winter Relative Humidity % Relative Humidity Source 50 - 9S CIGR, 1984 85 max. DeShazer and Overhults, 1982 70 - 80 Scott et al., 1983 70 - 80 MWPS-l, 1987 55 - 75 Bickert and Herdt, 1985 65 - 70 ASAE Standards, 1990 50 - 7O MWPS-33, 1989 Although the effects on dairy cattle of long-term exposure to low concentrations of noxious gases are apparently not available (Clark and McQuitty, 1987), and acceptable upper limits of noxious gas concentrations in 12 animal housing have yet to be firmly established, sufficient data are available to conclude that the potential for noxious gas related health problems exists in total con- finement dairy housing (Curtis and Drummond, 1982). Most recommendations for maximum concentration levels are based on exposure limits for a time weighted average concentration of a normal 8 hour day per 40 hour week for adult humans. However, as can be seen in Table 2.2, there is still a divergence of agreement as to what is the maximum acceptable level of several gases prevalent in livestock barns. Some authors cite only industrial standards while others modify an industrial standard with judgements deemed appropriate to livestock buildings. The last two rows of concentrations in Table 2.2 are examples of such modifications. Definitive statements of tolerable levels of aerial contaminants for livestock buildings are needed (Wathes, 1994). Table 2.2 Maximum Recommended Concentration of Noxious Gases. CO2 NH3 H28 Source PPm 10000 25 10 DeShazer and Overhults, 1982 5000 25 10 Am Conf of Govt Ind Hygn, 1990 5000 50 10 MWPS-33, 1989 3000 20 0.5 CIGR, 1992 2000 - - Bartussek, 1989 13 2.4 weather Conditions Typical For This Model Approximately 84.5% of Michigan's farms that sell milk are in the area of the state below the 44th parallel (Michigan DHIA, 1991). Temperatures in this section of the state are similar to those in dairy areas from New York (South and West of the Adirondacks) to Illinois. For example, Table 2.3 lists several cities in the aforementioned region and their hours of temperatures less than -17.7 W: H)°F). Albany is the only city listed with more than two days (48 hours) of the year with temperatures less than -17.7 H: H)°F). At the extreme, these cities have a 99% design temperature that is within 5.5.°C of each other. Table 2.3 Hourly Temperature Occurrences per Year, 99% Winter Design Dry Bulb Temperature, and Mean Winter Wind Speed at Select Cities. (From ASHRAE, 1989; *, From.U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1956) Location Frequency 99% Winter Mean Winter s17.7’°C/yr Design Temp 10 m Wind Speed hrs./yr °C (°F) m/s (mph) Albany, NY 51 -20.0 (-4) 4.1 (9.2) Syracuse, NY 32 -19.4 (-3) 3.6 (8.1) Buffalo,NY 26 -16.7 (2) 5.2 (11.5) Cleveland, OH 13 -17.2 (1) 6.2 (13.8) Columbus, OH 16 -17.7 (0) 4.1 (9.2) Flint, MI 16* -20.0 (-4) 4.1 (9.2) Lansing, MI 33* -19.4 (-3) 6.2 (13.8) Grand Rapids, MI 12 -17.2 (1) 4.1 (9.2) Ft. Wayne, IN 26 —20.0 (-4) 5.2 (11.5) Indianapolis, IN 18 -18.9 (-2) 5.2 (11.5) Chicago, IL 40 ~22.2 (-8) 4.6 (10.4) The average wind speed of the cities represented in Table 2.3 is 4.8 m/s. Esmay and Dixon (1986) point out that 14 wind velocity does not fall below one half of its average for more than a few hours a month. Also, knowing that wind forces begin to dominate natural ventilation between two and three meters per second (Bruce 1988), and that all of the average wind velocities represented in Table 2.3 are above three meters per second, wintertime wind driven natural ventilation in this region should be more than adequate. With the exception of a few geographic anomalies, Lansing's relative humidity is also very similar to the other areas listed in Table 2.3 (Visher, 1966). For example, during the months of December and January relative humidities between 80% and 90% occur most frequently (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956). Consequently, the geographic areas identified in this section should see similar cold confinement freestall dairy barn environments when those barns are stocked and ventilated in the manner discussed in this research. 15 2.5 Historical Developments in Natural ventilation Natural ventilation is the movement of air through designed and undesigned building openings by the natural forces of wind pressure and thermal buoyancy. Consequently, natural ventilation could be said to be the oldest form of building ventilation since housing has been provided for animals. 2.5.1 Comparison of Warm and Cold Confinement Barns A barn can be classified according to its interior wintertime ambient temperature. A cold confinement barn has an indoor winter temperature that is maintained within a few degrees of outdoor temperature. These barns are often uninsulated, naturally ventilated, and designed to be oper- ated under freezing weather conditions. Absence of ceil- ings, large ridge and soffit vent openings, and removable or operable sidewalls are typical. Reduced initial construc- tion cost, lower annual energy expense, and possibly better livestock health could be suggested as advantages of cold confinement dairy housing. A warm confinement barn is usually kept at or above about 5»°C (40 °F) by the use of wall and ceiling' insulation. Heating is provided by the livestock, supplemental heating equipment, or both. This type of barn is usually mechanically ventilated. Construction costs and annual operating costs are greater in this type of barn than in a cold confinement dairy barn. 16 Warm confinement dairy buildings primarily benefit the operators and equipment. Dairy animals don't require a warm building. For example, calves have been successfully raised in cold outdoor hutches; and producing dairy cattle have a lower critical temperature well below 5.°C. Comfortable working conditions, reduced problems from frozen water or manure, severe and prolonged winter weather, and less me- chanical problems with feeding and manure handling equipment would be several reasons given to justify the added expenses resulting from investments and recurring costs of warm confinement dairy housing. 2.5.2 Resurgence of Interest in Cold Confinement Due to the potential for reduced electrical expense, improved animal health and productivity, and lower construction costs, an increased interest in cold confinement naturally ventilated dairy housing has occurred. The adoption of the open freestall housing design by many dairy farmers in the 1960's spread the use of natural ventilation. However, these freestall barns (patterned after the more open loose housing barns of the 1940's and 1950's) were more enclosed than would be recommended today (Bickert and Stowell, 1990). 2.5.3 Cold Confinement ventilation Opening Recommendations Winter ventilation openings are often continuous soffit inlets along both sides of the barn and a continuous open ridge vent at the peak. Figure 2.3 illustrates four common ridge configurations. Open and baffled ridge designs are open ridge vent baffled ridge vent overlapped ridge vent / \ovcfed ridge vent Figure 2 .3 Basic Ridge Vent Designs for Naturally Ventilated Barns used in many naturally ventilated barns in Michigan. Hellickson (1983) recommends a continuous ridge opening of 2.5 cm for each 2 m of building width (2 in per 13 ft) or 1-1.5% of the floor area. The sidewall openings should be the same total area as the ridge opening. Albright (1990) recommends a ridge vent approximately 0.15 m (6 in) wide for buildings up to 12 m (40 ft) wide and an additional 0.05 m (2 in) for each additional 3 m (10 ft) of building width. He also recommends that the sidewall openings be equally divided on both sides of the building and sum to the area of the ridge vent opening. Bickert and Stowell (1993) and 18 Midwest Plan Service (MWPS-33, 1989) recommends a ridge opening of 5 cm per 3 m (2 in per 10 ft) of building width, with an equivalent inlet area divided between the two eaves. 2.5.4 Existing Natural ventilation Models Natural ventilation has been studied experimentally and theoretically. Emswiler (1926) formulated the concept of a neutral pressure plane to calculate natural ventilation due to thermal buoyancy. He defined the neutral pressure plane as the height above some datum or plane (typically the floor) where thermally-induced pressure differences are zero (see Figure 2.5). He further established that, in still air, the pressure difference across an opening is proportional to the vertical distance of that opening from the neutral pressure plane. Using field measurements, linear regression was used to determine appropriate parameter values to predict infiltration for residences and animal buildings. Such models have been shown to be effective for predicting long- term averages for air infiltration (Brockett, 1986). Howev- er, linear regression equations inherently yield inaccurate results due to the complex interaction between thermal and wind induced ventilation (Sinden, 1978). Tamura (1979) and Sherman (1980) calculated thermal buoyancy and wind ventilation separately in natural ventila- tion models that were not site-specific. Tamura (1979) determined the combined ventilation rate experimentally using the equation: 19 V=V1argtsi(l+0'24 (Vsmall/Vlarge)3'3) (2 ’1) where: V = combined ventilation rate, nfi/s Vmall = the smaller of Vt“,m1 and th, V1,,” = the larger of mel and V.,,,,,. Sherman (1980) combined the separate ventilation rates by quadrature to determine total ventilation. Both Tamura and Sherman excluded wind direction factors from their models under the general assumption that wind direction was not a vital factor when determining average heat loss due to infiltration. This assumption was accept- able, as their models were applied to residential homes. However, for long narrow buildings common to agricultural design, wind direction could be critically important in predicting natural ventilation or infiltration (Brockett, 1986). The principles of airflow are the same for both natural ventilation and air infiltration. The most comprehensive work in natural ventilation of animal housing has been done by James Bruce of the Scottish Farm Building Investigation Unit in Aberdeen, Scotland (Brockett, 1986). Using the neutral pressure plane concept developed earlier by Emswiler, Bruce (1978) defined the pressure difference across an opening caused by thermal buoyancy as: 20 APt=g(po-pi) (hp-h) (2 .2) where: APt = thermally—induced pressure difference, Pa 9 = acceleration due to gravity, 9.8 m/s2 po = density of outside air, kg/m3 p1 = density of inside air, kg/m3 hp = neutral pressure plane above some datum plane (typically the floor), m h = height above the datum plane where PC was calculated, m. Applying Bernoulli's theorem to calculate velocity of air- flow through an opening, integrating over the area of the opening, and assuming flow continuity, the neutral pressure plane was determined by numerical iteration. Once deter- mined, the neutral pressure plane value was then used to determine the thermally-induced ventilation rate. Bruce (1975) also developed a theory of natural ventilation due to wind. The wind-induced pressure difference across an opening was calculated by: APw=(Cpo-Cpi) 0'5V3 (2 .3) where: AP, wind induced pressure difference, Pa estimated external pressure coefficient a 21 Cp1 internal pressure coefficient v, wind velocity, m/s. Similar to thermally induced ventilation, Bruce used Bernoulli's equation to calculate the velocity of airflow through an opening and then, by iteration, determined the internal pressure coefficient and ventilation rate due to wind. Other experiments have been done and models have been developed to determine the intensity of natural ventilation. Timmons and Baughman (1981) experimentally determined airflow rate through unrestricted open ridge buildings, but did not consider possible ventilation occurring through sidewall openings. Janni and Bussmann (1983, 1984) developed a model using heat, mass, momentum, and mechanical energy. The model included both wind and thermal ventilation components, but whether sidewall openings were inlets or outlets was not derived. Down et a1. (1985), after a review of existing equations and extensive experiments, concluded that the models developed by Bruce (1975, 1977) were acceptable for independent theoretical study of wind or thermal buoyancy ventilation. Much of the investigation work on natural ventilation used simple building designs. One inlet and one outlet was used in research done by Bruce, 1977; Fabian and Albright, 1982; and Janni and Bussmann, 1984. One outlet and inlets on opposite sides of the building at equal heights and/or size were calculated by Bruce, 1978, Timmons and Baughman, 22 1981, Shrestha and Cramer, 1984, Timmons et al., 1984, and Down et al. 1985. For more complex designs, Hellickson (1983) provided a chart to make adjustments in stack ventilation flow rate when inlet and outlet areas were not equal. Likewise, Timmons et a1. (1984) provided nomographs to determine a dimensionless ventilation rate as a portion of his stack ventilation equation. Table 2.4 compares the solution for thermal buoyancy ventilation of one barn solved by five different formulas. The formulas were either empirically based (EB) or derived from basic mathematical and physical principles (BP). The solution derived from the equations by Timmons used equations derived from work originally done by Bruce (as are the BP solutions of Albright and Zhang) but Timmons incorporated nomographs as aids in arriving at a final answer. Table 2.4 Comparison of Stack Ventilation Calculated by Five Different Methods. Ventilation Rate nP/s Equation Type Source 16.9 EB Albright, 1990 25.3 EB Helickson, 1983 23.8 BP Timmons, 1984 17.5 BP Albright, 1990 17.6 BP Zhang, 1989 In a comparison of empirical and basic principle equations for wind induced ventilation, there was very close agreement. The empirical formula presented by Albright, (1990), Hellickson, (1983), and Esmay and Dixon, (1986): 23 VhEAvw (2.4) where: V = airflow, nP/s E = wind effectiveness factor A = opening area, m’ v; = wind speed, m/s, when compared with a BP formula by Bruce, (described in Section 2.6.1) resulted in ventilation rates of 85.6 nP/s EB and 87.4 m3/s BP. Natural ventilation models and field experience have shown that thermal and wind induced ventilation rates ap- proximately add through quadrature (Albright, 1990). Howev- er, addition by quadrature can be in error by as much as 25% when ventilation by wind and stack effects are approximately equal or when the neutral pressure plane falls within a vent opening and acts as both an inlet and an outlet (Albright, 1990) (see Figure 2.4). Since airflow through each opening is essentially caused by the inside and outside pressure difference, the total pressure difference can be obtained by adding the pressure differences due to thermal and wind effects (Brockett and Albright, 1987). Bernoulli's equation can then be used to describe the relationship between the potential energy in the pressure difference across each opening and then integrated with the airflows across the areas of all openings (Brocket and Albright, 1987) (see Section 2.6.3). 24 NEUTRAL. / PRESSURE PLANE Figure 2.4 Ventilation Airflow When the Neutral Pressure Plane (NPP) is Located Within a Ventilation Opening. 25 2.6 Natural ventilation Equation Development 2.6.1 Thermal Buoyancy ventilation If there were only one inlet and only one outlet available for ventilation in a building, a rather straight forward empirical equation could be used to calculate ventilation due to thermal buoyancy (Albright, 1990): t 11/2. (2.5) V=O.65A[ 1' This equation could also be used with inlets at several locations if the inlets were at the same elevation and each had the same coefficient of discharge (air velocity is assumed to be uniform across each of the openings). An example of a thermal buoyancy ventilation calculation incorporating this equation is seen in Appendix A. Since many naturally ventilated barns use end doors to increase or decrease the ventilation rate, a simpler two opening stack ventilation equation is often inadequate. To model a natural ventilation system that has inlets at several heights and which vary in area, a neutral pressure plane concept can be incorporated into the equations. As mentioned in Section 2.5.4, Bruce (1977) calculated the airflow through an opening due to hydrostatic pressure using a neutral pressure plane as the reference point (Equation 2.2). 26 ... _\——— —h. A- Large Ridge Vent Stock Pressure Distribution (00 wand) Large Openings at the Bose Stock PreSSure at a Building Distribution ( no mnd ) Figure 2.5 Location of the Neutral Pressure Level 27 The neutral pressure plane is the height above some datum (usually the floor) where the pressure difference due to thermal buoyancy is zero. As can be seen in Figure 2.5, the size of the inlet or outlet opening affects the height of the neutral pressure plane. For example, if the building had a large ridge vent, the neutral pressure plane would be located closer to the top of the enclosure. If the building had larger inlet areas, the neutral pressure plane would be located closer to the inlets. The pressure difference across a vent opening is potential energy. Assuming that air is incompressible, this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, and Bernoulli's equation applies (Brockett, 1986): 2P V: t (2.6) p where: V’ = air velocity, m/s It = thermally induced stack pressure (negative above the neutral pressure plane), Pa p = air density, kg/m?. Equations 2.5 and 2.6 can be combined to determine the velocity through an opening (Albright, 1990): 28 V=Pg(Ap/p) (hp-ml“2 (2.7) 29(Ap/p) (hp—h) This equation was arranged so that if hp is greater than h, v is positive. If hp is less than h, v is negative and air flow is out of the building at that ventilation opening. The value chosen for p in Equation 2.7 depends upon the direction of air flow. If air is entering the building, po (density outside) is used, whereas p1 (density inside) is used if air flow is out of the building. For a non-horizontal opening (e.g., sidewall vents), air velocity is not uniform across the opening; therefore, volumetric air flow rate is the integral of velocity over area: V=Cd’ VdA (2.8) area where: Cd = discharge coefficient of an opening A = opening area, m? volumetric air flow, nP/s. For horizontal openings (e.g., ridge vents), the equation for volumetric flow is: 29 V=CdvA. (2.9) To maintain continuity of flow, the airflows in and out of the building should sum to zero: l29(Ap/p) (hp-III”2 §Cdnpnfarean 29(AP/P) (hp-h) dA+ 2 |29(Ap/p) (hp-h) I”? m Cdmpm 29(Ap/p) (hp-h) mem=o (2.10) where: n = non horizontal opening number m = horizontal opening number W = opening width, m L = opening length, m. If one lets: a=Zg(Ap/p) (2.11) each integral in Equation 2.10 can be rewritten as: lamp-h)?” 2 12 f “(him dA. (. > 30 Also, the equation for rectangular, non-horizontal vent openings can be rearranged as: dA = LdW. (2.13) Now the terms of the continuity equation for non- horizontal opening becomes: _ 3/2 2 Cdnann(an)1/2fb::om (121;! gal) dw. (2.14) P Finally, converting the integral portion of the equation to an analytical solution and rewriting the continuity equation produces (Albright, 1990): (-2/3 > 2 Cdnannan)1/2|(hp'-h)|5/2 (hp-12> ‘IIEZ’itom n 23 Cd.p.L.w..1/2I (hp-Mm (hp-h) "=0- (2 .15) The single unknown in Equation 2.15 is hp. Once determined, air velocity through each vent and building ventilation can be calculated. However, because of the interplay between ventilation rate and indoor temperature, both inside temperature and ventilation rate need to be 31 determined together. This leads to an iterative calculation method. First, an indoor air temperature and air density are assumed and Equation 2.15 is solved for hp. The neutral pressure height would be found when the air flow into the building matched the air flow out of the building. This ventilation rate would then be used to solve a sensible energy balance for the airspace. Then, a new estimate of indoor air temperature and density would be determined. These steps are repeated until a stable solution is obtained. 2.6.2 Wind Induced ventilation Bruce (1975) also developed the following equation to calculate natural ventilation due to wind pressure at each vent opening. AP,=(1/2 (povii) (Cp,-Cp,) (2-16> where: ARM“ = inside—outside pressure difference due to wind force at opening n, Pa po = density of outside air, kg/m3 v, = eave height wind velocity, m/s Cpo = external pressure coefficient at opening n Cp1 = internal pressure coefficient at opening n. 32 In this equation, outdoor air density is a constant as only wind induced ventilation is considered (no heat was added to the building). Also, c; and v; are defined using eave height winds (see Section 2.8). At each vent, APn= (Cpon-Cpii <1/2 (pot/.3) >. (2.17) based on the definitions of pressure coefficients (see Section 2.8), and APn=1/2 (povj), (2.18) based upon the Bernoulli equation, where v; is the velocity of air moving through the inlet. Thus (Albright, 1990): (Cpon_ij) v=Vw . (2.19) 2.6.3 Combined Thermal and Wind Induced ventilation ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (1989) recommends combining the effects of thermal and wind induced ventilation by quadrature: 2 2 Vtotal =J( Vwind+ Vthermal) (2 ° 2 0) where: 33 V = volumetric flow rate, uP/s. Addition by quadrature is in error by as much as 25% when wind and thermal contributions to ventilation are almost equal, or when the neutral pressure plane falls within an opening and the Opening acts as both an inlet and an outlet (Albright, 1990) (see Figure 2.4). Albright (1990) suggests adding the pressure differences due to wind and thermal buoyancy at each ventilation opening, describing the resulting air velocity by using the Bernoulli equation, and integrating the airflows over the areas of the building openings: Aptota1=APwind+APtbermal (2 ° 21) where: APcom = total effective pressure difference, Pa. Rewriting the equation with the pressure terms previously described yields: 2.22 APtota1=(1/2 (pot/3) (Cpo-Cpl.) ) +9 (2 .23) 29(Ap/p) (hp-ha) +v,‘.°;(Cp,,n-Cpi) As in Equation 2.10, combined air flows in and out of the building must sum to zero to maintain continuity of flow: (Cd) p f Pg(Ap/pn) (hp-ha) +V3fiuoaom new ousaomnd mpflmcH uuoHnOHmu a meow: m\E mb.m pom .m\E m.m .anu oEwuuoucfiz MOM mmodumo: mewpaflnm mumHJUHMU )iIIJ Am.m.v one .m.H.e .m.~ .umm meme mucoflofimwoou ounmmoum .m Am.m.v one .v.a.v .m.m .omm ommv mucwfioflmwoou mmumnomfla .m Am xwocommm pom .m.m .H.m .Oom oomv unmflom mcflcomo coflumafiucm> .e Am xnosmdde new .m.m .H.m .umm some mound coHumHfiuco> .m 1~.H.e one oH.m .omm emu. mou< newuouuafiwcH cwcmflmooca .N Am xflecmmmd bum m.m OD H.m .Omm mmmv cmwmoo Honouonuum .H munmcH moprfinm unnumuomeoe «00m poo ucfiom 30a opHmGH oumHSOHoU as o:m_.n: .ouom uco> conceaom How o>Hom >Ho>fiuououm iIIIIi:I)1IIInIiiIliiliiililllluililllllL Am.m.v one >.m .oom oomv sceuoocoum you: wanemcom new boobed mauuou unmanoamu honocmoum no amoum pom Honenz . cofluonpoum Rafi: . unnumz mauumo . Honsnz oHuuoU . musmcH x00um0> q m N H a AU Xwncommm oomv ucmwOLNLoou ounmmoud ooflmcH oumHnoHoU d .>ufimcoo Had . m\E .pmmmm new: . * son“ . “r .»e . .0 xflpcmmmm poo H.m .Omm momv musmcH cofluwpcoo nuances Hocuouxm HNMQ‘ mcoflumnom one moanofium> ucosnoufi>cm :uom mo Dunno 30am N.m munmflm 52 instrumented, cold confinement, freestall dairy barns located in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The barn design modeled was a modern cold confinement freestall barn typical for the region (Bickert, 1992). 3.1 validation Barn Data The validation barn (located near St. Johns, Michigan) was one of fourteen cold confinement freestall barns in the lower peninsula of Michigan included in a three year monitoring program of inside and outside environmental parameters. The barn (illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4) measured 26.2 meters (86 feet) wide, 51.2 meters (168 feet) long, and averaged 3.05 meters (10 feet) high at the eaves. Ventilation openings included continuous soffit vents 0.16 meters (6 inches) high and a continuous ridge vent 0.46 meters (18 inches) wide. The ridge vent was baffled (see Figure 2.3) with approximately 0.6 meter (2 foot) high sides. During the winter months, the feed alley and cattle alley doors were used as ventilation openings also. The doors (located at each gable end) included two cattle alley doors 2.92 meters (9 feet 7 inches) wide by 2.44 meters (8 feet) high, two cattle alley doors 3.15 meters (10 feet 4 inches) wide by 2.44 meters (8 feet) high, and two feed alley doors 4.27 meters (14 feet) wide by 3.96 meters (13 feet) high. The overall building height averaged 8.08 meters (26 feet 6 inches). The validation barn was oriented long axis east to west and was unobstructed to the east, south, and west. Other 53 ZOEUMKE 02:5 .8 Zmdo mmOOD kic\ Ail KOOD >wlj< 0mm... 4 ZMQO mmOOD . KOOD >m|_i_< mjtuad DZm Hmmz QmmOJU mmOOO .j< “‘22P "STE “‘26? “STE “'26? ENE. Vb. w .mumn nonumm3 mcfluuom can: pom: mamn< uses one swam Hoon cumm coflumoflam> m.m musmflm W292 54 .cofiuo>oam ummz no ummm cumm oceumofiam> e.m enemas 'OAV Lu891"}: 'EJAV ”JUE we 55 buildings partially obstructed winds from the north. The building was constructed with square posts, had curtain sidewalls and an uninsulated metal roof. The gable end truss areas were metal clad and the west wall area was covered with a curtain. The area between the east end doors below the trusses was plywood covered. During winter, the cattle alley doors on the east end remained open while the west end doors remained closed. Also, the feed alley door on the west end was closed during cold or windy weather and usually each night. However, the east end feed alley door usually remained open unless there was an easterly wind blowing rain or snow inside. Because the milking crew moved cows out of or past the east end of the validation barn day and night, and pushed feed up to the bunk twice nightly, the east feed alley door opening was often adjusted several times a night. Other features of note in the validation barn included a sloping floor (that caused a 2.7 meter (9 foot)sidewall height on the west end and a 3.35 meter (11 foot) sidewall height on the east end), an upstand along the ridge opening (also called a chimney - see Figure 2.3), lack of doors for the east end cattle alley door openings, and a herd average of 43 kilograms (95 lbs) of milk per day. Inside temperatures in this barn were measured with six copper-constantan thermocouples (error of i 1.°C (Campbell Scientific, 1989)) positioned approximately one meter above the freestall floor. Four of these thermocouples were attached to posts on each side of the feed alley 56 approximately one sixth of the way in from each gable end. The two remaining temperature sensors were similarly located half way through the barn. Other inside sensors included a single thermocouple located midway through the barn at the peak and a thermistor and relative humidity sensor also located mid-building and approximately two and a half meters above the freestall floor. Outside temperature and relative humidity were measured with a shaded thermistor positioned approximately two meters above grade. For the 1990-91 and 1991-92 winters, this barn also had a weather station that recorded three meter high wind speed, wind direction, solar insolation, and outside temperature and relative humidity. Data acquisition was done each minute and averaged hourly for storage in a Campbell Scientific, CR10, Measurement and Control Module. Weather data for the months of December, January, and February from the winters of 1989-90 to 1991—92 were used for validation calculations. As the weather station was not installed the winter of 1989-90, that season's wind direction data were obtained from weather station data at a similarly monitored barn approximately seventeen kilometers away. The data were first sorted by wind direction, with any wind angle within thirty degrees of south being included (illustrated as the wind direction arrow on Figure 3.3). The decision on the degrees of wind angle to include was based on work done by Zhang et al. (1989). Their natural ventilation model calculated that a thirty degree deviation 57 for winds normal to the long axis of the barn resulted in a ventilation rate change of 0.04 nfi/s and an inside temperature change of 0.19 W2. All data that fell within the acceptable wind direction range were ranked in ascending order by outside temperature. These data were then further sorted by outside temperature into 2.8 H: “5°F) increments, with any temperature reading within one degree Fahrenheit of an even five degree increment being included (see Appendix D). To include outside temperatures below —17.8 H: H)°F) (that met both the wind direction and five degree Fahrenheit incrementing conditions) only the data from the winter of 1989-90 were used for validation purposes as the outside weather data values. Also, to remove the effects of solar gain, data collected during hours during which solar gain was recorded were sorted out. Finally, to eliminate any hours that did not represent a fully stocked barn environment, a final data sorting was done to eliminate any hours that the cows would be out of the barn for milking. Next, mean values of hourly weather data within each 2.8»°C group were calculated. These averages included outside and inside relative humidity, wind speed, outside and inside temperature, and were used as the basis for comparison between validation barn calculated environmental values and measured environmental values. Table 4.7 lists the average weather data and number of hours used to calculate those averages after all sorting criteria had been -met. 58 3.2 Simulation.MOde1 Data The simulation barn was representative of a modern cold confinement freestall dairy barn. It measured 27.4 meters (90 feet) wide, 53.6 meters (176 feet) long, and 3 meters (10 feet) high to the eaves. It typically would be called a four row drive through freestall barn and would be designed to house approximately 160 cows (see Figures 3.5 and 3.6). The building had 2.44 meter (8 foot) high by 3.05 meter (10 foot) wide cow alley doors at each end of the four cow alleys and a 4.3 meter (14 foot) wide by 3.7 meter (12 foot) high feed alley door located at each end of the drive- through feed alley. The side walls had full curtains, the gable ends were metal sided, and the roof was metal clad. Continuous soffit vents were 0.15 meters (6 inches) high and the continuous ridge opening measured 0.46 meters (18 inches) wide (see Figure 3.7). Appendix B lists building features and heat loss calculations. Inside environmental conditions were calculated at 2.8 °C (5 °F) outside temperature increments from -20.6 °C to 4.4 °C (-5 °F to 40 °F). This set of inside environment calculations (at each of the 2.8 °C outside temperatures) was repeated for four different ventilation opening conditions (see Figures 3.7 to 3.10). To represent a very closed building, ventilation at an inlet area equal to 10 percent of full soffit opening was calculated (inlet and infiltration areas equaled 5.5 u? (59 ft’)). Partially blocked inlet ventilation was represented by calculations of ventilation at 50 percent of full soffit area (inlet and 59 .soaum>mam new manna summ Hmooz m.m enemas whose—om sumo Hosanna cw nonnaocH mcowuoonflo now: can scam “8on Fawn Munoz m.n muomfim 202.0ng 02:5 @ .8 ::_::::::::_:::____::::_ Nsziommooa m \:::::_:_:::___:::::::E m1 \(mooa Eula mat/o m owflaooo $4.2 BE >mj< BE \ m w f» zmio mecca ammod mmooo as? m :::::::::__:_::__:_:: e ::_:_:__:_::________:____:::: e E I i. 61 .cmmo mucm> ufluoom no sea nous eofiumasucm> comm Hugo: Hmofiuse R.m ousmflu ‘i DidAl 62 Leeann mmsmwmmu.u :umm Hugo: Hmouuse m.m mucosa > 62 VUIci/Kl “J22 _\ Fromm: mmswflmu .2382 63 .mufiuuom ammo woos sass cofiumflfluco> :umm Hmooz Hmofiuse a.m musmfiu WVCJId 1 “‘69 HIOEI mmjmmmmd |_ uequm Hana mo wmem omaamov ammo muooo aoaad comm can oauumu com boom one mufiuuom sows cofiumaflucm> cumm Hocoz Annemhh oH.m ounmflm I-—-// E 'tvmdxn “‘92 .1 :-_D_m_,_ mmDmmwmn. J x=1 where: f1 = Inside film or surface conductance, W/m’-K fo = Outside film or surface conductance, W/m?d( Lx = Length of homogeneous material heat flow path, m kx = Coefficient of conduction of a homogeneous material, W/mox 74 Number of layers of homogeneous material 9) ll >4 II A specific homogeneous material. A typical example of a calculation solving for the wintertime U value of an uninsulated barn roof is shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Typical Wintertime U Value Calculation Homogeneous Material R(SI) R outside air film 0.03 0.17 26 ga. steel roofing 0.00001 0.00 inside air film lel Qgfiz 0.14001 nfioK/W 0.79 hr-fti-F/BTU U = 1/R = 1.3 W/m’-K = 0.23 BTU/hr-ft’:F Using the equality R(SI) = R * 0.176 as a check on calculation accuracy, 0.79 * 0.176 = 0.14. Albright (1990) states that heat transfer through an unheated floor on grade has been found to lose heat primarily from its perimeter, rather than from the interior part of the building. Consequently, in terms of heat conduction, the outer two meters of the perimeter become the only parts of the floor which are important. This conduction loss is in proportion to the length of the perimeter and the temperature difference between air inside and outside the building. Under steady-state conditions, heat loss from the perimeter was estimated by the equation: 75 qf=fp(t,-t,,) (4.4) where: q, Floor conductive heat loss, W Building perimeter linear distance, m 'U u Average value of building perimeter linear heat transfer, 1.5 W/m-K. For this research, steel siding or roofing and curtain sidewall material were assumed to have negligible resistance to heat flow. For building components consisting of only those materials, resistance to heat flow was comprised of inside and outside boundary layers (resistance to heat flow due to the insulating properties of air films adjacent to each side of the building material) only. For calculations of wintertime conductive heat loss during calm conditions (0 to 1.35 m/s (0 to 3 mph)), the inside boundary layer value was also used as the outside boundary layer value. For winds between 1.35 and 3.38 m/s (3 to 7.5 mph) an R(SI) value of 0.044 (R = 0.25) was used to represent the outside boundary layer heat flow resistance. Beyond 3.38 m/s an R(SI) value of 0.030 (R = 0.17) was used. This was done to determine a more accurate estimation of interior roof surface dew point temperature. Appendix F lists the surface conductances and resistances for three wind speeds and three surface emittances. The heat flow direction, wind speed and film coefficients of interest are in bold type. 76 The building heat loss was found by totaling the heat loss for each homogeneous structural material, using Equation 4.2, and adding to that the building perimeter heat loss, calculated using Equation 4.4 4.1.2 Building Infiltration To evaluate the appropriateness of a cold confinement infiltration rate between 1.5 and 3.0 ac/h (discussed in Section 2.10), the ASAE calculations (appropriate for closed confinement mechanically ventilated barns) were used to determine the infiltration rate of the validation barn. First, the validation barn neutral pressure height was calculated under no wind (stack ventilation) conditions. Using the equation: AP=Apg(hp-h) (4 .5) the inside/outside pressure difference was then determined. This value was used in the equation: V=0.017(AP)°-67 (4.6) where: V = Ventilation rate per dairy cow unit, nfi/s to determine the infiltration rate per 500 kg cow in a "tight construction" building (Albright, 1990). Upon conversion to a 610 kg cow weight and multiplied by the 160 77 head, an infiltration rate of 2.5 nP/s or 1.4 ac/h resulted. When considering that the result was calculated for a windless condition and that cold confinement is not a "tight construction" type of housing, the minimum value of 1.5 ac/h suggested by Choiniere et al. (1990) seemed acceptable. Hellickson (1983) notes also that weathered, double layer plastic film covered greenhouses had an air exchange between 1 and 2 ac/h and "old construction" glass greenhouses had an air exchange between 2 and 4 ac/h. From the above evaluation, the minimum infiltration rate of 1.5 ac/h suggested by Choiniere et al. (1990) would reasonably represent the tightest construction for cold confinement dairy housing. Therefore, the average value of 2.2 ac/h seemed acceptable as a recommended average infiltration rate for cold confinement dairy housing and was chosen as the infiltration value for this research. To make the value more useful, a conversion from air exchange to square meters of open infiltration area was needed. For the validation barn, a minimum infiltration rate of 2.2 ac/h resulted in a ventilation rate of 4.3 uP/s. Through an iterative process, the building inlet area for stack effect (no wind) ventilation calculations was adjusted until a ventilation rate of 4.3 nf/s was achieved. This resulted in an inlet area for infiltration of 3 n? at -17.8 °C. Due to the reduced stack effect at warmer temperatures, an area of 3.6 n? was needed at -1.1.°C to achieve an infiltration rate of 4.3 nP/s. Because of the difficulty in reconstructing the equations with a different 78 inlet area each time the ventilation system was evaluated at a different outside temperature, the infiltration area of 3 n? was chosen as the infiltration area for all validation barn calculations. To evaluate this decision, a comparison of 3 n? versus 3.6 n? infiltration area at -1.1.°C was made. This comparison resulted in a calculated inside temperature of 4.278)°C at 3 n? and 4.272 °C at 3.6 n? infiltration area. The air changes per hour were identical for both infiltration areas. Obviously, from this analysis either choice would have been acceptable. As winds increased, the larger opening would show a more dramatic change in air exchange and inside temperature reduction so the 3 n? was left as the infiltration rate for the validation barn calculations. 4.1.3 Building Heat Gain The only heat gain assumed in this model was that produced by the livestock. However, after an in-depth search of the literature on livestock heat production (see Section 2.7), no single acceptable resource was found in the winter time temperature range being studied (-21.°C to 4 N3 (-5 °F to 40 °F)). Either the predicted lower critical temperature was too high (Strom and Feenstra, 1980) or too low (Ehrlemark and Sallvik, 1990) resulting in unrealistically high or low sensible heat values, the data were not based on studies in a production environment, or the temperature range of the resource was not all inclusive. 79 Because of this, a composite solution for sensible and latent heat production was chosen. Uncorrected total heat production (at some average weight per head) was determined by using the CIGR (1984) recommendations for maintenance, milk production, and reproductive heat output. Maintenance total heat production was found using the equation: =5.6=)=.m°'75 (4.7) Qmain tenance where: Q Heat production, Watts m Mass, kg. Total body heat production due to milk production was represented by the equation: Qmik=22*2' (4.8) where: Y = Milk production, kg/day. Heat production resulting from stage of pregnancy was determined by the equation: Qp,,,gmcy=1.6*10‘5*p3 (4 .9) where: D = Days pregnant. The assumption was made that, at any one time, seventy five out of each 100 cows were bred; and a uniformly spaced breeding interval occurred. 80 CIGR (1984) equations were chosen because, to this author's knowledge, these equations were the only current, peer reviewed formulas that allowed for tailoring heat output to changes in milk production and stage of pregnancy and that readily lent themselves to computer modeling. Through these equations, total heat production of modern high producing herds and herds of lower milk production could be compared as to their effects upon a barn environment. Maintenance, milk production, and reproductive heat production, when summed, equals total animal heat production. That value, multiplied by the number of head and then divided by the total herd weight, yielded total heat production per kilogram of body weight. As suggested by Webster (1973), ten percent of the total heat production was used as the latent heat portion of the total heat production at the animals lower critical temperature (the lower critical temperature being defined as -40 °C (-40 °F) for a high producing dairy cow) (Webster, 1973). Next, latent heat production for a 500 kg cow was calculated from a regression equation. The data points used to form the regression equation (see Table 4.2) were calculated from various sources believed to be reliable in meeting the criteria of being values taken from a producing herd environment. Due to the manner in which the limited amount of available data in the temperature range being studied was presented, all data points chosen were derived from unit conversions, body weight conversions, 81 interpolations, conversions from heat output per area to heat output per mass, conversions from averaged data, or a combination of these methods. Each of the final data points was then subjectively chosen from a very extensive plot of the available data, based on their approximation to a least squares regression curve between the end data points of 0.2 W/kg at --40 °C and 0.77 W/kg at 4.3 °C. The end points were chosen based on their presumed reliability. The averaged value or 0.20 W/kg at -40 °C resulted from the citing by several authors (see Table 4.2) of very similar values for cattle heat output at the cold end of the thermoneutral zone (see Figure 4.1). The value of 0.77 W/kg at 4.3 °C was chosen because it was from a recent barn study specifically researching the validity of the various references available on latent and sensible heat production and it's partitioning in housed dairy cattle. Table 4.2 Latent Heat Values for 500 kg Dairy Cattle at Various Outside Temperatures Used as Reference or Base Values for Linear Regression Calculations. T; Latent Heat Reference/Calculation Method °C W/kg -40.0 0.20 Webster (1973) and Bruce (1992) (averaged value) -30.0 0.24 Interpolated value -20.0 0.29 Interpolated value -13.9 0.32 Thompson and Stewart (1952) -13.3 0.34 Thompson and Stewart (1952) -10.3 0.39 Thompson (1957) 0.0 0.58 Thompson and Stewart (1952) 4.3 0.77 Quille et a1. (1986) The initial data points were from work done by Quille et al. (1986), Bruce (1992), selected summaries of Holstein 82 ‘) I ' ) I r.-- —ZH ——->}e2$er——- ZL—vl : | I | (deep body imperature I I a I . i l i I 0,0/ Q! ‘9 l Qggv In“? / / i QF | I l I | hasnthe'loe _ _ l i . CT uwkumemm teaperature Figure 4.1 Animal Heat Production TNZ = Thermoneutral Zone, CT = Critical Temperature, ZL = Latent Heat Dominating Zone, ZS = Sensible Heat Dominating Zone, ZM = Metabolic Heat Dominating Zone (Ehrlemark and sallvik, 1990) dairy cow heat production done at the energetics laboratory in Missouri, and research done by Webster (1973). As the temperature range of interest was approximately between 4 °C (40 °F) and -21 °C (-5 °F), no data points were used above 5 °C. As mentioned previously, the Quille et a1. (1986) data were used because their values were obtained from modern 83 dairy facilities specifically studying sensible and latent heat production. However, because their Alberta, Canada study was done under warm confinement conditions, only data points at the high end of the temperature zone of interest were available. The University of Missouri energetics laboratory did several "barn study" experiments with Holstein dairy cows that included indoor temperatures down to approximately -15 M2 MVP) (Thompson and Stewart 1952, Thompson 1957). Those studies provided several intermediate reference points. To this author's knowledge however, there were no housing condition research data available on dairy cattle heat production below -15 “C. To provide a regression curve that extended beyond the lower temperature of interest, the mean value of 0.20 W/kg (500 kg cow) at the lower critical temperature of -40 °C (-40°F) from data by Webster (1973) and Bruce (1992) was chosen. The lower critical temperature is defined as the temperature below which the animals total heat production shows a significant rise to maintain homeostasis (see Figure 4.1). Since the latent heat regression equation was based on a 500 kg cow, the latent heat production of any herd (at some average weight per head) first needed to be converted to latent heat production on a 500 kg cow basis through the equation: (QL) old"= (QL) newrt (mold/mnew) 0 .734 (4 ° 10) 84 where: QL = Latent heat production, W/kg new = Value at herd average weight, kg old = Value at 500 kg m = Mass, kg rt = Reference temperature , °C. The difference between the answer to Equation 4.10 and the lower critical temperature latent heat value of 0.20 W/kg was added to each of the reference latent heat values (column 2 Table 4.2, column 2 Table 4.3) for the other temperatures listed in column 1 of Tables 4.2 or 4.3. For example, in Table 4.3 the difference between the reference latent heat value of 0.20 W/kg and the validation herd latent heat value of 0.243 W/kg was 0.043 W/kg. That value, added to the remaining values in column 2, yielded the numbers in column 3 of Table 4.3. That sum represented the latent heat value for a 500 kg cow at current production rates. Each of those numbers was then converted to latent heat production (W/kg) at the average weight of the herd being modeled, by the equation: QL) new": (QL) old“ (mnew/mold) 0 .734 ' (4 ° 11) and are recorded for the validation herd in the fourth column of Table 4.3. The resulting values were used to derive a third-order polynomial regression equation for herd latent heat production, valid for any outside temperature 85 between -40 0C to 4 °C (-40 °F to 40 °F). Total heat production (W/kg) of the herd minus herd latent heat production yielded the sensible heat production (W/kg) for each reference value. Those sensible heat values were then used to create a second third-order polynomial regression equation for cattle sensible heat production. Table 4.3 lists validation barn cattle heat production values for a herd consisting of 160 cows weighing an average of 610 kg each and having a milk production average of 13,281 kg per cow per 305 days. Table 4.3 Validation Herd Calculated Latent and Sensible Heat Production Values. T; Reference Latent Heat Latent Heat Total Sensible Heat Latent Heat @ 500 kg @ 610 kg Heat @ 601 kg °C W/kg W/kg W/kg W/kg W/kg -40.0 0.20 0.243 0.278 2.78 2.50 -30.0 0.24 0.283 0.324 2.78 2.46 -20.0 0.29 0.333 0.381 2.78 2.40 -13.9 0.32 0.363 0.415 2.78 2.37 -13.3 0.34 0.383 0.438 2.78 2.34 -10.3 0.39 0.433 0.496 2.78 2.28 0.0 0.58 0.623 0.713 2.78 2.07 4.3 0.77 0.813 0.931 2.78 1.85 4.1.4 Discharge Coefficient Selection As there was no strong consensus about which discharge coefficient to use in various inlet and outlet opening situations and because the apparent trend by researchers of natural ventilation was to use discharge coefficients higher than 0.6 (see Section 2.9), a discharge coefficient of 0.65 was used for all openings in this research. 86 4.1.5 Pressure Coefficients Selection 4.1.5.1 External Pressure Coefficients As a comparison of the effect of the various external pressure coefficients upon a building's air exchange, several sets of values in Table 2.5 were used to calculate wind ventilation at 4.5 m/s (10 mph) for the same barn. The calculations assumed that the building had two soffit inlets of 6.84 at each at a 0.65 discharge coefficient and one ridge outlet of 15.28 H? at a 0.70 discharge coefficient (see discharge coefficient in Section 2.9). The results, shown in Table 4.4, would indicate that limited changes or the correct combination of pressure coefficient changes yielded similar air exchange rates. Table 4.4 Effect of External Pressure Coefficients On Air Exchange (Shrestha et al., 1990). Source Pressure Coefficients Building AC/h Upwind Downwind Peak Newberry (1974) 0.7 -0.25 -0.8 10.39 Bruce (1974) 0.5 -O.3 -0.6 9.11 Brockett (1987) 0.4 -0.3 -0.8 10.55 Brockett (1987) 0.5 -O.2 -0.7 10.55 AC/h = air change per hour After determining the air exchange rate from many combinations of external pressure coefficients, coefficients of 0.5 upwind, -0.7 peak, -0.2 downwind, and —0.1 gable ends were chosen. These values were selected because they yielded an air exchange rate midway between the extreme possibilities and because of the frequency of each value being mentioned in reference literature. However, when the 87 inside temperature and relative humidity were calculated for the barn used to validate the equations, errors appeared. There was close agreement only when soffit and ridge ventilation was allowed. When the ventilation area was increased to include end doors, the iterative solution approach could not yield an answer, irregardless of the number of iterations. Consequently, the pressure coefficients were adjusted until valid results were obtained for all possible ventilation opening options. The final pressure coefficients chosen were: 0.6 upwind, -0.4 peak, - 0.2 downwind, and -0.2 gable ends. 4.1.5.2 Internal Pressure Coefficient After building heat gains, building heat losses, orifice discharge coefficient, and external pressure coefficients had been determined, the inside pressure coefficient was found by solving for a net ventilation rate of zero between all inlets and outlets. First, the velocity of ventilation air entering or leaving each ventilation opening was calculated using the equation: (Cpoy-ij) vp=vg (4.12) «(m-Cm) where: vy = Air velocity at opening y, m/s v, = Wind velocity, m/s Cpo = External pressure coefficient at Opening y Cp1 = Internal pressure coefficient. 88 An initial estimate of Cph was used to arrive at a value for the air velocity at each ventilation opening. The ventilation rate was then solved for iteratively. The process involved adjusting the inside pressure coefficient in Equation 4.12 until the net ventilation rate summed to zero in equation: V=Z (rdyAyvy (4 -13) where: V = Volumetric ventilation rate, uf/s Cdy = Discharge coefficient at opening y A, = Ventilation opening area at opening y, m’. An example of the calculation process to solve for the internal pressure coefficient is given in Appendix G. 4.1.6 neutral Pressure Plane Once the internal pressure coefficient was known, the elevation of the neutral pressure plane was solved for. Since the neutral pressure plane is dependent upon inside air density and inside air density is dependent upon inside building temperature, an iterative approach was again used. An initial estimate of inside temperature was chosen and then, using Equation 2.29, the neutral pressure plane value was adjusted until mass flow continuity was established. Once the net ventilation rate into and out of the building reached zero (with the adjustment of the neutral pressure 89 plane value), the building ventilation rate and inside temperature were solved. 4.1.7 Carbon Dioxide Concentration As seen in the flow chart of Figure 3.2, the barn air quality, as it relates to carbon dioxide concentration, could be determined after the inside temperature and ventilation rate were known. The carbon dioxide concentration was based on an estimate of the ambient carbon dioxide level, building ventilation rate, and a livestock production rate of one liter of CKL per 24.6 kJ of total heat (as compared to latent or sensible heat) added to the environment by the animal (Albright, 1990). The equation to calculate the building concentration of carbon dioxide was: Vi=vo+vp (4.14) where: V1 = Volume of CO2 inside, m3/s or ppm Vo = Volume of CO2 outside, m3/s VI) = Volume of CO2 produced, m3/s. V; was determined by the equation: OT 1 * )1000 (4.15) 1000 24.6 Vp= ( where: (L = Cattle total heat production, W. 90 \Q was determined by the equation: CCO V:—.2_*V , (4.16) 0 1000000 am where: Cm, Concentration of carbon dioxide, ppm V“, Volume of ventilation air; uf/s. 4.1.8 Psychometric Calculations With outside environmental conditions provided and building heat loss, livestock heat production, ventilation rate, and inside temperature calculated, standard psychometric conversions were used to calculate inside absolute humidity, relative humidity, and dew point temperature. Appendix C presents, in spreadsheet format, a sample problem that includes each of the psychometric calculations first as cell values and then as cell formulas. 4.1.9 Roof Inside Surface Temperature Next, roof inside surface temperature was calculated for different wind speeds and insulation levels. Two different calculation methods were used to determine the roof lower surface temperature. One calculation method, called the "short method", used the equation: T,S=T,-(R,/RT) (Ti-To) (4.17) where: T“ = Roof lower surface temperature, H2 91 T1 = Inside air temperature, %2 R1 = Inside air film resistance, an/w = Total roof resistance, an/W To = Outside air temperature, WI. The second equation set, called the "long method", included exterior surface emittance and the Swinbank Model (Swinbank, 1963) for sky temperature approximation in the calculation process. The solution was comprised of six equations (Albright 1990). First, an approximation of sky temperature was calculated using the Swinbank model equation: tsky=0 . 0552 tilt? (4.18) where: Sky temperature, °K t:eky tair Ambient air temperature, 9K. In a situation where there was no solar gain (at night), heat losses were calculated next. Convective heat loss was estimated by the equation: (4.19) =hAt qcon vac ti ve where: h = Convective heat transfer coefficient for air, W/m’K At = Roof upper surface temperature minus outside air temperature, °K. 92 The value chosen for h is dependent upon the wind velocity present. For example, h = 48 WVHFK for a wind velocity of 4 m/s (9 mph) (Iqbal and Khatry, 1977). Then conductive heat loss was calculated using the equation: qconductivezA t/Rz+iaf (4 . 20) where: Rnn” = Resistance from the roof material and inside air filnn an/W. Radiation heat loss from the barn roof to the sky can be considered a situation of a relatively small object in large surroundings. Thus, thermal radiation loss to the sky was derived next from the equation: 4 4 qradiation=€uso ( tus- tsky) (4 . 2 l) where: e“ = Roof upper surface emissivity 0 = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, W/mUC Q" = Roof upper surface temperature, °K. Those equations were then combined to solve iteratively for the upper roof surface temperature. The rearrangement could take the form of: TUS=h( tus— tair'o) + ( tus- tair,i/RT) +€u30 ( t33—t3ky) (4 e 22) Finally the roof lower surface temperature was solved for using the equation: 93 tls= tus+ (RI/Rr+iaf) (ti—tits) (4 ° 23) where: t” Roof lower surface temperature, °K x H II Resistance from roof material, an/W. 94 4.2 Model Calibration 4.2.1 Differences Between the Calibration and validation Barns The significant differences between the calibration barn and the validation barn were herd milk production, amount of ventilation openings, and animal density. The calibration barn herd average was 29.3 kilograms per day (64.6 pounds per day) where the validation barn had a 43.5 kilogram per day (95.9 pounds per day) production rate. The calibration barn used soffits, ridge, and one feed alley door for ventilation openings where the validation barn also had four cattle doors continuously open. Also, the validation barn had frequent adjustments to the feed alley door opening and, under warmer weather conditions, had the opposite feed alley door opened as well. The calibration barn opposite feed alley door was not routinely left open until weather warmed in the spring. Also, the validation barn had 18.5 HP (654.7 ft’) of building volume per cow while the calibration barn had 25.7 n? (906.9 ft 3) per cow 4.2.2 External Pressure Coefficients To determine the effect of different external pressure coefficients upon the results of the mathematical model, the original coefficient selection (discussed in Section 2.8.1) of 0.6 for the upwind soffit, -0.4 for the ridge, -0.2 for the downwind soffit, and -0.2 for the gable ends, and numerous other realistic coefficient combinations, were used to calculate calibration barn inside temperature and 95 relative humidity. Upon completion of the calculation process, the original selection of 0.6, -0.4, -0.2, and -0.2 was as acceptable a match to measured average data as any other combination studied. The average variation between calibration barn calculated and measured temperature was - 0.1 °C and calculated vs. measured relative humidity was +4%. Only four other combinations gave calculated temperatures and/or humidities closer to measured values than the original selection. In each of the four cases either an adjustment to the ratio between sensible and latent heat had to be made or temperature and relative humidity were not both closer to measured values than those achieved by using the originally selected coefficients. When the selection of 0.6,-0.4,-0.2,and -0.2 was used to calculate inside temperature and relative humidity for the validation barn, values comparable to measured averages were not as close as those found for the calibration barn. Inside temperature averaged.0.2 °C higher than measured averages and relative humidity averaged 7.5% lower than measured averages. Other pressure coefficient combinations didn't provide values closer to both measured temperature and relative humidity. 4.2.3 Partitioning of Sensible and Latent Heat As discussed in Section 4.1.3, due to lack of research data in the temperature range of interest, the partitioning of latent and sensible heat was based on values compiled from several sources. Third order polynomial regression 96 equations of those values were then derived for calculation of sensible and latent heat. Those regression equations were accurate to the extent that calibration and validation barn measured vs. calculated temperature and relative humidity were —0.1 °C and +4%, and +0.2 °C and -7.5% respectively. Though the average measured and calculated values, particularly for the calibration barn, were quite close, the individual values were not. As can be seen in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 adjusting the percent of total heat credited to sensible and latent heat was particularly beneficial in bringing the calculated relative humidities closer to measured values. As shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5, had only inside temperature been of primary interest, adjustments to the partitioning of latent and sensible heat would have yielded results possibly no different than could have occurred from variability within the model. After the percent of total heat credited to calibration and validation barn sensible and latent heat was adjusted, the average difference between measured and calculated inside temperature and relative humidity was -0.3»°C and +1.1% for the calibration barn, and -0.2 °C and 0.3% for the validation barn. The calculated inside temperatures were slightly farther from measured values than those not adjusted but the relative humidity figures were much closer. Table 4.5 lists the percent of original latent heat values for both the calibration and validation barns. The percent credited or discounted from the herd latent heat load was 97 60.395 muses—0.8.3 ounumummEoB m. m wumofiocH muoxuozv mcacofiufiuuom boom Hooch ambushed one nonmanoaou one .msfin0aufluumm use: Hooch. oeuoasoamu .muon consume: Scum uneven—om “traumas ooflmcH chum sofiumunflmo «4 0.263 .01 nmaeemmmzme monaoo m o m- o T m T om- mm- D u om ALIGIWDH EAIIVTEH / mm cop IOHB¢DOfl aflfim9b0¢ new BOHBfiumHmm oofimcH cumm coflumoawm>. w.e munmam Ace amoeemmmzme moneoo m o m- o ..- m P. 0N- mm- mm ,.:;iéwos -éi:)§éiii;imh LLIGIWDH SAILVTEH (s) ZOHBCDOfl GNBmDHOC new ZOHFHumH0m cnmm cofiumoflam> m.¢ munmflm va NBHDHSDE m>HB¢Amm mDHmZH DMBdADUQdU 00H mm om mm om mm on o m w a v. m. - - - - + m o H m. 4.3 u mm-.. .. - o N. - E «88 u «(m . - ...- ---- M x memo + 23 u > m - - - \.\4 me m 44 m .w 4 m ll'v m2... 20.3mm. mm 4 M ... ,, - - - mm a \C\ S H S n \)\4\ cm W. 44 m d. - m m H ‘II. zo_u.fimmmoo eomumma ".0 m2... M. ooH It 105 .uo0m 0Hofimc0m new us0uoq c003u0m ofiuom o0umnnomso so scum o0umanoaou .Anos m can 3 Es mm.~ one o 50303 moses non >335: gaumflmm swam 83339.. be 059E Amy NBHDHSDS m>HB¢Amm NDHmZH OHBCADUQU ooH mm om mm om mm on mm ow om OFSmmmOO .Fowummm ...0 m2... I'. 7 mm; H mm o 5 wood u N (m Xmmmwd + No.0 u > d. \ 0. \ AIIIIII m2... zommmmomm .‘ ‘ .C. .q ‘ .0 cm (%) AIIUIWOH snrqusa HOISNI asansvsw ooH 106 .ummm 0Hnwmc0m one un0umq s00su0m ofiuom o0umsno¢ :0 SOME U0umasoaou ..nmE oH can my 0 \E m . v Odo mm . N :00zu0m mod“: no“.q kuwodnenz 0>fiuma0m chum dean—03" Hm> m . v 0.25am va MBHGHSDm m>HB¢AMm mnHmZH GH94ADUA40 mm om mm om mu m A. W 3 V m. 295.454.3500 hOmnEmn— ".0 m2..." .I a U o m I A. “N S *3 n mm \\ I and u «E m x 93 + ammo u > 4 4 ‘IJI m2... ZO_wmmm0mm fl 4 m w W \ 4 ..m 4 4 I 4 4 m m \ 4 m. 4 4 I 4 I .1 ..A ...). mm It 107 .um0m 0Hnflms0m one bcmuma :003u0m Genoa U0umsnoMGD :0 Beam o0umasoamu .AQQE 0H can mv m\E m.¢ Odo m~.~ c003u0m moses no“ hufiowenm 0>wumH0m chum newumofiam> m.v 0Hnmfim va MBHDHSDE H>HB¢ANK mDHmZH nwadflbunfiu mm om mm om me on mm mm "m a v S m *3 u mm 20 Hmong E. a Bad u «4: I x 83 + 8nd... > m mu m. 3 w. _H om (4 \4 m d. ‘34 MM .AIIIII. m 3 zoammmomm \ mm m 0 I 4 \\ 4 4 ..A \ 4 mm m... 108 .um0m 0Hnwmc0m one ug0uoa c003u0m ofiuom o0umoflo4 no scum U0uoasoamu .AnQE ma one oav m\E mh.m use m.e s003u0m mesa: u0u huwofiesm 0>HumH0m chem cofiumofiam> oH.v ounmflm Amy MBHOHSDm gHBflAflM mGHmZH Omfiflflbuéu m m o m m m o m m h o h m w o m cm mo aocfimmmoo SEEK “.0 02} l' o h sod n mm \4 .88 n ~ 4 \ m s 4. \\\\, \\1I||I m2: szmmmGwm \, om \\ 4 .4. .IIHM4 mm \. . YR... (s) meGINnH aAImvusa aarsnx asansvaw In 01 109 .um0m 0Hnwmc0m Ugo uc0uoq s003u0m ofiuom U0umnnomcs do scum U0uoHnoH00 .Anda ma one oav m\E ms.m can m.e c003u0m mode: MOM kuflofiesm 0>fiuma0m chem coaumowam> HH.¢ 0unmflm va HBHDHSDm gHBflAfiM HGHmZH Omfiflflbugu om mm om mh on mm om mm mm H H v. S cm .0 ZOfijmmmOO .romummn. “.0 m2... l' M a $mé H mm 8.0 n 9.: mm m x82. 1. Ewen > m on m 4 4 \ 4 m 4 (\ ms w. \ N ‘nlllll. m2... O_wmmmmvmm I om m 4 H (\\\ d. .n 4 H mm m 4 I .QHVM1\\V cm .A ‘ ) % mm r\ 110 is more scatter in the data marks using the adjusted calculation method. The standard error is approximately 1.5 percent greater. However, in each of the three wind speed comparisons, the calculations with adjusted latent and sensible heat produced marks that more closely followed the line of perfect correlation. In other words, though the adjusted calculations showed more scatter about the regression line, they clustered closer to a line of perfect correlation than did the values calculated without adjustment. The somewhat subjective choice of adjustment percentages would be a reasonable explanation for the increased scatter in the calculated results, as that was the only change in the calculations. Other factors of note were that the adjusted results tended to overestimate relative humidity under low wind conditions, clustered around the line of perfect correlation at moderate winds, and tended to underestimate relative humidity under higher wind conditions. The unadjusted calculations tended to underestimate relative humidity under all three wind groupings. The extent of the underestimation increased with wind speed. For example, at the 4.5 to 6.75 m/s (10 to 15 mph) wind speed, the approximate difference between the regression line and the line of perfect correlation was between seven and twelve percent relative humidity. The adjusted calculations however yielded approximately a two to nine percent difference. In summary, the adjusted calculations had more scatter, 111 .uo0m 0Hnamo0m Ugo uc0umq s003u0m Owned n0umnfiu¢ so scum o0umanoaou .AnmE m use ov m\E mm.m one o c003u0m and“: now 0u5uou0dE0B chum dawuoowam> NH.¢ 0unmfim ADV HMDB¢MNNSHB mGHmZH Dfl84ADUA M 4 3 ml. L a N d 3 o m 02... zo.mmmmo...._m II M JV\\LdMV. m t) 3 0H 112 .um0m 0Hnflmc0m one us0umq :003u0m ofiumm o0umsnomsb so scum o0uoanoamu .Anms m new OS m\E mm.~ one o :00zu0m mos“: no“ 0u9umu0d50h chem sofiuoofiao> ma.e munmflm AUV MMDBflmmmsz monZH DMB .4. 4 m. d T. N m e: 0 m2... zoamemomm IX 3 . 4 41 \\\\\ v Mm \V4 n A 7 oefimmmoo SEE“. to mz... m ) 3 NH 113 .um0m 0Hbfimc0m one ucmumq :003u0m cwumm U0umnmo4 cm Eoum o0umHsonu .AQQE 0H com mv m\E m.¢ one mm.m 2003u0m moses How 0unuoH0Q809 cumm coflumofiam> 0H.v 0Hnmfim ADV mmbfiémmmzma HDHmZH QMB K. e: a m 4 4 m m2... 205353 I'. a ..... K .-.-i z- o w \4\ Tu n 4 4 vd (\\\4_ "a \ - V \7 4 .AI zosfimmgoo BEE“. “.0 m2: (0 m 114 .um0m 0Hnams0m one ud0uoq n003u0m ofiuom o0umnnomsa cm scum o0umanoaou .AEQE 0H one mv m\e_m.v one m~.m c003u0m moses you 0Hsumu0deme chem :ofiuonfiao> ma.¢ musmfim Luv unassummzma monzH omaenooqeo m e o e- m- «H: 0H- 0H- w 3 2- w o. to u mm \4 m «88 u m ..m 4 a x368 + Ba. P- ... > .. m 4 4 S I G 3 e: I 4 m m2: zo_mwmmmomm 1“ M \4 o W ..IIIII. Tu D X 4 (I. 20.2. mmmoo eomumma 40 m2: n \ v \I 4 D m 115 .umom 0Hnflms0m one uc0umq s003u0m ofiumm o0umswo¢ so scum c0umHsonu ..nQE ma one o: 0?. who can m6 s003u0m moses How 0uduou09=0h chem cofiuoofiHnS 3.4 05.5w...“ ADV mMDadmmmSmB maHmZH QNBdADUHflU m w 0 vi ml NHI mHI ma) W 3 2.. m... . m a \ ml .1 o. med n we 4 m 84o ... 9.x u 1 . + . - u xSmo 83 > 04 T. a m 4 4 m m2: zoaemmomm II'. M o m i 4 fl \ A zocfimcmoo eomimma f0 mz... n v 3 4\ 116 .um0m 0Hnwmc0w one uc0uoq :003u0m cwuom o0umnnomsa so scum o0uoasoaou ..nos ma com o: m): who one m4. c00su0m mesa: no.4. 0unumu09=0e chem ”agenda—“.5 :6 0.26am “UV mmaadmmmzma HDHmZH oua‘noofldu w v 0 vi ml NHI mHI 0H! w 3 V 2.. m. o. as n mm a 83 n 9.: a xfimogmmwu \ an I 4. n“ S I 4 m. 1 vi Tu 4 E m mz... zoawmgmm .I' a o w I n zoefimrmoo Swami .6 m2... n v \\\\ \z 4 b 117 as evidenced by the higher standard errors, but tended to cluster closer to the line of perfect correlation. The unadjusted calculations had less scatter, and therefore lower standard errors, but tended to underestimate measured relative humidity and be farther removed from the line of perfect correlation. On average the adjusted calculations should yield values closer to measured values than unadjusted calculations would. As seen in Figures 4.12 to 4.17, results of similar calculations performed to determine building temperature showed less variability than did relative humidity calculations. There were measurable but relatively insignificant differences between the standard errors of the adjusted and unadjusted calculations. Also, like the relative humidity calculations, at higher winds the unadjusted temperature calculations yielded data points farther from the line of perfect correlation than did adjusted values. 118 4.3 Model Sensitivity Analysis 4.3.1 Weather Data An area that directly impacts a models equation results is the input data. Due to the nature of this modeling research, the weather conditions used as inputs to the model equations have a dramatic impact upon the simulation process results. Section 3.1 describes the process used to arrive at the input weather data for the validation and calibration barns. Upon completion of the input weather data sorting from the six different barn sites in Michigan it was found that only the winter of 1989-90 had any outside temperatures below -17.8 H: U)°F) that met both the wind direction and five degree Fahrenheit incrementing conditions. Consequently, that season's data were used for validation and calibration purposes i.e., as the outside weather data values. Table 4.7 lists the outside temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity as well as the average inside temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity that occurred at each of the 5 °F outside temperatures being researched. Also,the number of data sets remaining within each 5 TE group after all the sorting criteria had been met is listed under the "n" column. Due to the lack of long periods of colder weather during the winters studied there were only four hours that remained in the -20 °C to -17.7 °C groups after the sorting process was completed. 119 Table 4.7 validation Barn Mean Outside and Inside Temperature, Wind Speed, and Relative Humidity at 2.8 %2 (5 °F) Increments for the Months of December, January, and February 1989—90. Temperature Wind Speed Relative Humidity n Outside Inside Outside Inside °C °F °C m/ 3 mph % % -20.6 -5 -14.6 0.9 2.0 89 94 4 -17.7 0 -11.8 2.9 6.4 82 9O 4 -15.0 5 -9.6 2.9 6.5 71 84 9 -12.2 10 -7.4 2.5 5.5 85 87 8 -9.4 15 -4.3 2.1 4.7 81 82 13 -6.7 20 -3.1 3.9 8.6 76 81 14 -3.9 25 -0.3 2.7 5.9 86 87 25 -1.1 30 1.6 3.6 8.1 76 83 36 1.7 35 3.9 3.8 8.5 83 85 25 4.4 40 5.7 4.9 10.8 73 80 17 n = weather data remaining (hours) that met sorting criteria For simulation purposes, only a representative value for outside relative humidity and wind speed was needed at a given outside temperature. Consequently, all three years winter data from six different geographic locations were used in the sorting process (see Section 3.2). Table 4.8 Average Outside Wind Speed and Relative Humidity From Six Monitored Freestall Dairy Barns in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan for the Months of December, January, and February, During the Years of 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92. Outside Temp (C) Wind Speed (m/s) Relative Humidity (%) I -20.6 (-5°F) 2.0 (4.5 mph) 90 -17.8 ( 09F) 2.4 (5.4 mph) 88 -15.0 ( 5°F) 2.6 (5.7 mph) 84 -12.2 (10°F) 3.0 (6.7 mph) 84 -9.4 (15°F) 3.5 (7.7 mph) 82 -6.7 (209F) 3.5 (7.8 mph) 81 -3.9 (25°F) 3.4 (7.5 mph) 84 -1.1 (30°F) 3.5 (7.7 mph) 87 1.7 (35°F) 3.3 (7.4 mph) 88 4.4 (40°F) 3.7 (8.2 mph) 84 120 4.3.2 Rate of Milk Production One area of comparison for sensitivity analysis was to observe the effect of variations in milk production on inside environmental parameters (see Table 4.9). The calculations for this comparison were first made on a barn with 25 mm of roof insulation, open soffits, open ridge, one open feed alley door, and four open cattle alley doors (343% of fully open soffit ventilation rate). The herd was comprised of 160 cows averaging 610 kg each. The outside temperature was 4.4 °C (40 °F) and the wind speed was 1.4 m/s (3.1 mph). The lowest herd average milk production rate of 18 kg/day (40 lbs/day, 12,200 lbs/305 days) was 42 percent of the highest milk herd average production rate of 43.5 kg/day (96 lbs/day, 29,280 lbs/305 days). This milk production difference resulted in a lowest to highest sensible heat production difference of 1:1.76. At 32.8 kg/day herd average (72.3 lbs/day, 22,050 lbs/305 days), the sensible heat production ratio (compared to 43.5 kg/day) was 1:1.18 Table 4.9 Sensible Heat Production and Inside Environment Conditions as Affected by Milk Production in a Barn With an Insulated Roof. (ac/h= air changes per hour) Input Data Calculated Output Milk Prod. Sensible Heat Inside Temp. ac/h R.H. CO2 Conc. kg/day Watts °C % ppm 18.0 90,015 7.4 10.3 87 785 32.8 134,480 8.4 11.5 82 737 43.5 158,450 8.9 12.1 79 720 121 A large change in sensible heat production (a 76% increase) between the highest and lowest milk production rates resulted in a relatively small change in building temperature (1.5‘TD. Similar results were seen with changes in carbon dioxide concentration (65 ppm). Of note however were the changes in relative humidity and air exchange. The building temperature increase of 1.5L°C was enough to cause stack effect ventilation to increase the air exchange by 1.8 exchanges per hour and reduce the relative humidity by 8%. This air exchange increase would improve the air quality; and the reduction in relative humidity would reduce the potential for condensation related problems. Table 4.10 shows an identical comparison for a barn with an uninsulated roof. It can be seen that, although the inside temperatures were lower than the insulated barn (0.4 °C), the difference between inside temperatures was unchanged. The colder building also caused the cattle sensible heat production to be slightly higher. The colder barn also had reduced stack effect ventilation and, consequently, the air exchanges were slightly lower and the relative humidities and carbon dioxide concentrations were slightly higher than the barn with an insulated roof. The differences between values for each of the other environmental parameters also stayed essentially the same as those for the insulated barn. It could be concluded that variation in milk production and its effect upon inside environmental conditions was not 122 altered to any significant degree by the barn roof insulation level (at the ambient temperature and wind speed used for this comparison). In other words, the change in building temperature due to insulation levels did not significantly change the difference between a highest and lowest environmental value, only the magnitude of that value. The variable that did have a measurable impact on the barn environment was the difference in cattle heat production due to milk production, i.e., for the insulated barn, a 1.5;°C increase in building temperature, an increase in air exchange of 1.8 times, and an 8% drop in building relative humidity. Table 4.10 Sensible Heat Production and Inside Environmental Conditions as Affected by Milk Production in an Uninsulated Barn. (ac/h= air changes per hour) Input Output Milk Prod. Sensible Heat Inside Temp. ac/h R.H. CO2 Conc. kg/day Watts °C % ppm 18.0 91,630 7.0 9.9 89 800 32.8 136,885 8.0 11.1 85 754 43.5 161,075 8.5 11.6 82 735 A question that could also be asked would be whether the same changes in magnitude occurred at lower temperatures. To test this, a comparison between the 32.8 kg and 43.5 kg milk production rates was done at -17.8 W: (0 °F), 88% outside relative humidity, and a 2.4 m/s (5.4 mph) wind speed. As seen in Table 4.11, the changes in magnitude were very comparable for inside temperature but somewhat less repetition was seen for several of the other variables. 123 For example, for the uninsulated barn at 4.4 °C, the air exchange difference between 32.8 kg/day and 43.5 kg/day milk production was 0.5 ac/h, the relative humidity difference was 3%, and the carbon dioxide concentration difference was 19 ppm. For the same milk production difference at -17.8 W: and an uninsulated barn, the air exchange difference was 0.2 ac/h, the relative humidity difference was 1%, and the carbon dioxide concentration difference was 33 ppm. The insulated barn at -17.8 °C compared more closely to differences at 4.4 °C. Table 4.11 Difference Between Calculated Environmental Values for Milk Production Rates of 32.8 kg/day and 43.5 kg/day at -17.8‘TL (ac/h= air changes per hour) fl. _ - Model Inside Temp. ac/h R.H. CO2 Conc. Barn °C % ppm Insulated 0.5 W: 0.5 2.1 10 uninsulated 0.6 %2 0.2 1.0 33 In summary, large variations in milk production produced large changes in sensible heat production and relatively small changes in inside temperature. Changes in other parameters such as air exchange, carbon dioxide concentration, and relative humidity did occur but were not large. Roof condensation and air quality could potentially show a noticeable improvement with small changes in those variables. 4.3.3 Outside Relative Humidity Level The outside relative humidity was an input parameter to the barn inside environment equations. The calibration and 124 validation barn outside relative humidity value used at any five degree Fahrenheit calculation increment was based on the hourly averaged humidity for the months of December, January, and February during 1989 to 1990 for the respective building. The simulation barn used a three year average for the same months from six monitored barns (see Sec. 4.3.1). A comparison was made at —17.8.°C (0 °F) and 4.4 °C (40 °F) for a very closed uninsulated barn (10% of fully open soffit ventilation area available) and an open uninsulated barn (343% of fully open soffit ventilation area available). Wind speed was 3.1 m/s (6.9 mph). For the closed barn at -17.8 °C, the outside relative humidity had to fall below 30% before any change in inside relative humidity or dew point temperature occurred. The building was so underventilated that only very dry outside air would hold enough moisture to be an influencing factor. At 4.4 %2 however, an outside relative humidity of 60% or less did have an impact upon the inside relative humidity and dew point temperature. From 60% down to 20% outside relative humidity, the inside relative humidity dropped 30% and the dew point temperature dropped 3.8 W2. At the 343% ventilation rate, the choice of outside relative humidity also directly impacted the inside relative humidity and dew point temperature. When the outside temperature was 4.4 °C, for each 10% drop in outside relative humidity, there was approximately an 8% drop in inside relative humidity and about a 1.5 °C drop in dew point temperature. .At -17.8‘T3simi1ar changes occurred. 125 The inside relative humidity dropped approximately 7% and the dew point declined an average of 1.1 °C for each 10% reduction in outside relative humidity. Consequently, the relative humidity value chosen as an input to the calculations would have a definite impact on the calculated results of dew point temperature and anticipated roof frost/condensation conditions. Only a very closed barn operating under colder temperatures in the -17.8 °C range would not show changes resulting from adjustments in outside relative humidity. 4.3.4 Wind Speed Wind speed begins to have a dominant effect upon natural ventilation between 1 m/s and 3 m/s (2.2 mph and 6.7 mph) (Bruce, 1988, Jardineer, 1980). The amount of impact is affected by the ventilation area open to the wind. Table 4.12 lists the results of a 10% and 343% ventilation rate. All environmental changes in both of the ventilation areas listed were the result of modifying only wind speed. Table 4.12 Barn Environment as Affected by Wind Speed at 10% and 343% Ventilation Openings. (Uninsulated Barn at 80% Relative Humidity and -17.8 °C Outside Temperature) Ventilation Openings Equal 10% of Full Soffit Area Wind Speed Ti Roof T1 AC/H R.H. D.P.T. CO2 Conc m/ 8 °C °C % °C ppm 1 -13.2 -8.6 3.3 100 -8.6 1718 2 -13.5 -9.2 3.8 100 -9.1 1521 3 -15.5 -9.9 4.6 100 -9.8 1326 4 -16.2 -10.6 5.5 100 ~10.5 1168 5 -16.4 -11.2 6.5 100 -11.1 1043 6 -16.5 -11.8 7.5 100 -11.7 948 7 -16.6 —12.3 8.6 100 -12.2 874 126 Table 4.12 Continued: Ventilation Openings Equal 343% of Full Soffit Area Wind Speed T1 Roof T1 AC/H R.H. D.P.T. CO2 Conc m/s °C °C % °C ppm 1 -15.6 -13.3 11.7 93 -14.0 733 2 ~15.8 -13.8 13.4 91 -14.7 682 3 -16.7 -14.2 15.3 89 -15.3 640 4 -16.8 -14.5 17.4 88 -15.8 605 5 -17.1 -14.8 19.5 87 -16.2 576 6 -17.2 -15.1 21.7 86 -16.6 553 7 -17.2 -15.3 24.0 85 -16.9 534 13: Inside Temperature, AC/H= Air Changes Per Hour, D.P.T.: Dew Point Temperature At the 10% ventilation rate a 7 m/s wind caused only 8.6 air exchanges in an hour, while at the 343% ventilation rate, a 1 m/s wind caused 11.7 air changes per hour. This was an increase of 3.1 air exchanges per hour with approximately 14% of the wind speed. Also, as the wind speed increased in the 10% vented barn, the air exchange almost tripled and the carbon dioxide level was more than cut in half. This showed that increases in wind velocity had dramatic effects on improving the environmental quality in a closed barn. Since the ventilation rate was greater and air quality better in the open barn, the effect of increased wind speed was less dramatic. Table 4.12 shows that, for a 7 m\s wind speed increase, the building air exchange was somewhat greater than double and the carbon dioxide levels were reduced to near normal ambient quantities. As a whole the model was very sensitive to wind speed. Small wind speed changes produced noticeable differences in the barn environment. 127 4.3.5 Building Heat Loss As will be discussed in Section 4.5.2, reducing heat loss (through the addition of roof insulation) did produce noticeable changes in the barn environment. For each ventilation opening area studied, applying roof insulation reduced building heat loss, increased inside air temperature and air exchange, reduced relative humidity and carbon dioxide concentration, and raised the roof temperature. Also, reducing heat loss by increasing insulation thickness beyond the initial 12.7 mm (0.5 in) thickness studied showed few significant changes in the barn environment. At 10% ventilation openings and.-20.6 °C (-5 °F), increasing from no insulation to 25.4 mm (1.0 in) of R(SI) = 1.27 (R = 7.3) insulation caused the inside temperature to rise 3.4 %2 while at 343% ventilation and.4.4.°C (40 °F), similar insulation changes caused a 0.4 °C increase in building temperature. The insulated barn heat loss was approximately a third of the uninsulated value. Appendix E lists the heat loss data. It can be seen that it took a large numerical reduction in heat loss to produce a small increase in building temperature. For example, to achieve the 3.2 °C temperature rise previously mentioned, it required the building heat loss to drop from 11,636 W/K to 3976 W/K. This would roughly equate to a 1000 W/K heat loss reduction for each degree Celsius temperature rise in the structure. It should also be repeated that, as described in Section 4.3.2, a temperature increase of 1.5r°C allowed the 128 relative humddity to drop 8% and the air exchange to increase by 1.8 air changes per hour. Consequently, although changes in building temperature may have been relatively small when heat loss reductions were relatively large, the effect of those small temperature increases on air exchange and building moisture content could cause a noticeable improvement in building air quality. 4.3.6 Discharge Coefficients To determine the effect of the choice of 0.65 as the discharge coefficient for all ventilation openings in this research (discussed in Section 2.9), a sensitivity analysis was done on a barn with 11.2 a? (120.5 ft?) of soffit and 15.3 m2 (164.6 ft’) of ridge opening at -17.8 °C (0 °F). The results, written in Table 4.13, indicate that combined thermal buoyancy and wind ventilation calculations of inside temperature could be in error by approximately 0.3 °C (0.5 °F), if a discharge coefficient of 0.65 was used, and in fact, 0.7 or 0.6 was the correct discharge coefficient. Table 4.13 Comparison of Discharge Coefficients on Inside Temperature at -17.8.°C (0 °F) Ambient Temperature and a 4.5 m/s (10 mph) Wind Speed. Cd Stack Vent. Wind Vent. Combined Vent. Peak Eaves T1 rm/s nfi/s I; R.H. DPT 0.7 0.65 -10.2 11.6 23.9 -13.1 84.0 -14.9 0.7 0.7 -10.3 12.1 25.1 -13.3 83.7 -15.1 0.65 0.65 -10.1 11.4 23.3 -13.0 84.3 -14.8 0.6 0.6 -9.8 10.7 21.5 -12.7 85.0 -14.4 (Q = Discharge coefficient T3 = Inside temperature, %2 21 .H. = Relative humidity, % DPT = Dew point temperature, %2 129 4.4 Model validation and validity 4.4.1 MOdel validation 4.4.1.1 Validation Barn Building Temperature A numerical comparison between calculated and measured validation barn inside temperature at each of the 2.8‘T2(5 °F) temperature groups was done. The mean outside relative humidity, wind speed, and temperature from each temperature group was used as input data for the calculations. The calculations included the adjusted ratio between latent and sensible heat discussed in Section 4.2.3. Figure 4.18 shows that the inside temperature values were in good agreement at -6.7’°C (20 °F) while calculated values deviated a maximum of approximately one degree Celsius below field measurements at colder temperatures and one degree Celsius above field measurements at warmer temperatures. In addition to errors in equation variables, a factor that most likely affected the relationship between calculated and measured inside temperature was the actual building ventilation rate. As mentioned in Section 4.2.3, because this barn was so closely monitored, (with three milkings per day, employees were frequently going through or past this barn) doors and curtains had probably been left increasingly closed or open as ambient temperatures declined or rose. The trend of undercalculating inside temperature during colder weather and overcalculating building temperature during warmer weather would tend to support this 130 .mxflh. OHS¢QDUA¢U Iml . alum. ngbmfiu: Ill . :Uo v.¢ 0» m.omuv mo ow 0» m: EOHu mquEOHUGH A0,. 0.3 be m an mHOmeEV cnmm cofiumpflmaw poundsmcflfi .. muaumnmmema 5mm moans: pmumaaoamo can pmuammwz maé musmfim MMDBQMNQZNB MG H 9550 mNI mHI CHI 0H EHDLVHEJNEI. HUI SNI (o) 131 assumption. The calculations assume a constant ventilation opening area. However, as no daily log was kept of ventilation opening modification during winter, this is not a verifiable assumption. Other factors possibly contributing to variability were the reliability of the field data and/or the "n" or sample size of the sorted data averaged. Beyond the possibility of calibration errors, the thermocouple temperature measurements could only be considered accurate to within one degree Celsius of the actual value (Campbell Scientific, 1989). Also, the multiple sortings of a very large weather data set produced sample sizes quite small in several temperature groups, i.e. n = 4 at -20.6 °C and n = 4 at -17.8 °C. In this model, temperature is a relatively stable value. It takes large changes in other variables to produce a significant change in building temperature. As a whole, there is very good agreement between measured and calculated inside building temperatures. 4.4.1.2 validation Barn Relative Humidity A numerical comparison similar to the temperature comparison was done for relative humidity. The resulting calculated and measured validation barn relative humidity values can be seen in Figure 4.19. Unlike Figure 4.18, there was no discernible pattern in the difference between measured and calculated values. On average, the calculated relative humidities were 0.3 percent below measured relative 132 . A00 ”‘4‘ On m.omuv mo o¢ 0.... m: EOHH muGOEOHUe—H AUo m.mv cumm cowumcfiflw poundsmcfis .. hufipdfifi o>aumnumm omumHsonu . m . fl Duh—kqboiu Iml . m . m ONmDmtnz III on 0 ml . m> 0939mm: gbfiémmzmfi m0 H mBDO CHI mHI omI m. m an mumxumsv mH.¢ magmas mml mn /8 cm 9 mm om I/B/ mm XII-ICIIWDH HAILV'IS‘H (%) 133 humidities. The extremes ranged from approximately two percent above measured relative humidity to three percent below measured values. Considering that the maximum error on the humidity sensor is + 4%, there is good agreement between the measured and calculated values. 4.4.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Concentration validation Figure 4.20 shows the results of a comparison between nine measured carbon dioxide readings and a calculation of each carbon dioxide level. There was close agreement between measured and calculated values for six of the nine samples. Because of the number of draw tubes available at the time of the gas analysis, it was not possible to redo the obviously inconsistently low CO2 concentrations during two time periods. It is this author's contention that the tubes were defective or that the vacuum pump was malfunctioning so that an incomplete gas sample was drawn into the reagent during those two periods. Of the six close comparisons, the calculated CO2 levels averaged 64 ppm below measured values. For all readings the (XL levels averaged 29 ppm above measured values. For comparisons of desirable and undesirable carbon dioxide levels, the calculations are adequate. 4.4.1.4 validation Barn Roof Temperature To evaluate the accuracy of the resistance coefficient method of determining lower roof surface temperature, three sets of barn roof data were collected on the validation §§§ CALCULATED C02 MEASURED C02 134 I I %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Q , I %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Z%%%%%%%%f%%%fi%%%%%%%%6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Z %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Z Z%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% --- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%7 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200‘" 1000“ 800“ 600‘ 400‘ (mdd) NOILVHINSDNOD 301x010 uosavo 15:00 16:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 14:30 15:30 TIME (HOURS) 13:30 12:30 Figure 4.20 Calculated Carbon Dioxide Concentration in a 61 Meter by 13.3 Measured vs. Meter Freestall Barn. 135 barn. The measured values for the validation barn were taken from approximately midnight to 4 A.M., when none of the groups of cows in the barn was out for milking. Table 4.14 lists the data values for three nights of roof temperature and wind speed measurements. The averaged results are highlighted with bold type. Table 4.15 lists the results of the calculated lower surface roof temperature using averaged data from each of the three sets of measurements (see Section 4.1.9). As noted in Section 4.1.9 the "calculation method" column listing of long or short refers to the two surface temperature calculation methods used. The selection of upper and lower roof surface film coefficients was based on the measured wind speed. For winds less than 1.4 m/s (3 mph) a resistance coefficient of 0.11.uf-K/W was used. Between wind speeds of 1.4 m/s and 3.4 m/s (3 mph and 7.5 mph) a resistance coefficient of 0.044 uf-K/W was used. Beyond 3.4 m/s a value of 0.030 nf-K/W was used as the resistance coefficient. Appendix F lists each of these values as found for example in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Table 4.15 shows that the data for a clear night (December 21, 1992) resulted in calculated roof lower surface temperatures being between approximately one and one half to three degrees celsius warmer than the measured values. On an overcast night (January 7, 1993) the calculated values were about equal to three quarters of a 136 mhfiHfimH kuweoemflfl ¢HH3 90: H Ill 6.H a.o m.o~ ~.mI m.na H.oHI v.5 n.n o.mH m.mI v.m H.nHI .u>s m.o m.mI n.0HI m.H m.mI e.nHI m .m>< m.H k.o ~.H~ o.oI m.~H m.oHI n.m m.H m.mH o.mI a.a m.nHI m v.H m.o o.m~ o.mI 0.4” o.oHI H.n 6.” 5.6H m.mI a.o n.nHI m m.o m.mI «.mI o.m o.mI s.~HI z .o>< III III «.ma o.AI ~.eH m.mI n.m ~.v m.m~ o.mI m.» m.~HI z ~.H m.o m.mH m.mI o.sa o.oHI o.~a e.m «.mH o.mI a.m ¢.~HI z ~.~ o.H m.o~ m.oI v.4H m.aI ~.~H m.m m.mH o.mI H.a a.~HI z m\H m.o ¢.o o.~n o.o o.o~ ~.~I w.n o.a m.e~ o.eI m.m~ q.nI .u>¢ III ~.oI ~.~I a.H m.nI m.nI m .u>< III III o.~m o.o m.a~ m.~I III III m.e~ o.eI m.m~ e.nI m III III o.~m o.o ~.m~ H.~I III III m.¢~ o.vI a.m~ m.nI m III III o.Hn m.oI s.m~ o.~I m.m 5.H a.m~ m.nI m.m~ m.nI m «.6 ~.o ~.~I m.H H.6I ~.nI z .usa o.H m.o c.~m o.o o.m~ ~.~I n.n m.H m.e~ c.6I «.mm ~.nI z k.o n.o o.~n o.o ~.m~ a.~I m.n o.H m.n~ m.¢I o.o~ o.nI z k.o n.o m.~m m.o m.a~ n.~I a.n n.H ~.m~ m.nI s.m~ m.nI z u\a H.¢ m.H w.s~ H.¢I m.aH o.oI H.m n.~ o.H~ H.6I m.ma m.sI .u>¢ ~.m m.mI m.aI m.m n.6I o.AI m .u>< m.n v.m H.- m.mI m.kH m.aI H.oH m.¢ n.o~ m.mI m.aH m.AI m a.o o.m o.m~ o.mI m.aH a.nI m.m m.~ ~.H~ o.mI n.mH m.kI m m.o o.mI o.mI H.H o.mI ~.5I z .o>< ~.H m.o o.o~ o.nI H.mH k.aI n.~ o.H ~.H~ o.mI m.mH m.mI z o.” m.o m.o~ o.nI H.RH n.mI m.~ ~.H ~.H~ o.mI n.ma e.uI z H~\~H :9: m}: to o: to 0.. an... m): to o. to o. .H H 4 .u 00% H ..n < U 00“ pmmmm pcfiz mmusumumdeme oomam pegs mmusumuwnfims mucwemuswmmz momuusm uo3oq macmfimuswmmz womuusm Moan: moan muwo .mucwemusmmmz wusumuomema .wowuusm moom chum cofiumpfian> «9.6 canoe ousumnmmsou womuhzm nosoa moom u swam momuusm moon umaoq u man 137 momuhsm moon Honda H mm: m.mI H.oHI ono.o HH.o mcoq name Add n.mI H.oHI ono.o HH.o unocm mama Has m.sI m.oHI ono.o HH.o anon nusom H.mI n.oHI ono.o Ha.o uuonm nuaom a.mI m.mI ono.o HH.o mach nuuoz m.mI «.mI ono.o Ha.o uuonm :uuoz m\a m.~I ~.~I vac.o HH.o once upon Ham m.~I «.mI eso.o Ha.o uuonm sumo flea m.~I ~.~I vwo.o HH.o anon nusom m.~I ~.~I vqo.o Ha.o uuonm nuzom «.mI ~.~I «so.o HH.o mcoq suuoz m.~I «.mI sso.o Ha.o uuonm nuuoz a\H «.mI o.mI «so.o evo.o anon sumo Has H.mI o.mI veo.o eeo.o uuonm sumo Ha< «.mI m.kI «so.o ono.o 6:04 nuzom m.mI m.aI evo.o ono.o uuonm nusom H.mI o.mI HH.o «wo.o mcoq nuuoz H.mI o.mI Ha.o «so.o uuonm nuuoz H~\~H swam swam mmq mm: cosumz ummmuo>< mama pwumHsonu consummz womam>< poms mucmaoauumoo cowumaaoamo macaw «com ucmamusmmmz .mumo Umvmum>< scum muoumumnsma oommusm umaoq moom mo cowumaaoflmu ma.v mHQMH 138 degree celsius colder than measured values. On a partly overcast night (January 9, 1993) the calculated roof lower surface temperatures were about one to two and one half degrees celsius warmer than the measured values. This set of data does not represent a rigorous study of actual roof temperatures. For example, the first set of data was partly compromised by the site of data collection being in close proximity to the ventilation inlets (causing roof lower surface temperatures to be lower than average for the entire roof). Also, though calibrated, the data collection equipment was all hand held and therefore subject to errors in positioning, wind obstruction etc. As well, the number of samples was not of a large enough magnitude to effectively average out isolated environmental anomalies. In other words, it would appear from the calculated and measured comparisons and the previous discussion regarding the conditions under which the resistance coefficients were determined, that the exact calculated surface temperature is not a reliable criteria for determining roof lower surface temperature and that likewise, the measurements taken were not of sufficient number to totally discredit the calculated values. For these reasons, less credibility was placed on the extremes of the differences between calculated and measured roof lower surface temperature and more on the trends. One trend was that clearer sky conditions tended to produce lower roof surface temperatures that were colder 139 than a calculated value would predict by approximately one to two degrees celsius (for reasons previously mentioned, this temperature range obviously somewhat discredits the extremes of the results of the December 21, 1992 measurements i.e., the measured vs. calculated difference of 2.9‘TD. Another possible trend would be that, under overcast sky conditions, the roof lower surface temperature may be about one degree celsius warmer than a calculation would predict. A Danish study by Andersen (1987), comparing the calculated and measured temperature of the uninsulated metal roof of an experimental building, found that the measured roof surface temperature was one to two degrees celsius higher than his calculated value. He also noted that cloud cover had an impact upon the amount of roof condensation. Clear sky condensation was 1.5 to 3 times greater than cloudy sky condensation when the temperature difference between inside and outside was greater than.5I°C. This research supports the findings that clear sky radiation as well as air temperature plays a part in determining roof lower surface temperature. Because of the uncertainty as to the accuracy of the calculated roof lower surface temperature, a range around the calculated value was chosen to represent the actual roof lower surface temperature. The trend for measured data vs. calculated data was two degrees celsius below the calculated value to one degree above the calculated value. Andersen's 140 (1987) findings would suggest measured values up to two degrees above calculated values. Therefore, for this research a range of two degrees about the calculated value was chosen as the zone of possible roof lower surface temperatures. 4.4.2 MOdel validity Calculated inside temperatures for both the calibration barn and the validation barn deviated approximately one degree celsius above field measurements at warmer temperatures and one degree below field measurements at colder temperatures (see Figures 4.4 and 4.5). The average difference was 0.3 °C below measured values for the calibration barn and 0.2 °C below field measurements for the validation barn. The average validation barn standard error for determination of inside temperature was 0.7’°C. Calibration barn relative humidities followed measured values very closely except for temperatures just above freezing (see Figure 4.2). At those temperatures, the humidity values were approximately four to five percent below field values. Validation barn relative humidity calculations also followed measured values very closely (see Figure 4.3), with extremes ranging approximately two percent above to three percent below measured values. The average calibration barn calculated relative humidity was 1.1% lower than measured values while the validation barn relative humidity calculations averaged 0.3% less than field 141 measurements. The average validation barn standard error was 2.4%. Carbon dioxide concentration calculations were compared with a set of draw tube tests done on another barn in the monitoring program (see Section 4.4.1.3). That comparison showed calculated CO,*walues to average 29 ppm.greater than the measured values. Lower roof surface temperature calculations were compared with three nights of roof temperature measurements taken on the validation barn. The measured values coincidentally included the range of variability in sky radiation, namely, a clear night, a partly overcast night, and an overcast night. Due to actual versus calculated heat radiation to the sky, estimated versus actual upper roof surface film coefficient, and other variables mentioned in Section 4.4.1.4, the calculated roof lower surface temperatures ranged from two and one half degrees celsius above measured values to three quarters of a degree celsius below measured roof temperatures. 142 4.5 Wintertime Simulation Model Analysis of Typical Freestall Dairy Barns 4.5.1 Four Row uninsulated Barn Simulation From -20.6 W: to 4.4 %2 Like the validation barn, the inside environmental conditions were calculated at 2.8 °C (5 °F) outside temperature increments from -20.6 °C to 4.4 °C (-5 °F to 40 °F). This set of inside environment calculations (at each of the 2.8 W: U5°F) outside temperatures) was repeated for four different ventilation opening conditions. In other words, the inside temperature, relative humidity, inside roof temperature etc. were calculated ten times (once for each five degree fahrenheit increment from -5 to 40 °F) for a barn with the ventilation soffit openings blocked to 10% capacity and then calculated again for three other ventilation opening scenarios. To represent a very closed building, ventilation at an inlet area equal to 10 percent of full soffit openings was calculated. Partially blocked inlet ventilation was represented by calculations of ventilation at 50 percent of full soffit area with the upwind soffit considered closed and the downwind soffit considered open. Calculations at 100 percent soffit area (fully open soffits) and 343 percent soffit area (an area equivalent to unblocked soffits and opening one feed alley and four cow alley doors) completed the ventilation openings studied. 143 4.5.1.1 Roof Frost/Condensation Conditions Figures 4.21 through 4.23 illustrate the calculated potential for nighttime roof frost formation (onset of dew point conditions) at outside temperatures of 4.4 °C, -6.7’°C, and -17.8 NS, respectively. The rectangles used as legend symbols in these figures are positioned at the four ventilation opening conditions discussed previously (10% (5.5 HB), 50% (11.3 Hf), 100% (18.7 ufi), and 343% (64 n?) of full soffit opening area). Frost or condensation (a condition of saturation) would be expected to occur on the underside of the roof when the line representing barn roof temperature was below the line representing dew point temperature. In other words, when the inside roof temperature line was below the dew point line the roof was colder than the dew point and consequently any air touching that surface would have been below its saturation temperature and condensation or frost would have occurred. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.4, an exact calculation of roof temperature is impacted by equation derivation and local environmental parameters. Thus, roof temperature is not an independently reliable value. Therefore, a temperature range extending plus or minus two degrees Celsius around the calculated inside roof temperature (represented by two dashed lines) was a more realistic estimate of actual roof temperature. If the assumption was made that a dew point temperature two degree Celsius below calculated roof temperature 144 .wHSumquEwh meow Hmwusmuom no anon oak uwouom mos“; cognac .wuaumummsmh mofimuso is. as. o. ¢.¢ um cumm omumaamcapp am you imuauuom ammo asapm no 14: 66c smam m .14: >.mav woos ..ma m.HHV «om .14: m.m. «ca um mmaacmmo unm>v mmuam massage coaumHaucm> usom um manumumgemn. moom moamsH paw ucaom 3mm nonmaaoamu no Gounod—=00 34 93mg Amusemz mmmoomv sums emnzH onechszm> on 00 cm ow om. ON or o N .I 6 Tu 3 w WIT 3 M [I]! III/l [III/ 6 m n .m m .mzmn. LOOK uDHmBH Iml .mxun. BIHOQ sun III or 145 .OASuMHmQEoB moom Huaucmuom no «sou och Hmonom owned Umnmma .mHSDMHmQEmB mofimuso Ame omv on >.mI um chum pwumflamswsa cm MOM Amuaumow ammo xaasm mo Ame «my *mvm w .rs so: woos .rs m4: «om .rs moo 3H um mmaaomoo newt 326 93:30 nonunion: usom um musnmummsmh uoom mofimsn paw 955m 3mm nonnazoamu no 333.3950 mmé mun—mam Ammmfimz mm¢bomv flfim¢ BHQZH ZOHB¢QHBZM> on om cm 0? on ON 0 F o 00.0.0. I ... ’00:: Ol- SHDLVHEENHL (o) .92”? 300% NnHmz Iml .QZNB EBHOQ Inc I o 146 .musumnmmEmB uoom Hmfiusouom no msou oak Hmpuom mmcfiq omsmmn .mHSumummeB 3350 E. o. o. 95- on gum 633355 on son 3338 :30 >23 no rs v3 soon a .Ame >.mav aooa .Ame m.HHV wom .Ame m.mv woe um mmcasmgo ucm>v mwufim mcflcogo scannewucm> Hoom um wuzumuwQEmH moom mpfimcH can usaom 3mm Umumdfiamu no comfiummEou mmé 93mg Ammmamz mambomv flmmd BHAZH ZOHB¢AHBZN> on 00 om ov on ON 0 P 0 cm. mHTI, I. d m I]. IIIIIIIII i; "a / .... I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mm nu n y’ ./ $2 (a) onus boom unamzu Ime name azaoo sun .inul mm- 147 represents a 0% chance of condensation and two degree Celsius above the calculated roof temperature represented a 100% chance of condensation, Figure 4.21 shows that, at 4.4 °C, a 343% ventilation rate had approximately a 50% chance of causing roof condensation. At 100% of full soffit ventilation, there would have been approximately a 70% chance of condensation. Ventilation openings of 50% or 10% of full soffit area, however, produced the potential for condensation to occur every night. Figure 4.22 shows that as outside temperature dropped to -6.7’°C (20 °F) conditions of frost formation increased an insignificant amount. As can be seen in Figure 4.23 however, at -17.8 %2 H)°F) or lower, frost accumulation would be anticipated every night for all ventilation openings studied. 4.5.1.2 Absolute Humidity and Relative Humidity As would be expected, the lowest absolute humidity occurred at the greatest ventilation opening for each outside temperature studied. This fact is illustrated in Figure 4.24. Also,the ability of warmer air to hold more moisture is depicted in this graph. For example, at 4.4 °C the absolute humidity was approximately four times greater at the 10% ventilation level and five and a half times greater at the 343% ventilation level respectively than was found at -20.6 °C. Reducing the ventilation area approximately two and one half times (from soffits and five end doors open to soffits . §*7: IIIIIaI‘éIIE: 148 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIHIIIII llIIIIllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|I|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I m mm w”...— __._—._.._. — I i ’//////////////////////////////////////////////// (\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIHIIIHIH I ’/////////////////////////////////////////A \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V ’/////////////////////////////////1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IlIllIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|III I I I I I ’/////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIII I '/////////////////////, .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ HIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ’/////////////A .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIII 7///////////, X\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ’//////////. \\\\\\\\\\\V IIIIIIIIlllIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII’l '////////. \\\\\\\\\V III|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI -17.8 -15 -12.2 -9.4 -6.7 -3.9 -1.1 1.7 4.4 OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE -20.6 12 O P (€.m/5) Q (D V N 0 KLIGINDH ELHTOSHV EGISNI (C) Uninsulated Simulation Barn Absolute Humidity at Four Ventilation Opening (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%, a 343% of Fully Open Soffits) at Different Outside m «I m 8 v 3 «I m H H80 8N8 -I-I-I-Im maze-c 149 only open) showed only a relatively small change in absolute humidity. At -20.6 °C the difference was 0.2 g/nfi. At 4.4 °C the difference was 0.3 g/uf. When the ventilation area was reduced from fully open soffits to 10% open soffits however, the increase in absolute humidity was much more dramatic. At -20.6.°C, the change was 1.1 g/ufi and at 4.4 °C the change was 3 g/m?. The amount of moisture held in the barn was almost doubled by closing the doors and blocking the soffit inlets down to 10% when the outside temperature was down to -20.6 °C. Had the doors been closed and the soffits blocked to only 50%, there would have been approximately a 50% increase in the absolute humidity within the barn. As mentioned earlier, when the weather warmed up to 4.4 °C the amount of total moisture in the barn increased. The barn with 10% ventilation openings had approximately a third greater moisture content than did the barn with open soffits and open doors. The relative humidity calculations complement the absolute humidity data. While the absolute humidity values show the quantity of moisture in the barn, the relative humidity values show how saturated the air is at a given temperature. Looking at Figure 4.25 it can be seen that the barn with unblocked soffits and open end doors had the lowest inside relative humidities. Had the end doors been closed, the outside temperature would have had to rise to approximately -17.8 W: H)°F) before the inside relative 150 A A N ... A N (E N N I « < E E E h n - e In - In \D - v-l 3-4 V In u-a w v V we» at ”Hon 0 o o v mzlmhsém 7$6196(I56/9165/99fifllbfifllfiflfllygflflfllfifid’29Clfiflflfkfifllbfifllbflfllb66196€(156(/7 QQIIIQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQN3BDDDDIDIIIIDQQQQQQQQQVNBIIQEQQQQQVRIDDGR IIIIllIIIIIIIllIllllIIIIIIIIllI|lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIllIlIllIIIIIlIIIIIII||IIIIII|IIIlIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll 4J1 C/Bfl6156/56?bfllbfllb6!96/95!Dfilbfiibfll56/96756196195156!96/966196!966/567911911961961961319061966196 \EN3EN3i\3i\3IiC‘fiEN3QQh3IC‘3EN3iNId\Bi\BEI3i\3II\3iGBIE5ld‘Iiir4‘l\38‘3Q\IQ\3I\38\3¢\3i3l\3¢\3¢\3€§3§¥ lllIIllllIlllIIIllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIllllllIlIlllIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1.7 ’l/I/I/l/l/I///////////////////////////////////l/Il/I/lll/A \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ ' IIII IIllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|llllIllIllIlll||||||llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH -1J (C) €I5€ID€I9€I20€IQ€I79¢(19¢!9CI)64V5(I9Clbfllbfifllfifrfiflkcllflfltafll96’906/ aDIIQQCSBBIIS3IEV53IIQIN3BII(\hIII53IIINBIQQQNBD¢QQNBB§QQQVSBB¢ 419 OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE 1617966179966£17956/7964/966(1964/7966617966(1996(17066 RIIQQNSBIQQ\BQQQQV§3IaIIIQRENEIIQCNNBIQ(\FIQQ§BIQ\BI€(\EDQQ€ 417 4196617966/9956/79966/7954(IQQCKIQOC/VO64/7799566/1 i3BIIQ(‘3hIIIQQ(N3IIIIIN33IQQN333IIIIQfithQQQNBfiQQQ‘NDBQCQ 414 1I96!)6196/75’25K1G617561906/566]?5’756/56/DflI966I95!?4/1Lfl/96/96/96/96/11l7 QINDIIN3ENBI{‘3IiQ5Bi\§I(‘3EN3III3iCNIEN3INBIII3II53IQQ5BIC‘fiiQQNBDQ‘BIfi‘BIQNRDQQ‘ IllllIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl||IIllllIIIIllllIIIlIIlllllllIllllIlIlllll|IIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIlIlIllIIlllIllIIIlIH -122 1966179954all?9645/77996(1)?66/775664K!990065/190666/779004/797966K/7795 3II5BIQR33IIQQ‘h3IIIIQQ\3IINDIIQQNR3IIQC‘D33IIIQIN3IIIQ3DCQN3IIQ(\BIIIIQVRDQQQNBIQQ‘NBIDDG NHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNHHUUHHHHHHHHHHH"UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH""H"HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -15 1956!96/5€196!9(196/91/56/54/94/96/7519Cl96/361QCIQCIQ$v mcoaufioaoo GOEDMHfiucw> 039 amps: musumummewe usaom son moom chum scannenfifim pmumHSmneso m~.¢ musmfim on F43 HMDBdMHmSHB MOODBDO BZNHmZG md- 5.0- ed- NNP- m..- 95.. mdw- \mu \ .\ W\. I .\ \ op- or EHDLVHHJWHE LNIOd M30 ZGISNI (o) 154 100‘ (18.7 lI‘z) \ \V ||||||IIIIIII||||||||IIIIIIIIIIIII||||IIII|I|||l||lIlIIlIIIIlIIlllIlIIlllIIIIIIIIIIII|||IIII|||I|II|IIIIIII||l|IIIIIIII|l|||lII||||III||||| 'II/"l ‘ \ \\\\ \ \/\\\\\ \ I I /" // /’, // " ////// // / / .vIJ/K/ /’,:/’///"/ ,- , x"/ ,/ I||||| ||I||||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII|||IIIIIII||||||IIII|||||IIlIII|IIIIlll|IIIIl|IIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /,"'../// / 1,. , . , , , . 731.37.. . ‘/,I' \\x x. I. \\ x »\ \. \\\» \ \\\.‘\\‘ /'/',//'/'.',4/," I/ ",r, / ,- , ' /,// , ' , ,v . ,. ,, . ”3“. \,‘.\\\_ \\ I I I |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIII|||||IIIIII|||lllllllll|||||IIIIII||IIIIIIII|||||IIIIIIIIIIlllllIlIlIIIIIIIIIIII I I I ("I LI") r , ' .4: I V (O) Bamvamwm BOISNI GHIVIIIQIVQ I7 <—39 4.4 67 AMBENT OUTSDE TEMPERATURE (C) —122 —I78 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Inside Temperature at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes (Vent Openings at 10%, 50%, 100%, & 343% of Fully Open Soffits). Figure 4.27 In 155 increased from 2.0 m/s (4.5 mph) at -20.6L°C to 3.7 m/s (8.2 mph) at 4.4 °C (see Table 4.8). The increased ventilation would drive the inside temperature closer to a common value. Table 4.16 lists the effect upon inside temperature of closing up the simulation barn. As mentioned earlier, the inside-outside temperature difference decreased as the outside temperature rose. It can be noticed that, at other times as well but particularly at colder temperatures, the closed building had a significantly greater temperature rise than the "few degrees" recommendation by Bickert and Stowell (1993) and Albright (1990) for a naturally ventilated building. Table 4.16 Uninsulated Simulation Barn Inside-Outside Temperature Difference at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes and Three Outside Temperatures. (100% = Fully Open Soffits) Vent Area Outside Temperature (%D -20.6 (-5°F) -6.7 (20°F) 4.4 (40°F) Inside-Outside Temperature Difference 10% 9.6 (17.2) 6 O (10.8) 4.6 (8.2) 50% 7.5 (13.5) 5.9 (8.8) 3.8 (6.8) 100% 5.9 (10.5) 3.6 (6.5) 2 9 (5.1) 343% 4.6 (8.2) 3 0 (5.4) 2 5 (4.5) 4.5.1.5 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Carbon dioxide concentration in the model barn was the result of ambient air carbon dioxide level, livestock CO2 production rate, and CO2 removal rate through ventilation. Since carbon dioxide production is calculated on the basis of livestock total heat production, the output should be constant for a given herd. Normally, ambient carbon dioxide 156 concentration is also a constant. Ventilation rate then becomes the only driving force affecting building carbon dioxide levels. As can be seen in Figure 4.28, the carbon dioxide concentration at a 10% soffit opening was almost double that of 100% soffit ventilation and more than double that of 343% soffit ventilation. Thus, the less the ventilation openings were blocked the greater was the air exchange and the lower the carbon dioxide level. Both the 100% and 343% ventilation rates kept CO2 concentrations at near ambient levels. Remembering that there was no constant wind speed or relative humidity used throughout the calculations (see Table 4.8), observing the tops of the 10% carbon dioxide concentration bars could, to a large extent, be described as watching a fluctuating ventilation rate (or wind speed). The exceptions to this comment would be at warmer temperatures. For example, at -9.4 °C (15 °F) and -1.1.°C (30 °F) the wind speed was 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) but the carbon dioxide level was slightly higher at -1.1.°C (a difference of 31 ppm). Air density was included in the calculation process and would be the likely reason for the increased carbon dioxide level. In other words, the stack effect would not be as aggressive at warmer temperatures resulting in slightly lower building ventilation and a slightly higher carbon dioxide concentration. 157 (11.3 n*2) (18.7 "*2) (65 “*2) 10% (5.5 3‘2) AQSfiS ,2 III ISIIS: 1 600 NOILVHLNSDNOD SGIXOIG NOHHVS ’// ’ 271/27/1/1/ spy/[xx C V '«‘ ‘.‘/\ ,\ ‘.‘.\.\.\ \‘ \/_\\\\“\\ ’\‘\ V. IllIIIilllllllllIIlIlIIHHIIHIIIIHIIHIIHIHHIHIHHHII|lIlllllllllllllllllllllllllIllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllIIHHHIII v ( F llIIIIIIIIIIHHIIIIHIllllllllHHllIIIIIIIIIHIIHIIIIIIIIIIllIIllIlllllllllllllIIIHIIIIIllllIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIHIll I‘,/4/.-/. /," ~ x" I .//;’//t// ’II’./‘/.l'i‘///. 117-A Wk“ 0 lIIHIHHIIIHHIIHIIHIIHIHHIllllllIlllHlllIIIIllIlllllllllIlIIIllIlllllIll”IllllllllllllNIHHllllllIIHHHIIIIIIIHIHIII I :IHIII!I:IIIIIII:IIz‘III:IHIIII:‘HIIIHIHIHHIIIHIIIilllllllIIIIIIIIIIHIIIllIlllllHllllllIllIHlllllllllllIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIH I W“ ‘0' IHHIHIIIIIIIIIHIHHIIHIHIIHIHHIHHIIIIIIllIIIIlIIllIllIIllIlllllllllllIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIi I ~aaaa,,,/n/V.-/~LA \ ‘ \ i I I I mmummmummnmmmumml I I I. I I I g ; Iazoznay Aza20azwazazAoxA0xaazoxouzozouwoxauzoxnay \ \- x. . \. ‘» .. . «~.~~.\\\\ ? mumumnmumumnmnmum I I ’//////1"///////////////////// l// / / / /'/ ///////// /// '/ /////////////////////, I nmnmumumnmumnmumum I ' a I I oanaxazazazoznazomomazoxozyzazozazozoxoyoazynymo ; I I ; umumnmnmumumumumum I I i I E I ' vzaoyzoozzoyzooozaovzovzoazaouZovxoaxnoyzovznozoaznc I . \ \ ‘ ‘k \ , ‘ . . ~ . ‘ . _ . \ \ \ \ ' \ ‘\ I I I Imumumumnmnmumnmun I I I I zovzaoazaooyxaoznoozxoozzaoyzooynéoyznoa40074072146 I ... . ._._ . w I I nmumumumnmumumnm I i I I i i I I a2zoazaanoa24o2zo2zoznozaazovxnvzoyxoazozzoxzoxz I umnmnmnmummumumn I I : / , / 7"? 71% '//////'//1 XIV/,0 l L ‘1)". "//"/ //Zr'//////’///////////'////l IIIIII ..u. \y\\\\.\-\\» \\\\\.\\\\.\\\\\\ I nmnmmnmumumumum = I I I I s ; I % 3 I . I i i I i I I i I m (D V N 0 00 CO V N O 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- HOOH Hfld SSSNVHD HIV SNIGTIDH 414 1.7 -1.1 419 AMBIENT OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE Uninsulated Simulation 50%, (Vent Openings at 10%, -17.8 ~15 -12.2 -9.4 -6.7 -20£5 ) (C Exchange at Four Ventilation 0 Sizes pening Barn Air & 343% of Fully Open Soffits). 100%, Figure 4.29 160 4.5.2 Four Row Insulated Barn Simulation at -20.6 °C to 4.4 N: To study the effect of roof insulation on the simulation barn environment, 12.7 mm (1/2 inch) or 25.4 mm (1 inch) of roof insulation (RSI value of 1.27 per 25.4 mm (R value of 7.2 per inch)) was included in the simulation barn calculations. With that one structural modification (see Figure 4.30), the same environmental parameters discussed in section 4.5.1 were again studied. 4.5.2.1 Roof Frost/Condensation Conditions Figures 4.31 through 4.36 illustrate the effect of roof insulation on the potential formation of nighttime roof frost at outside temperatures of -17.7’°C, -6.7’°C, and 4.4 °C. When scanning all six graphs it becomes apparent that there was only a marginal reduction in frost formation potential as the insulation level was increased from 12.7 mm to 25.4 mm. Similarly, at each of the outside temperatures graphed, there was, almost without exception, less than one degree Celsius difference in roof temperature between the two insulation levels. At the 343 percent ventilation rate, there was essentially no difference. Had the temperature been -17.7”C, Figures 4.31 and 4.32 show that there was a 30% to 40% chance of frost even at the 343% ventilation level. At the 50% ventilation rate, the chances increased to about 50% and, when the barn was closed up, the probability was approximately 75% for 25.4 mm of roof insulation and 90% for 12.7 mm of roof insulation. Of note 161 .cowuomm woom woumaamcalcoz ucw umuwaamCH Fawn HamuwoOHm awnings omé wusmfim mm; eevmm MOE EEKN. Hmm <5 DZEOOK JED: ZOC<|5mWZH 162 .musumummEmu moon Hmfiuqmuom mo macs ms» umcumon mmawa ownmmn ..nm«c:uw mmmud umanu mumufiocH mumxumzv cowumH5qu “com 85 b.~H cam unaumuwmems mnfimuso Uo >.na- um manumumqema moom can unwom 3mm Hm.¢ wusmfim Anamamz mmmaom. «mud aquH ona¢qHazu> E 8 on ow 8 on o. o om- m P. ......... m 7 m. .... ... ...... O ........:.::. 5:238: {3.5: a .. ..... 7., ..... v F- a lift! / ........ 3 mm 11:: ,Ittlttll ....... w 1IIIIHHHHHHHHHH .x, mm .... ............... .. 7. N Fl W .................... ,,:. ,s ;.;:,. x. I .;:::::::§::; n y o F- m ......../ E m- m GENE hOOK ”DHWIH .. 4 on Iml flung BBHOA 3H9 III VI 163 .mHSumummEmu noon Hmwucmuom no mean may umoumon mmcwa vmnmmn .Avmfivsum mmmud uwacn mumofivcH mumxumzv cofiumHSmcH “com ES Tmm cam musumuwasmh £538 095:- um musumummsmn. moom 0cm ucfiom 3mm mmé 93mg Ammmfimz Mfibomv dmfi BHAZH ZOHB¢HHBZN> 2 cm om 3 on om 2 o ow- o F- m P. w .....i..... ....... O ....................... .................................................. a. ............................................. J V Pl m al.,}!!! m I III!!! 3 / m P- W .............. z . .... ..m ..L..............z.:.. .. ..... .. n .... .., -s o F- m m- m mama goo: monzH ....» m- Iml ...... name azHoa :3 III V- 164 no macs mnu umoumon mmcfia omnmma .mzua Loom mnHmzH Imwl .mzna azuom :mo III: on om .mmmamz mmaoOmv om ov .musumummsmu moon Hafiucwuom dwfid BHAZH ZOHB¢AHBZm> om ON or 141: o a O t I " o .AomHUSum mmmud umHGH mumoficcn mnmxumzv coflumHSmcH “com 85 5.2 new annumummsma mounmuzo 0. b6- an. muaumummEmB moom can ucfiom 3mm mmé mush?" EHDLVHSJWEL (a) 165 .musumqu—cmu noon Hmflunmuom no mean 93 Hmunmon mun: cwsmma . 330:3 mmmud umaaH oumuwocH mumxumzv :ofiumHsmcH uoom EE v.m~ can. manumumgmh mowmuao 0.56. am. unaumuwnsmh noom can. unfiom 3mm «m4 93mg Alma. LOOK flnHmZH Iml mtflh. BBHOA Ina Ill Oh Ammmemz mmgaom. mmm¢ emnzH onamnHazm> om om ov on cm or o 10.00.0000.OOIIIIOOOOOIDIDOOOOOOO. O. O '0 .II HHHLVHZdWSJ. £008 (a) 166 .onsumanemu moon Hmfiucmuom no macs ms» Hmuumon awn: uwnmmn . Aumficzum mmmud uchH 3.3.35 mumxumz. :ofiumdfig moom E... 5.3 can muaumummsmn. mgmuao U. «é um munumummsmh «com can £30m 3mm mmé musmfim Ammmamz mmmaomv gmma aunzH ona¢quzu> on 00 cm 9‘ on cm or o v v m I, 1:... O .......x.., o a ........ Tm 0+ ......... m ........ ....“ m m X ..m I /b n ............. / - 2 n J... ......... xl ) ........ D II ...... ( NF «ulna. LOOK flaHmlH .mu mafia. BBHOA 3&9 1': 3 167 .muaumumqsmu moon Hmfiucmuom no mean 93 umoumon m9": cmnmmn . 30.335 mmmud “.35 03305 39.“sz cowumHsmcH moom ES nv.mm can mucumummsma mofimuao 0. «.v um muaumanEmn. moom van £50m 3mm mmé 93mg Ammmemz mm¢oomv «mad amnzH one«qHazm> ON 00 cm O? 00 ON 0.. o N v H ..T I m If”... 0 a ...... . L .33.. m % m n j m fix. 0 w m .../V4: N F at”? LOOK NOHMBH Iml m2: BBHOA 3H0 168 however, was the fact that, even at the 10 percent ventilation rate and a 12.7 mm insulation value, there could have been nights when roof frost may not have occurred (the upper limit of potential roof temperature was still warmer than the dew point temperature). Figures 4.33 to 4.36 show that, at warmer temperatures, only 50% soffit ventilation or less had roof temperatures that hovered around the dew point temperature. At -6.7 %2 and above, half blocked soffits had roof frost potential between approximately 25% and 50%, while ventilation rates equal or greater than full soffit levels had essentially a 20% or less chance for roof frost. At the 10% ventilation level and -6.7'°C or above, the frost potential ranged from approximately 55% to 75%. 4.5.2.2 Absolute Humidity and Relative Humidity As could be expected, the absolute humidity values were essentially unchanged when roof insulation was added. For example, at -20.6 °C and 10 percent ventilation, the uninsulated barn had an absolute humidity that, when combined with the building ventilation rate, removed 1311 grams per minute (0.35 gallons per minute) of moisture. At the same ventilation opening amount, but with the roof insulated to 25.4 mm, there was 1516 grams per minute (0.4 gallons per minute) of moisture removed. At 4.4 °C the value for the uninsulated roof was 6452 grams per minute (1.7 gallons per minute) and 6848 grams per minute (1.8 gallons per minute) for the insulated roof. The fact that 169 the insulated roof allowed the building to maintain a slightly warmer temperature, and thus increase the water holding capacity of the air, could logically be assumed as the reason for the slight absolute humidity increase at a given ambient temperature. As discussed in Section 4.5.1.2 and shown in Figure 4.24, the uninsulated roof, like the insulated roof, also showed the reduction or dilution of building moisture as building ventilation increased. Figures 4.37 and 4.38 show building relative humidity levels at the four ventilation options and two roof insulation levels. The only variable that was changed in the calculation of building relative humidity was the reduced building heat loss due to added roof insulation. As can be seen by the appearance of graphs 4.25, 4.37, and 4.38, roof insulation had a measurable impact upon building relative humidity. Under very closed ventilation conditions, both insulation levels allowed the relative humidity to drop below 100 percent when the outside temperature was -9.4 °C (15 °F). This was primarily the result of a lower ambient relative humidity at that outside temperature. At a 25.4 mm (1 inch) level of roof insulation, humidities less than 100 percent also occurred at —20.6, -17.8, and -6.7 °C outside temperatures. As compared to no roof insulation (seen in Figure 4.25), The 50% ventilation level had inside relative humidities less than 100% at all temperatures studied. Also,the spread between building relative humidity at 100% (11.3 m‘2) 10% (5.5 m‘2) 50% Z%% A N ( A E N ( IN E O Q 1' H \0 v v fi fi 2” V c-o/m 170 IllIIHIIIIIIHIHHIIIIIII lIHlHHHIIIIIIIHIHIIH IlllliHHIIH'HHIHHHH llllllHIHHIIIIIIIIIHIIII HHHHIIIIHHHIHHHH "i |:i.|u..|||| ll?iilllelHllHHHHili HHI I!’1H:I.I'IIIHHIII ll'lilillilllllllllll‘lllll Hi i Hml (Illfl'lH‘Hl HHIIIH lHIlHIHI HHI' HHHIIHIHIIIIIIIIHHIII :m..H:;:H.J;I'IIIHI:HI illll'! ‘HI ..lH'iil'llH lll!‘l"|!!i!!'!|!|1I‘IIIH iIHHHH'H'IH Illif'H‘Hi(:‘l‘IIIIIIIIHH ll!ilellH'l'YHlHilllll m... ...-..___4 .... .-._.___....._ i E ’/////////////////////////////////////////////// .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ HillllllllIlllIlllllHllllllllllllHllIllIlllIIllllIHIIIIIIHIIIHIIHIIlIllIHIIIIIIIHHIIHHllllllllHIIII l I , I '///////////////////////////////////////////////////////, .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V lllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllH|lIll(HIIIIIIIIHIHIIHIIIIIIHHIIII i . g | I . ////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIlIIIlllllHI|HHHHHIIHIIHIlHlIllllHlHIIIHIHIHIHIIHHIIIHIllHHllllHllHllHlIHHIIIIIHIHII g » '/////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ HHHHIIHIHIIIII!IIllHIIIIIIHHIHHIIHllllllllllllllllllllllllIllIllIlllllllllllIHIIIIIIIIHIIIIHHIII I l I I /////////////////////////////////. .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IHIIllHllllelHHl'I'HlllllllHHIHlllllHHIHIIIlllllllllllllIIHHIHHHHIHIHHHHIIIIIHIII(Hill ’///////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ l'llHHHI'HlHH"ll'IHIlHHHHHHIIHIIIllHIHIHHHIIIIIHIHIlIlHIIIllHIIIHHHHIHIIIIHHHill ////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIH'IHHilllllllIllIIllllllllllllHllHIHIIHIIIIHHHIIIIIHIHIlllllHIIIIHHIHHIIIHIHIHIIIIHIIH I l ’/////////////////////////////////////////////////. ‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V IIIHIHIIIIIIIIIIIHHHIIIIIIIHI[HIIllllllllHlllllllllllllllllIlllIlIIlIIIIlllllllHIHIIHIHIIIHHHIIll //////////////////////////////////////////////////. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIHHIHHIIIHIHHHIIHIIIIIIIHHlllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIHHIIIH /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 'IIWHH'H'HJIHIHI!|IHIHHlHlllllllIllHllllllllllllllIllIllllllllIHIIIIIIHIHlllllllllHHIllllIllllllllIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIHI 100 95 (%) l O O) I I ID 0 «2 co 75- ALIGINDH SAILVTEH ml 4.4 1.7 -15 -12.2 -9.4 -6.7 -3.9 -1.1 OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE (C) -1713 ~20.6 Figure 4.37 Relative Humidity at Four Ventilation Rates (10%, 50%, 100%, and 343% of fully open soffits) and 12.7 mm Roof Insulation. 10% (5.5 “*2) 50% (11.3 u‘z) Z%% 171 A N ( A I: N ( h I: 0 to v H Io v v an 2/3 H.43 IHIIIIHII'IIHIHIIHHH ||llHIIIHIIIIIIIIIHIIIII Hlllll|lH.‘I||'llliH|H|| llil-HIHHHHHIIIIHIII HHIEHIIHIIIHIHII IIIITHIHHLHIIHIHIHI llHIHIIHIHIIIHIIHIIH HIIIHHHHIIHIIIII 'IHIHIHIHHIIHHI ’/////////////////////////////////////////////// .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIHIIIIHHIHHIHHHHIIIHHllIHHHIIIllllllHlllllllllllllllllHllHlllHIlllllIllllllllllllllllllHllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll ’///////////////////////////////////////////////////////, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ lllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllIHIIIIHHllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIHHIHIIIIIIIIHIllllIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIlllllll 2 '//////////////////////////////////////////////K \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIHHIHIHIIIIIHHIIIIIIIIIIIHHHllllIIIHHHIIIIIIIIIHIIllllllllHllllllllllllllllllIHIIIHHIlllllllllllllllllllllllllHlllHI ’//////////////////////////////////// .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIHIHIIIllHIIIilHllHllllllllHllllHHIHIIHIIHIHIHIIIIHllIllIIIIHHIIIHIIHIIHHlllllllllHIIHIIHIIIHIHIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHH /////////////////////////////////. K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIHIHIHIH[HIIIHHIHIHIIIIHlllllHHIHHHIHHHIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllHHHIHIIHIHIHllllllllllllHHllllllllllllHll ’////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ HIHHIIIHIHIIHIHIIHIIHIIHHIIHIHIIIIHHlllllllHIllHHlllllllllHllllllllllllllllHllllllllllHIIIIIHIIIHIIIHIIIHIHIIHHI '/////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIHIHIIIHHHHIHIIHIHH|IHHH(HHHHHIIIIHIIlllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIHIHIIHIIHIIIllIHIIIHIHHIIIIHIHIIIHIIIHH / /////////////////////////////////////////////, / \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V HHHHIIHHIHIHHHlIlllllllllllllllllHIHIIIlllllllIHIllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIHIIHIHIIHIIIllIIIIHHHIHHIIIIIHIIHI //////////////////////////////////////////////////, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIHIIHIIIIHI:IH{Ill(HIIIIIHHIIIIIIHIllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllHIIIIHIIIIIHHIHIIHIllHHHIIIIIHIHIIII '//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIHllHlllHI(Hill!lHHHIIIHIIIHH|llllIIIIIHHIIIIHIIIHHIllllllllllllllHlllHlHlIIIIIIHIllllllllllllllllIHHIIIIIIIIIIIHHII 1C“) 5N5 I I I 0 l0 0 l0 0) no G) N (%) ALIaIwnH SAILVTEH ’j 0 Ix 4!! 157 -1.1 -15 -12.2 -9.4 -6.7 -3.9 OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE (C) -17K£3 -2!t€3 , 50%, 100%, and 343% of fully Humidity at Four Ventilation Rates (10% ts) and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation. Figure 4.38 Relative open soffi 172 and 343% vent levels, for a roof with no insulation versus an insulated roof, was noticeably less. The spread was less noticeable when the thickness of roof insulation was changed. The primary influencing factor causing the amplitude shift in the bar graphs as temperature rose was the change in ambient relative humidity (see Table 4.8). However, another influencing factor was the changing relationship between latent and sensible heat as ambient temperature changed (see Table 4.3) . For example, at -15 °C, the outside relative humidity dropped 4% and the wind speed increased 0.2 m/s (both factors that should cause building relativity humidity to drop) but Figures 4.37 and 4.38 show that the inside relative humidity at 50% and 100% ventilation levels rose. This temperature coincided with an increase in latent heat adjustment from 0.95% at -17.8 “C to 1.05% at -15‘TL A similar situation is seen between -9.4 °C and -6.7’°C where latent heat adjustment changed from 1.05% to 1.1%. Though these changes in relative humidity were relatively minor, it does show how the rate of latent heat production (i.e., quantity of animal moisture entering the air supply) impacted the building environment. When graphing only the two extremes of ventilation conditions studied, Figure 4.39 shows the impact of ventilation opening on relative humidity. For example, at the 25.4 mm insulation level, opening up the barn caused an average decrease in building relative humidity of 173 E E E E E E E E h v I" v 0 o - o N In N In H N Ma'sbzé: I I I I I I E E I I l I ///////////////////////////////////////////////, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . ‘ . ‘ I I ’///////////////////////////7//////////////////////////// .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ llllIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I . ’/////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIHIIl I I 7///////////////////////////////////. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIllIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZII I 7////////////////////////////////. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I 7////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|||IIIIIIIIIIIIII|||||II|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I 7////////////////////////////////////// .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ’/////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllIlIIIIIlIIIIlIIIIII I //////////////////////////////////////////////////. .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V IIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII||||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -1713 100 ’///////////////////////////////////////////////////////z \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIII I . I I I I l T I l LO 0 l0 0 I!) O O) O) m m l\ N (%> inaIwnH SAILVTEH 42.2 -9.4 -6.7 -3.9 -1.1 1.7 4.4 OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE -15 -20.6 (C) Figure 4.39 Relative Humidity at Two Ventilation and Two Insulation Levels (10% and 343% Ventilation Openings and 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm Levels of Roof Insulation). 174 approximately 15 percent. Also, increasing the insulation level from 12.7 mm to 25.4 mm had a minimal impact upon building relative humidity. For all practical purposes, the benefit of thicker roof insulation beyond 12.7 mm (for the purpose of reducing building relative humidity) was essentially nonexistent. 4.5.2.3 Dew Point Temperature Scanning Figure 4.40, it can be observed that, when the ventilation rate was low, the barn with an insulated roof had noticeably higher dew point temperatures than the uninsulated barn. Between —20.6 °C and -9.4 °C the insulated barn averaged about three degrees Celsius (five degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the uninsulated barn (see Figure 4.43). This would allow the air to hold more moisture and thus increase the dew point temperature slightly. When the barn was open, Figure 4.41 shows that there was essentially no difference in dew point temperature as the roof became insulated. Also, Figures 4.40 to 4.42 repeat the results stated earlier in this section; i.e., that increasing the roof insulation thickness from 12.7 mm to 25.4 mm produced no appreciable change, in this case, in building dew point temperature. Figure 4.42, also, illustrates that closing the barn allowed the dew point temperature to rise between approximately five and nine degrees Celsius. This was, on average, 2.4 °C higher than the uninsulated barn under the same conditions (see Section 4.5.1.3). 12.7mm IISULATIOE 2%Z 25.4mm INSULATION 0am INSULATION 175 FE §0®§&. V§§R§§N§C\‘N§$§k V§§R§§§X§R mWWWWMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW $§&.V§§§§§§N§§N\\C§&5\V§k \NS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMW &N§§§§§§§$§§§§§§§§§§R§§R§ WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW E§§§§§§§§§§$§S§§§§§§§RO WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWJ $§§§N§§§$§S§§§$§§§§ WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW $3§§§§§R§§§§§§S§$ HWWWWWWWWWMWWWM \V&3N§&03§&3§$$ WWWWWWWWWWWW S§§$§§$§k'\§x IWWWWWWWWW $RV§NR$$SK WWWWWWW §C§C§N\V§ WWWWW Tm? '0 In, O m I I (3) asnwaadwai INIOd M30 3018M! 4.4 —I5 -—2OE —I22 AMBENT OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE (C) —I78 Figure 4.40 Effect of Insulation On Dew Point Temperature at the 10% Ventilation Rate and 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Levels. 0mm, INSULATION “0' 12.7 mm INSULATION %%Z 176 25.4 mm INSULATION \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ‘ .l llIIIIIIIIIIIllII|IIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ; WW ‘ ‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllIlllllllIlllllIIIlIllHIl fi§§N§§§§§§§§§SR HWWWWWWWWWWWWWM RV$§S§§S§$NV WWWWWWWWWWWW §§§§§§§§$§ HWWWWWWWWW §§§§§S§ WWWWWWW mmwx IWWWW IO 5 .3, -15 (3) HHHIVEJ'EIdI/IBI II-Iod a 335m: 0 ‘T‘ —1 -—94 -—39 I7 -—20£3 4.4 -—6J7 -—IJ AMBENT OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE (C) —4212 -—I78 and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Levels. 12.7 mm, 0 mm, Figure 4.41 Effect of Insulation on Dew Point Temperature at the 343% Ventilation Rate and 177 10%-12.7 mm 08-25.4 mm ///A 343%-12.7 mm 343%-25.4 IIIII IILE -_ .r- —. ‘3. \\\\\\\\\\“\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ llIlIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllIIIIIIIIIIIIII||||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII «v 5:... . , ="tr.-'::"‘~.3! \\\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mun“: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ |IIIIIIIIIIIllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Uzi-24:35.»- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u—rz: ;.'.z.:...E. gal .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mm,a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ II" III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII II IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mango...» WI“ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHII “1.. we... , mid \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII was was ‘ k\\\\\\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I “Snug $\\\\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I LO Q LO Q If) C LO Q I (a) BaflIVEIHdI-‘IHI II‘I'Od 1‘33”} EIGISNI 4.4 AMBENT OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE (C) —178 Figure 4.42 ventilation Area and Insulation Level vs. Dew Point Temperature (10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm Insulation Levels). 178 4.5.2.4 Inside Temperature As seen in Figure 4.43, at the 10 percent ventilation rate, there was between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees Celsius difference between the uninsulated roof inside temperature and that of the barn with 25.4 mm of roof insulation. The largest difference was at the coldest outside temperatures. Going from 12.7 mm to 25.4 mm roof insulation, at the 10% ventilation rate, there was one half degree Celsius or less temperature rise at any outside temperature studied. Also, as noted in Table 4.17, at the 10% ventilation rate and at colder temperatures for the 50% ventilation rate there was a very significant temperature rise above ambient temperatures under all roof insulation conditions. This rise was greatest when the roof was insulated. Table 4.17 Effect of Roof Insulation on Simulation Barn Outside to Inside Temperature Rise at Four Ventilation Opening Sizes and Three Outside Temperatures. (100% = Fully Open‘Soffits) Vent Insulation Outside Temperature (°C) Area Level -20 .6 (-5°F) -6 .7 (20°F) 4 .4 (40°F) Outside to Inside Temperature Rise 10% 0 mm 9.6 (17.2) 6.0 (10.8) 4.6 (8.2) 12.7 mm 12.5 (22.4) 8.0 (14.4) 6.0 (10.8) 25.4 mm 13.0 (23.2) 8.3 (14.9) 6.3 (11.2) 50% , 0 mm 6.8 (13.5) 4.9 (8.9) 3.8 (6.8) 12.7 mm 9.1 (16.4) 6.1 (11.0) 4.8 (8.5) 25.4 mm 9.4 (16.8) 6.3 (11.3) 4.9 (8.8) 100% 0 mm 6 0 (10.5) 3.6 (6.5) 2.9 (5.1) 12.7 mm 7 0 (12.3) 4.3 (7.6) 3.4 (6.0) 25.4 mm 7 1 (12.5) 4.3 (7.8) 3.4 (6.1) 343% 0 mm 4.6 (8.2) 3.0 (5.4) 2.5 (4.5) 12.7 mm .1 (9.2) 3.5 (6.3) 2.9 (5.1) 25.4 mm 5.2 (9.3) 3.6 (6.4) 2.9 (5.2) 10%-0mm 10%—12.7mm 179 10%—25.4mm 343%-25.4mm m 343%—0mm 343%-12.7mm HHHHHHHHHHHHHHMHUHHHHHHHHHUHHNH”HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHI // //‘ /.»'////// ///'//////x‘/ /./ ///,"z // r './-’//,///,///v'//// /'/'//,///-'// r// /‘////,/r 1' ‘ I R\\\Y‘\\\\:\V\T\\\\ \‘\\ \\\\. \\\\ \ I IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllllllllIIllIlllll I HHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -‘////‘, /.v //.-// //, ////, /.'/,/// - ,/ x , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘ ~ ‘nnannnaannuannnnnnanmn‘ IIHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUHHHHHHHHHU ///////////// ///////// //,/,, \ ~\ ‘flfifififififi ; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIII-IIII‘E I HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ‘83:; IIIIIlIlIlllllllllllllllllllllllll InununnunHuunuunnnunnnnnuunnnnn /u’////////// // m' / III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ihfllnikflfllfllflsflfllf ll AMBENT OUTSDE TEMPERATURE (C) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHI '///////////‘/x ‘ III-IIIIIIIIII I I \ ‘ . \ I4 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I //.//, : ...-Iii: ' ' summon IHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I 3 ' I 15 EUHIVHBdI/IEI BOISNI CIZIIVIIIQIVO Inside Building Temperature at 10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, and 25.4 mm Roof Insulation Levels. Figure 4.43 12.7 mm, 180 Opening up the barn to a ventilation rate of 343 percent obviously cooled the building down. The outside to inside temperature rise was considerably less and there was only a negligible increase in inside temperature when the roof insulation level was increased from 12.7 mm to 25.4 mm. 4.5.2.5 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Similar results are seen with the insulated barn roof as were seen in the uninsulated building. As discussed in section 4.5.1.5, the carbon dioxide concentration was directly affected by the ventilation rate. Looking at Figure 4.44, the rise in building temperature caused by roof insulation allowed for an increase in stack effect ventilation and consequently a decline in carbon dioxide concentration. At the 10 percent ventilation rate, under colder temperatures, the increased ventilation resulting from added roof insulation amounted to a decrease in CO2 concentrations of approximately 100 ppm. As the ambient temperature increased, the influence of stack effect ventilation decreased and consequently the effect of roof insulation on building CO, also declined to approximately a 30 ppm difference between no insulation and 25.4 mm. When building ventilation was very open, there was even less difference in building temperature caused by adding roof insulation, and consequently only insignificant declines in building CO2 concentration resulted as roof insulation was added. Similarly, doubling the thickness of roof insulation showed barely visible declines in the barn 10%-0mm 1.‘) 1k -‘1.:Z o I’llllll %%2 10%-25.4mm SSR§ 343%-0mm 343%-12.7mm 343%-25.4mm 1131 ///./1///!r/:/f/////r/‘///4 ‘! ' A’I'I'A'A'A'I'A'A’I'1'4’4’1'4’1’J'AKI'A'A'A’A'A'J'Af \n‘\‘\3\fi\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\F\F\F\F\§\F\F\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\F\f\J\FKF\F\‘k‘8‘\F\F\5\3N3nF\3\3\3\‘K‘flViVtF\J\3\3\3\F\3\C\3\3\3\3\3\3\3\3§\£ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111' W”/l// / ‘/f///‘ ll/ ///// '1'A'1KI'1KI'A'A'4'4fU'IKIKICI'I'4VA’U’A'U’ZIIIE’U’I’I’Afl \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\NNNNNNNNNNNNNN.\NNNNNNNNNNRN IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IlllllIllIIIllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl (xxx/111.1 "/fll///j/I// ‘l ‘ ‘\ A'I'I'AVI'AVJ'A'4'1’1'1'J'J'J’4'A'Afh’J'4’J'4'A'A' \f\f\3\fi\fi\‘\‘\‘\F\\(‘x\s‘\f\fi\fisfi\‘\‘\‘x‘\‘\‘\\;‘-‘\F\fi\§\fi\‘\‘\‘\\ \‘\3\3¢\£\£\£\£‘§\£\£\s ‘Ifit IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘n\(‘s‘t‘K‘k‘k‘x‘x‘k‘L‘L‘u‘\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘s‘x‘\‘\‘\ IIIIIIII "f////1/ l/‘D‘Itft I \ x \ x K x \ K .\ n 4 . -3.9 ’4’4'4’1'J'l'lCIU’A'Jilfl/J'lfl/1’4’4’AVAVAVA'I'IC/C/ ‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\I\3tV5‘8FNF53k‘E‘i‘EVi‘E‘i‘SVC\S\C\Q\i‘C‘i‘s‘\§\3\3\3\5\3\3\3\ I Ell /,/l/b'//’/ /‘///////’/4’/ 4IIIJ':'4flfilfllUVZKlthfifllfllifgl4515;3'4' 454acar ‘s‘k‘\§\‘\‘\‘n‘n\{‘\‘x‘\F\‘\§\‘xF\‘\\£\f‘x‘n\g‘x‘\fi\fi\f\fi\‘\F\‘E\i‘LF\J\J\JN3i‘E\P\E\3\D|é\E\IIFiE\l‘fi\3\§|fi|fi\filfilfi\l\§|fi\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllIlllllllllllllllllllI [x’l'l'z‘ll/ lf/IA'IIIJ' I/l/A‘IJI / IJfJ{A'4VhflIiIlfA’i’4’4'4VJfIIQIIVA'J'J'IKIKJ'JKI'I' t‘\‘\F\‘\F\F\‘\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘(‘s\n‘\‘t‘k‘x‘k‘x‘t‘n‘k‘u‘n‘\\u\u‘u‘u‘t‘s‘t‘tfifl‘K‘L\ IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIllIIlIllIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ’.",*'//,.A.”/'/I‘ /’//./‘ ’1'1'4'1'1’A’JIQ’AIQIJIJIJ’A'J'A'4’4’ka'1'3'4'l'4'4’3' \. \‘\‘x‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘L‘x‘nVn‘x‘k‘x‘u‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\3\‘\‘\‘\\C\i‘i‘§\£\£‘|F\3\F\3L‘L‘\3\3\\ \‘R‘H‘I‘L‘L’\3\‘E\C\C‘K‘i‘i‘i‘i\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllIIlIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m.fl//II/AI //. /lJ/l/////1:/ IW’)’1fllfll’l’1’)’1’i’3’)’l’A’i’1VICIKIKIKI'IKIKIKIKIKIKI' \‘\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘x‘k‘\‘s‘R‘L‘L‘t‘x‘n‘n‘\‘\‘\3\\ \‘\‘s‘\‘\‘\‘\N\N\F\F\‘\F\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘L\u‘u\x‘x‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘L\s‘u\s‘s‘5‘5‘sV5‘NFi3IFNE\3\E\3\NK‘K‘i‘K‘i‘C\i‘K‘i‘E‘E‘E‘Q‘E\§\3|3\F\F\5\C\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \\€\fi\\ ‘i‘l\3\3\ ‘i\£\. ‘\‘\‘€\J\3K\s ‘K‘u‘ llllllIIIIlllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I,...////-./1/;/////././//, IIIIIiiIIIIIIiIIIIiIIIIiiiiillliiilliiiliilEi-niflifl 'I'1'1'l’l'l'l'a’QIQIZ’AV4'4'A'4’4'1'1’4’4'1'2'4'1’4’1'4’ IlllllIIIIIlllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,I‘,,‘/A,,/x. . . .’/1"I‘l/ ‘////// I 4’1’4’1'1’A’A’A'Jf3'4'4'4'l’4’1'1’4’4ICI'A'4'1'4'4I' 1' ‘L‘ II' \‘\‘u‘u\C\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘€\J\‘\‘x\fl\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\‘\\C\‘(\D\‘\‘\‘n‘x‘u\C\J\‘\F\‘K\C\3\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘\ ‘\3\5\3\3\3|3\ ‘KNK‘; IllIllIIIIIIIIlllIlllIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 200 1 000 BOG O I O O O (D I'='n I NOIIVHINEDNOD SGIXOIO NOHHVO 200 4.4 1.7 -1.1 -15 -12.2 -9.4 -6.7 AMBIENT OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE 47.8 -20.6 (C) 122.7 Carbon Dioxide Concentration at 10% and 100% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, and 25.4 mm of Roof Insulation. Figure 4.44 nun, 182 C02 concentration . 4.5.2.6 Air Exchange Rate The air exchange in the barn with an insulated roof was very similar to the air exchange rate of the uninsulated building. Figure 4.45 illustrates this. As in other examples, the increase in roof insulation thickness was of little effect in modifying the air exchange rate. Also, a very noticeable observation from Figure 4.45 was the large difference in air exchange rate as the ventilation opening area went from 10 percent to 343 percent. The air exchange rate was slightly higher for the insulated barn because of the increased stack effect ventilation; but the approximately three fold increase in air exchange rate as the ventilation area was increased was very consistent regardless of roof insulation considerations. Also, as would be expected, the fluctuation in air exchange copied the fluctuation in outside wind speed. As the wind speed increased the air exchange increased and as the wind speed decreased so did the air exchange. At warmer temperatures this effect was somewhat dampened. For example, the wind at -9.4 °C and -1.1.°C were the same (3.4 m/s (7.7 mph)) but the air exchange was slightly less at -1.1.°C. .Also, the highest wind value in this study (3.7 m/s (8.2 mph)) was at 4.4 °C but the air exchange rates at -9.4 °C and -6.7’°C were greater. The reduced livestock sensible heat production as building temperature rose, and subsequent reduction in stack effect ventilation, would explain this condition. O l # o l H 12.7mm 25.4mm ‘? I I w " a ¢v§§¢nsfi o °’§g"*¢ «I H n w 343t-12.7mm 343%-25.4mm 183 X! (Al! - L \\ n a ( [ \ \‘ \‘L\\\\\\ \ \ \fi \\\\ \\\\ \ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ 1 \\X\ YKV‘Y‘ a X \' 'I ' X \ \ 1 ' I \ \“\\\ V \\ x \ \ x \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\‘ A“; \\ \\\\ AAKAAA I A A A A A l x'L\\\\\\\ I I A A \“\‘C\\\ ‘\\\\\\\ \\\\ \XX\\ A X\\ ‘AK’ A I l I L\\X‘ \\\“\\\‘ IA A A \\\\\\\\\ \ I A A \\\\\\X\‘ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ [L\\ 5\\ \ \\\\~ \ ~.\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\Y“‘ \\\\\\ A L\\\\ A \\\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\'\\\\ x\\\\X\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIII 00 F (D F F v N F O F Q (ID HDOH 83d SESNVHD HIV SNICI'IIDE -6.7 -3.9 -1.1 1.7 4.4 -9.4 -12.2 AMBIENT OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE -17.8 -15 -20.6 (C) Figure 4.45 Building Air Exchange at 10% and 343% Ventilation Rates and 0 mm, 12.7 mm, and 25.4 mm of Roof Insulation. 184 4.6 Simulation Model Applications As illustrated in Figure 3.1, many variables affect the existing environment within a naturally ventilated cold confinement freestall dairy barn at any one moment in time. Because of those dynamics, it is difficult to accurately model a changing environment within a barn. Consequently, for this research steady state modeling under "average" conditions was used. However, average environmental conditions do not represent actual environmental conditions within a given cold confinement freestall dairy barn. Therefore, in portions of the sections to follow, extremes, as opposed to averages, are used to better describe the range of real life environments within a confinement cattle facility. 4.6.1 Effect of Inlet Area Restrictions Upon Condensation Potential Under the weather conditions of this research, with an uninsulated roof and ambient temperature of -17.7’°C, roof frost would have been a certainty at all ventilation areas studied (see Figure 4.23). Closing vents less than 343% of full soffit area, even at 4.4 °C, created a potential condensation problem for the uninsulated barn. In fact, at 4.4 °C or lower, ventilation openings of approximately 70% or less of full soffit area would have caused frost to occur every winter night this research included (see Figures 4.21 to 4.23). Insulating the roof reduced the potential for 185 condensation or frost conditions exhibited by the uninsulated roof (see Figures 4.31 to 4.36). However, even with 24.5 mm of roof insulation, there was approximately a 25% to 75% chance of frost accumulation in the model barn when the outside temperature was at or below -17.6i°C. The possibility became even more pronounced as the ventilation rate was reduced. As the ambient temperature increased, roof insulation caused the potential for roof condensation to decrease. Still, at ventilation rates less than fully open soffits and doors, roof insulation did not eliminate the potential for roof frost formation, even at 4.4 °C Another barn environmental condition of interest often occurs during the springtime snowmelt period when thawing conditions promote high relative humidities. Figures 4.46 and 4.47 illustrate such weather conditions at 4.4 °C. It can be seen from Figure 4.46 that, at 95% ambient relative humidity and calm winds, roof dripping would have been expected each night in the uninsulated barn having full soffit ventilation or less. Even with the end doors open, there was about a 75% chance of roof condensation under such high humidity and low wind conditions. Insulating the roof to 25.4 mm did reduce the condensation probability at each ventilation level but the likelihood of not having condensation problems was still best at the 343% ventilation rate. If, on the other hand, had the weather been dryer and windy (70% ambient relative humidity and 6.8 m/s wind speed), as shown in Figures 4.48 and 4.49, either an 186 ocwmuso um musuoummsos unwom 33 9.8 93¢“..quan moom sham omumaamcflca 3“qu boom flnHmBH Iml .mxflh. BBHOQ 3&0 I.I on .hufiowaam m>flumaom wmm 98 £5on p.53 m\8 eta .eré "no mcowuwccoo Ammmamz mmcoomv cm on ow on 42 BHAZH ZOHBflAHBZflxw om OH llov .0 l" CI 00 000000 '0 I. '0 ... t '00 I '0‘. ll on: on. to. OH 3 . “v 33E EXHLVHEEWEL (o) 187 moflmuso .mxuh. Loom HDHmBH Iml .mSNH. BBHOQ Sun I... on .mufioflssm m>HumHmm “mm can .cmodm seas m\s ¢.H .nrv.¢ "mo mcofluaccoo S. . e muzmflm om .mmmsmz mmcsomv om ov um musumummsms £50m 30o can musumuomaoa moom :Hom omumasmcH fig BMHZH ZOHBANAHBZE o m c N IIOIIIOOOOOOOOIOO O '00.:II DI. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO ‘ ill. '0 a ' tr ' A 00000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00.0.0... 0 I O I O D I, U I O U I. O OH NH «a EHOLVHHEWHII- (o) 188 .QSHF boom unHmBH ml .mlfla BBHOQ 3fla III on .huwcw5§z w>fiumamm «on can .oommm ocfiz m\s.w.w .Uo v.¢ "mo mqofluficuou om Ammmamz mmcoomv om 0v mflflmufio um mhfiumhnwgbwh. Uflflom 30n— UGM MHSUMHTQETH. MOO“ thm UTUMHSmGfiGD dmfid BHQZH 20H84QH82m> on on Ca valluooooOOIIOl OI ‘00:..‘00 OIIIOIII 3. a 933m HHDLVHEEWEL (o) 189 .hufipflsbm m>fiumHmm «or van .owmmm peas m\E m.m .Uouv.¢ "no msofluflpcou mofimuso um chaumnmgma usfiom 3mm can chaumumgma moom sham ombudsman 3V6 whom?” Ammwfimz goomv fig Ban—AH ZOHBGAHBZHNV on cw om ov on em OH o ‘ on: to . I ' ' a! ' on on 1 o o m, I \o EHDLVHEJNECL CD (a) ' co .' ' 9O o a l .' " a: ' . at 00 I I ’ .0 o ' 0H .mtufi LOO“ NDHmBH Iml .mxflfi BBHOA Sun ...: NH 190 insulated or uninsulated barn would have been condensation free down to full soffit ventilation rates (100% ventilation). Though the insulated barn would have remained condensation free even at a 10% ventilation area, at ventilation rates more restricted than 100%, the uninsulated barn would have had potential condensation problems since dew point temperatures were within the 2 0C envelope of the roof temperature. In summary, under the weather conditions (see Tables 4.7 and 4.8), milk production, and stocking density studied in this research, reducing the ventilation openings to less than full soffit area imposed a high risk for roof condensation, even at roof insulation levels of 24.5 mm. The least risk occurred at the largest ventilation opening. The variables that changed roof temperature would have an impact upon exactly when roof condensation occurred. 4.6.2 Effect of Inlet Area Restrictions Upon Air Quality Looking at the effect of ventilation area restriction upon relative humidity, Figure 4.25 illustrates that, for an uninsulated building at 10% open soffits, the relative humidity never dropped below saturation, and at 50% open soffits, the relative humidity never dropped below 97%. The insulated building showed similar conditions when the ventilation rate was restricted to 10% of full soffit area (see Figure 4.38). As discussed in Section 2.1, airborne bacteria survive best at relative humidities above 90% and may multiply in 191 building dust when humidities approach saturation. The ventilation opening that caused the relative humidity to least exceeded that 90% threshold (and theoretically provided the poorest pathogen environment) was the 343% ventilation rate. Also, at that ventilation rate, the difference in building relative humidity between an insulated and noninsulated barn roof was only approximately 3%. The roof insulation had an increasing impact, however, on reducing building relative humidity as the ventilation rate was reduced. Also, the only situation where relative humidity didn't reach 100%, at any of the outside temperatures studied, was when the ventilation rate was at 343%. Another ventilation parameter affected by inlet area that has an impact on barn pathogen levels was air exchange. Concentration dilution reduces the potential for airborne pathogen related health problems. Curtis (1972) states that, at best, one air exchange could theoretically reduce the concentration of air pollutants by 63.2%. If outside air is assumed to be the most diluted and contain the lowest pathogen concentration, the ventilation scheme that produces the greatest air exchange possible, while not producing excessive drafts, would seem to be the most logical choice. At 10% soffit openings, one air exchange took approximately twelve to fifteen minutes. This time was reduced to five to seven minutes at 100% soffit ventilation and to four to five minutes at the 343% ventilation rate. This would mean that 192 the open barn would have about three air exchanges for every air exchange of the 10% ventilation building. As the relationship between minimum acceptable air exchange and pathogen concentration is not well defined, if all other things are held constant, it would seem that the best choice of ventilation scheme would be one that created the greatest pathogen dilution. This assumption could be used as one component in a decision making process regarding building ventilation design. The assumption would promote an open ventilation scheme. Noxious gas concentration is another variable affected by ventilation area. Depending on author, Table 2.2 suggests a maximum acceptable carbon dioxide concentration between 2000 ppm and 3000 ppm. Under the conditions of this study, a.CIn concentration of slightly under 1500 ppm was the maximum value obtained. This was arrived at for the uninsulated barn with 10% ventilation, -20.6‘T3ambient temperature, and a 2.0 m/s wind speed. Had there been no wind, the concentration would have been at 1780 ppm. While still using 10% of fully open soffit area ventilation, but using 4.4 °C ambient temperature and no wind, the carbon dioxide level for the uninsulated barn would have been 1971 ppm. The condition that produced the lowest carbon dioxide concentrations was at the greatest ventilation rate. From those calculations it is evident that, in most cases, carbon dioxide toxicity is not an issue for even a very poorly ventilated barn. A word of caution, however, 193 might be the statement by Clark and McQuitty (1987) that the long term effects of low concentrations of noxious gases on dairy cattle have not yet been determined. Summarizing the extremes of the values discussed, reducing the ventilation openings from 343% to 10% increased the carbon dioxide concentration 2.8 times, kept building relative humidity above ninety five percent, and reduced the air exchange to less than a third of the 343% value. 4.6.3 Management Decisions Affected by Adding Roof Insulation For a cold confinement freestall dairy barn in the planning stages, an initial decision may be whether or not to install roof insulation and, if so, what resistance value should be chosen. The choice to include roof insulation may be based on a desire to reduce roof condensation and dripping or to raise building temperature as an aid in manure management, equipment operation, or human or livestock comfort. The decision may result from observing other dairy barns, from advice of others, or simply a personal choice. Whatever the reason, if roof insulation is added, there will be an environmental impact within the building that must be understood. Insulation allows the building to be operated at lower ventilation rates without having roof dripping occurring. But at lower ventilation rates, the air exchange will be less, carbon dioxide and other noxious gas concentrations will increase, and building moisture load will increase. 194 The building will have a higher inside temperature than had it not been insulated. Stack effect ventilation and air exchange will increase and relative humidity will decrease somewhat. If ventilation openings were compromised at warmer temperatures, prolonged underventilation conditions with high relative humidities and trapped free water may extend pathogen life, increase pathogen multiplication, and promote building deterioration. If the purpose of roof insulation is to reduce roof dripping (when the ventilation rate was decreased) so that the barn could be operated at warmer temperatures, a new set of management decisions is created. Management decisions of importance may now include: When does the barn moisture level become excessive? What are the levels of noxious gasses? Is building decay occurring? Is air exchange sufficient for pathogen control? If the purpose of roof insulation is to reduce roof dripping (when the ventilation rate was decreased) so that the barn could be closed for inclement weather, still another set of management decisions is created. In this context the insulation has allowed a degree of management flexibility. A wider range of inside temperatures and relative humidities could be tolerated with little roof dripping. Along with this flexibility comes the responsibility of understanding the effects of pathogen concentrations, noxious gas concentrations, and moisture levels upon buildings and livestock, and the need to improve 195 the ventilation conditions as weather conditions improve. 4.6.4 ventilation Management Recommendations Given the range of potential weather conditions, total elimination of the risk of roof condensation would be very difficult and probably unnecessary. Also, condensation can be as useful a tool as a low fuel warning light when used as a visual aid in ventilation management. Roof insulation would tend to compromise the effective use of that management tool. To include the offsetting effect of daytime drying, a concept of managed roof condensation needs to be developed. If condensation or frost occured at night, the building ventilation openings should be increased during the daylight hours so that typically warmer temperatures can promote structural drying and reduced building humidity and pathogen content. If ventilation openings were reduced due to inclement weather or for livestock control, confinement, or security reasons, the onset of dripping or frost accumulation on an uninsulated roof would be a signal that it is time to increase building ventilation openings. In this management scheme, fully open soffits and ridge should be considered a minimum rate of ventilation. Other wall openings should be increased as condensation or frost became obvious. The maximum ventilation opening would be when the health or cleanliness of the cattle was being compromised by excessive drafts or dust (blown silage, ground feed, soil, dry manure, etc.), rain, snow, or other gas (diesel fumes, 196 methane gas, anhydrus ammonia gas, etc.) or particle contaminents. The livestock structure is a form of animal shelter and confinement. The more open the confinement structure, while still providing necessary environmental protection, the better will be the quality of ventilation air and consequently the quality of the livestock environment. A building design should also allow for convenient adjustment to the ventilation area. Feed alley and cattle alley overhead doors with motor driven openers and side wall, end wall, and gable curtains or panels that are cable operated would be examples of equipment that would allow for convenience in management of cold confinement dairy barn ventilation. V . SUMARY AND CONCLUS IONS 5.1 Summary In this research, a mathematical model that predicted the nighttime environmental parameters of ventilation rate, air changes per hour, relative humidity, absolute humidity, interior air temperature, dew point temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration for a modern freestall dairy barn, in wintertime climates similar to the lower peninsula of Michigan, was formulated and validated. Based on this information and calculated roof inside surface temperature, the effects of different ventilation rates and roof insulation levels were analyzed for outside temperatures between -20.6 °C and 4.4 °C. From this analysis it was determined that uninsulated barns, similar to the simulation barn, required at least the largest ventilation area studied in this research to minimize the potential of roof condensation or frost. Likewise, the lowest building relative humidity was achieved at the largest ventilation area and, at best, a 50% ventilation rate allowed inside relative humidity to drop to only 97% (a 10% ventilation rate kept relative humidity at saturation). Also, as ventilation openings were reduced from 343% to 10%, carbon dioxide concentration more than doubled, air exchange was 197 198 reduced by two thirds, and at -20.6 °C ambient temperature, building temperature rise went from 4.6 °C (8.2 °F) to 9.6 W: (17.2 °F). A similar building with roof insulation thickness of 25.4 mm (RSI of 1.27 uf-K/W) and ventilated with fully open soffits and closed end doors would have had a high probability of maintaining a condensation free roof down to approximately -6.7’°C. Below that temperature, the barn ventilation area would need to be increased to minimize roof condensation. Humid and calm ambient conditions necessitated an open ventilation approach at all roof insulation levels to reduce roof condensation. During dry and windy conditions, closing the ventilation openings down to 10% of fully open soffits did not produce a condensation problem for the 25.4 mm (1.27 uf-W/K) insulated roof. The uninsulated roof, however, needed fully open soffits or greater to reduce the probability of roof frost under equal weather conditions. Closing the ventilation openings to 10% of fully open soffits in an insulated barn similar to the model barn, as compared to having soffits, ridge, one downwind feed alley door and four downwind cattle alley doors open, cut the air exchange by two thirds, kept inside relative humidity above 95% (often at 100%), and caused carbon dioxide concentrations to more than double. For the temperature range studied, the average inside temperature rise went from 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) at 343% ventilation to 9.2 °C (16.4 °F) at 199 10% ventilation (at -20.6.°C the rise was 13 °C (23.2 °F)). Increasing the roof insulation from 12.7 mm (R(SI) 0.63 nP-K/W) to 25.4 mm (RSI 1.27 nf-K/W) caused minimal improvement in any of the environmental parameters studied. 5.2 Conclusions 1. A model was developed to calculate nighttime environmental conditions during winter in a cold confinement freestall dairy barn. The model had an average standard error for determining inside relative humidity of 2.4% and an average standard error for determining inside temperature of 0.7’°C. Carbon dioxide concentration calculations averaged 29 ppm above measured values and roof temperature calculations yielded answers two and one half degrees celsius above to three quarters of a degree celsius below measured values (depending upon sky condition measurements used for comparison). 2. Roof insulation thickness of 12.7 mm (R(SI) = 0.63 mz-K/W (R = 3.6 °F-ft‘.h)) reduced the probability of roof condensation to less than 100% when ventilation openings of less than fully open soffits were the only ventilation openings allowed. Doubling the insulation thickness caused relatively insignificant reductions in the potential formation of condensation or frost on the roof. Also, roof insulation did not eliminate the potential for roof condensation, but did provide the ability to reduce building ventilation without developing roof condensation. When the ventilation restriction was not extreme, the increased 200 building temperature (resulting from added insulation) increased stack ventilation and reduced building relative humidity. 3. Open soffits, ridge, and end doors (343% ventilation level) provided the lowest potential risk for roof condensation in an uninsulated barn. This amount of ventilation openings should be considered as a minimum recommendation for freestall dairy barns with uninsulated roofs. 4. Closing the barn ventilation to less than full soffit area excessively reduced the air exchange, maintained inside relative humidities at unhealthy levels, and prolonged a damp, virulent, condensing environment that was potentially detrimental to the structure, animal productivity, and maximum economic gain. Conversely, the ventilation rate that provided the lowest carbon dioxide concentration, lowest relative humidity, and the greatest air exchange was the open (343%) ventilation scheme. 5. Considering the range of potential weather conditions, managed roof condensation should be the plan in an uninsulated cold confinement barn. The building's ventilation openings should be increased when roof dripping or frost accumulation occurs and during favorable daytime weather conditions. Maximum vs. minimum ventilation should be the emphasis. Conveniently operated ventilation openings 201 should be a design consideration for uninsulated cold confinement dairy barns. 202 VI. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The following is a list of areas for further study as identified through this research project: 1. Empirical data need to be gathered to allow conclusive validation of mathematical models predicting inside roof surface temperature. These research data should include the measurement of onset and quantity of frost and/or condensation. A list of necessary field data might include: instrumentation and/or observation of hourly nighttime roof inside surface temperature, time of onset and duration of frost or condensation and amount of condensate, inside relative humidity near the roof at locations low, mid, and upper roof, and at several sites along the building, cloud cover, outside roof surface conditions (snow depth, ice depth, wet,... etc.), inside and outside surface wind speeds and near-roof air temperatures. 2. Conditions appropriate for frost/condensation have been demonstrated by this research and building deterioration conditions have been identified in research done by Harrigan (1985). Further research needs to be done to develop a rate of decay model; i.e., during what conditions and duration does roof condensation change from a nuisance to a structural degradation issue. Within this study, the effects of favorable daytime drying conditions 203 that offset the nighttime condensation formation problem needs to be studied to develop the concept of managed roof condensation. Work by Fujita and Nara (1993), regarding the heat balance of barn roofing materials, may be useful in accomplishing these first two research areas. 3. A quantifiable value needs to be developed that expresses the impact of inadequate ventilation on cattle productivity. Productivity might be defined as a balance sheet of income from milk, extended productive life and offspring versus losses from cattle health maintenance expenses, reduced productive life, and offspring related losses. Once a value is given to adequate ventilation, a break even cost could be given to various forms of ventilation controls and structural designs that impact adequate ventilation. Modeling work done by Turner et a1. (1993) regarding the economic impact of respiratory diseases on swine and a computer model by Jalvingh (1992) regarding decision making in dairy cattle production, may be useful for this purpose. 4. Empirical research needs to be done to provide a more inclusive list of pressure coefficients for low profile structures with various size wall and roof openings and length to width ratios. 5. To better understand the interaction between a barn and the livestock occupying the structure, accurate values need to be determined for the amount of latent and sensible heat production of moderate and high producing dairy cattle 204 under cold housing conditions during wintertime. The temperature range should include values to -34.4 °C (-30 °F) . APPENDICES APPENDIX A Sample Thermal Buoyancy Calculation Results 205 Hm.~o~ vo.~m~ mo.~o~ mm.no~ mv.am~ As. we mums monzH om.m oo.a om.m oo.m oo.m m\a u ¥B>¢MU ho HMUU¢ 6n.~ 6n.n 6n.~ 6n.~ an.” n<§\ux an weumzmo «Ha 2H 65.5Ha ou.auu ms.sau 65.5“: ou.sau no. QZNB HOHmBDO 66.6H HH.~ 66.H666~ no.6n as.” 66.6666N 66.6” “a.” 66.6n6ou on.6u 6H.” 66.n6sau ”5.5” 6H.H 66.~6~6~ m\n ~> m :ozuo «Ha uaHooqm> ~> q¢sz scams H~.vnnu 66.n6H an.” 66.666H H~.6nnu 66.H6H ~n.d 66.666H H~.vnuu 6n.A6H s~.H 66.666H H~.6nau 66.nod 66.H 66.666H H~.6nuu 6H.H6u 66.H 66.666” xmx\6 o n 6 mo and saw: mmaq¢> oHoamoaso onHoumm 66.6 sn.mn~ cm.” -.H 66.6 an.mm~ 6n.a NH.” 66.6 an.mm~ 6n.“ 6H.H 66.6 sn.mm~ 6n.“ 6H.H 66.6 an.mm~ 6n.H 66.” .m. .s. n mama mama on.N on.N on.N hn.N on.N 4.262HO N> 66.~666 66.~666 66.~666 66.«666 66.~666 mn~¢u 84 Mdum Ed h.NOhNommd wn.nn 0.5vavmad Nw.nd N.nvocv5md Od.nd v.vovonno~ an.md w.m~onhhon vo.ou MOBdMMlDZ N> no.5thmd mv.nodmmu om.nndhafl nv.Hhmoon Oh.oovhom DflUDOOMN Bdfl: flQmHmzum no.0 no.6 no.0 mw.o mw.o 6~.6Hu 6~.6Hu “n.6uu H~.6Hu 6n.6au 6m.6da s~.6u s~.6u 6R.H~u 6R.H«u .m. mmoq a: .0. vs numamzmm us mane 644m mama monzH momma uonzH 66.66H 66.6d6 Ha.m 66.66H 66.6H6 Hd.m 66.66a 66.6u6 Ha.m 66.66H 66.6H6 HH.n 66.66H 66.6H6 Ha.m an a can: a mason mo areas: mung a: mumspz mqaa assooqu> mosmsso mosmsoo mosmsoo ozss gas: can: ozss ozus ozss ozss 6 H z o 5 m a o m 4 ZHAO mH om< mmaqa> nozaonH "mamsm onsaqooaao mm6NN.OI ma h.o oonv MN.H ov OZH3 In: umflDA<> NAQ‘UZ‘fiU soo as mmoq s: sHmzo mac as «so monam> HHTU can muasmom :oHumHsonU :oflumasuco> casx 6cm hocmaosm awakens possnaoo mamamm U xHozwmmfl 209 05.0 60000.0: 5066.55 65660.65 556055.0 05.66 50555.6: 6506.555 65660.65 556055.0 05.0 60000.0: 05066.55 55660.65 556055.0 05.66 50555.6: 5506.555 55660.65 556055.0 05.0 60000.0: 56066.55 65660.65 656055.0 05.66 50555.6: 5006.555 65660.65 656055.0 05.0 00050.0: 6056.55 6560.65 656055.0 05.66 05555.6: 0656.555.6560.65 656055.0 05.0 50000.0: 60666.55 56650.65 505055.0 05.66 00555.6: 5055.655 56650.65 505055.0 55.0 50550.0: 65606.55 65550.65 606655.0 55.66 50505.6: 6006.055 65550.65 606655.0 60.0 66050.0: 65605.65 60050.55 055055.0 56.66 55660.6: 5550.505 60050.55 055055.0 05.5 66065.0: 556000.6 55656.06 65055.5 50.56 56006.5: 5065.65 55656.06 65055.5 6\62 zsom 0:6 6.< axon :som 0:6 6.< 005¢> 00250 0 0:400546 00545 00250 0 0:400546 02532300 008 0:0 2:4800 056:0«00 2:40054 025300 008 0:0 2:4800 05600400 2:40054 :00 «66600540 800000 02532300666 :00 6666600540 800000 02530066666 0‘ 04 (4 5 a x 3 > 0 8 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.5 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 55.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 5.5 50.5 06 0.0 05.5 55.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 a a n400 005025 0050800 00000 2400 0><0 0252000 0252000 0252000 00 5850200 0850200 0050 0050 0050 0><0 008 0>¢0 x800 0>m0. 50004 05¢ 05‘ 0000 0000 0000 0 0 O 0 o 2 2 5 0 0666:506660 o xHozmmm< 210 05.66 05.66 05.66 05.66 05.66 55.66 06.66 55.56 50. 0208 054 NDH02H 3‘ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 a 820H02 20020 52822 24 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.656 66. 6:0s 654 005025 >< 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.6 50.0 60.0 05.0 200 0208 254 00H02H 2‘ 666666.o 666666.6 666666.6 666666.6 66:665.6 666566.o 66666.6: 6665.66: 66624646 664:. 6664> s62 64 00.66: 00.60: 00.66: 00.66: 00.66: 50.66: 50.56: 50.05: 0\ox 805890 NUOHK 220 24 0666656666. 6 66626664 6665 6666 656665 665 656 666.66 6665 6666 656665 665 656 666.66 6665 6666 656666 665 656 666.66 6666 6666 666666 665 666 666.66 6665 6666 666665 665 656 666.66 6665 6666 666665 665 656 666.66 6665 6666 666665 665 656 666.66 6665 6666 666665 665 656 666.66 s6x\6 xu6 05656666 62565560 06656266 606:6: 06ss4o suqzn s4 64 64 04 64 04 66666.6: 6666.66: 666666.5 566655.6 66.6 566.6 56666.6: 6666.66: 666666.5 666655.6 66.6 566.6 55666.6: 5666.66: 66665.5 666655.6 66.6 566.6 56566.6: 6566.66: 666566.5 656655.6 66.6 566.6 66566.6: 6666.66: 666665.5 566555.6 66.6 566.6 66666.6: 666.66: 556666.5 566655.6 66.6 566.6 66666.5: 5666.66: 655656.6 666665.o 66.6 566.6 56666.6: 6666.6: 66666.66 666566.5 66.“ 566.6 E 6 6-40664. 0666 0666 =s653 6:4s66 zn4s66 66466466 2:40664 sonmz 6252666 «446mons466664o 6665666666 86.6s6o 66650 64 54 :4 64 64 04 666.66: 666.66: 566.66: 666.66: 666.66: 666.66: 666.66: 655.66: 6\6 s664=x0 :4 50.56 50.56 50.56 50.50 50.56 50.56 50.56 50.56 E 280205 U2H2000 00052 04 550565 005 050 055.5 050.0 660.505 056600.0 605.00 050005.0 655.0 550565 005 050 055.5 050.0 660.505 056600.0 605.00 050005.0 655.0 550565 005 050 055.5 050.0 660.505 056600.0 605.00 000005.0 655.0 000565 005 050 055.5 050.0 660.505 056600.0 605.00 055055.0 655.0 600565 005 050 055.5 050.0 660.505 506600.0 605.00 550005.0 555.0 660565 005 050 055.5 550.0 660.505 055600.0 605.00 0055.0 565.0 050065 005 050 555.5 050.0 660.505 000000.0 605.00 555560.0 000.5 600665 005 050 655.5 665.0 660.505 050000.0 605.00 65555.0 000.0 3 605 6 040 2805202 00284 20>50 84 >58450m 05050200 000202 300 005625 05050000 0000 8040 00 00 00 20 20 50 20 00 50 20 «666666666666666.6666666666660205850200 054 0050256666666666 1 1.. .4 00.500 00.5005 50.005 00.0 05.66 06.555 66.6 06 05.66 55.05 00.500 00.5005 50.005 00.0 05.66 06.555 66.6 06 05.66 55.05 00.500 00.5005 50.005 00.0 05.66 06.555 66.6 06 05.66 55.05 60.500 60.5005 50.005 00.0 05.66 06.555 66.6 06 05.66 55.05 06.500 06.5005 50.005 00.0 05.66 06.555 66.6 06 05.66 55.05 50.000 65.5005 00.005 60.0 06.66 06.555 66.6 06 55.66 55.05 55.560 06.5505 56.055 05.0 55.56 06.555 66.6 06 60.66 05.05 56.505 05.605 65.065 00.65: 00.6 06.555 66.6 06 05.00 50.55 0666u6 66 ca 665. .26 .6. 56. .2. Au. .6. 6\6 002420 004> 0843 004> 0843 005625 005625 005025 0056800 0056800 0056800 00250200 254 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 54 54 24 {flfififitfl¢¥flfit.¢i.¢¥¥¥¥ 5666655666. 6 65626664 33386 2.3006 ononnoo nnnnooo AAA: 00 on~.n nno.o nnoéon nnonooo noun... noonoooo nnooooo onnnnoo noonooo AAA: :0 oo~.n nnn.o ono.9on nnonooo «noon «8386 8885 3336 nnonooo AAA: 00 onn..n ono.o noo.9on nnunooo ennno nnnnnooo nnooooo nonnnoo nnnooo Ac: :0 onn.n nno.o onofion neonooo nnnon noonnoo.o nanooo.o nonnno.o nnoooo.o AAAzn =0 onn.n nno.o nno.9o~ nnnnoo.o cn~.on neonooo.o nnoooo.o oonnno.o noonoo.o AAAzn =0 on~.n nno.o nno.9ou neonoo.o nnn.oo onsnooo.o oooooo.o unanno.o nnnnoo.o AAAzn =0 oon.n nno.o nno.9on nnoooo.o nnn.on nonnooo.o nonooo.o nnnnno.o nonnoo.o AAAzn 00 on~.n ono.o nno.9on nnonoo.o nnn.oo nn0 0 200000000 nno AAAzn 00 «no 00 0:000> one 990n000 00:94 n¢909 9on0: 300 0009on0: 00Hn900 AAAzn =0 0ono900 unnnonmn 50 H0 :0 mo 00 no no 00 m0 (0 N>H84afimaoct¢¢t¢¢¢t¢¢¢¢¢00¢t¢0¢0 «0000;00:0«000000003000atamonBanoo mH4 212 9on.o 9.o on.nno no.n9o A900 znvv no.nn no.n noon onnn 9on.o 9.0 n~.ono no.n9o A900 znvv on.en on.n noon onnn soo.o 9.o on.nno no.n9o A900 znvv nn.nn oo.n noon onon 9on.o 9.o o~.nno no.n9n A900 znvv on.nn oo.n noon onnn 9on.o 9.o on.oon no.n9o A900 znvv no.en oo.n noon onnn ono.o 9.0 n~.nno no.noo A900 znvv no.nn oo.n noon onnn 9on.o 9.o on.ooo no.noo A900 znvv on.nn on.n noon onnn 9on.o 9.0 on.ono no.n9n A900 znvv 9~.on nn.n noon onon omx uoonno 00 09 oonuA900 znvv 0 0 0:00\0 s .0.0 990n=00 0000 9040 0000 9040 A900 znvv oznz 09 oznz 09 noon z0>n0 94 >n90000 zoo<009on 200400940 A900 anvv 000 0:09.000 0:09 09o 940: 9400 mama Batu mm<> mats mm4> mafls 0200 KH< maHmzH monzH UHhHUflmm wzHOAHDm Nm an xm 3m >m an an mm mm mon9500¢¢00ctc¢¢aaauacta«accaacacc«00:0 ~00§CAHQOUV U XHOZHmmd 0o.nn 0o.nn no.0n 00.nn on.n. nn.nn no.on nn.nn nn.nn 0o.nn 0o.nn no.nn 00.00 o0.nn nn.n. no.on nn.n. nn.nn 0o.nn no.0n no.nn 00.nn o0.nn nn.nn no.on nn.nn on.nn no.0n 0o.nv no.nn 90.00 o0.nn nn.n. no.0. nn.nn nn.nn no.nn 00.nn no.nn 00.nn o0.nv nn.nn no.on nn.n. nn.nn no.nn no.nn 0o.nn n0.nn 00.0. nn.nn nn.on nn.nn nn.n. nn.nn nn.nn 0n.nn nn.ne 9o.nn 00.00 00.00 nn.n. on.n. no.nn No.00 no.nn nn.nn nn.nn nn.ne o:.on nn.on on.nn A00 . A00 A0. A0. A0. 00. A0. .0. 00. oz: 00:0n oz: 00:»: ozn: 0z oz: 00:0n oz: 00:09 ozn: 0z oz: 00:0n oz: 00:00 ozn: 0z 0:9 00000 0:9 00000 0:9 0000 0:9 00000 0:9 00000 0:9 0000 0:9 00000 0:9 00000 0:9 0000 on0zn 000 onozn 000 on0zn 000 onozn 000 onozn 000 onozn 000 onozn 000 onozn 000 onnzn 000 no o0 00 . 00 :0 >0 00 90 00 nnnnnz0n9ono0zn 0000=n «an» 000 z0n90000zn 0000 g» 000 «n00.0znonn00 0090000znz0... 3 u no.on on.n nn.n nn.n nn.n0 nno.oo0 nnnnoo.o nn.n nn.nn nn.n nn.n 0n.n nn.n0 n00.0o0 nonnoo.o nn.n no.00 nn.n nn.n 0n.n nnen0 nno.no0 nonnoo.o nn.n nn.nn nn.n nn.n 0n.n on.n0 non.oo0 nonnoo.o on.n nn.nn nn.n nn.n nn.n nn.n0 non.0o0 nonnoo.o nn.n nn.nn nn.n nn.n 0n.n nn.n0 o-.on0 nonvoo.o nn.n on.nn no.0 no.0 on.n nn.n0 nno.0o0 onnnoo.o on.n nn.n 00.nna 00.nnu on.nnn nn.nno non.nnn nonnoo.o nn.n A00 00. 00. .0. n 00 00x00 onaxux wocdwzmw «oedwzmw «ooawzmo «oedwaw >BHDH=D= ugh mSOU /3 asHmzma :8 an 3mm at? 9m 3MB 0 Ohwo U owocl H>HB¢AN¢ mmmm Raw—4m mg CHIS: mH¢ amn— mhmam me mob—3m .58 Ba 3ND Em BEG flQHmZH DHmHBK DHmZH BN2 Koch—2H mo O0 0U 00 20 :0 AU :0 «000000«000000000000m20H9Ho200 >BHDHID= Aowocnuoou. 0 xnoz000< 214 .00n0000 no 300 amonv 000n0> nn00 0.0n0 nonono.o 0.0n0 nonnno.o 0.0n0 no~0n0.o 0.0n0 nomono.o 0.0n0 on~0no.o nupno oo~0n0.o n.nn0 nonnno.o n.0o0 onoono.o :00 n\ouq ~00 Ezmnmx< mo .0000n0000. 0 xn0z000< moomoo.9 0noooo.o 0nnnoo.o 0nnnoo.o 0nonoo.o 0nnooo.o 0nonoo.o 0noooo.o o\n nnwov U xHozmmm< .2580800532. .2; 0.0..an9n8gz .0; 082.848.32080 .0; Z .2; an .2: n. .0: 0.0 .2 0258.5: .2. «2? E— 3... .0; no... ...... 3&2 on: 302 302 SR! 302 382 33c #82 3&4 uv-¢ 333 3a! ”:5 6&— .35 ”3m 0:: 38 30. 3Q. 3E 38. 32 ...000.000.0nn0000.o..n..~00.00-0n00~000..-...0..~00.00-nnonnonn.....0000.0n~000000.0-..0000000.0..000.00~n.0000-.0000 .00. ...000.000.0_00no_......0000.0n-0000000.0-...0.0000.00-00000000.0...n.0000.00-000000.0....~00.000000000.0-..0000000.o.0~00.0000..nn0-.0000 .00. 216 0000o 0.00. .00. nn..0.n.0000. .00. ...0000.0000.0~00..0000..0000...~00. .00. 0000 .00. 0000. .00. .000. .00. .000. .00. 0000. .00. 0000.0 .00. .0000.n......~00.0000.0.....0000.0000...000...~00..0.. .00. 000.000 .00. .0000-0000....000..n00~o.0 .00. 000.00 .00. §...§...§..§.030§.00 .00. .n.nn0o.nvn~0o.0.0 .00. ..0000.000.0000000.n..0.0000.00-0n00~000..-...n.0000.00-nnnnnnnn.0....000.000000000.0-..0000000.n..000.00~0.0000-.0000 .00. ..0000.000.0.00nn_......0nnn.0.-n.~0000.0-...n.0000.00-00000000.0...~.0~nn.00-000000.n...0~nn.000000000.0-..0000000.n.00on.0000.0000-.0000 .00. .000000000 000nn> 0000. 00.000.0000. .00. 0....00-0000. .00. 0000. .00. 00.000.0000. .00. 0.0..00-0000. .00. .00. .00. .0000.0000 .00. 0000..0nnn..0000.0000. .00. , n0..0000.0._. .00. 00.000.0000. .00. ..500.200.08.0803000.30.00. .00. 000. .00. U “Shaman—t v88 vmfi vfifi nus vflb «a! 303 88.. #03 3“! "was .63 .3: .83 vfid "cums Sfia 3n! 3N3 3&3 3§B v”! .23 .Q3 .23 ~23 cue «ma ”.22 "on; $82 217 000000....00....000..~00.. .000. ”.000 .00..oooooon..~00. .000. ”.000 0.0 .00. ”.000 000...n..0.0..0000..000.. .000. ”.80 0000.0 .00. ".000 A: ... 08. .000. .....no ...nn.-.~00...00.0.00.0..-.000. .000. ..000 ...nn.-.000...00.0.~n.0..-.000. .000. ..000 ...00.-.~00......o.~o.0..-.000. .00. “.08 ...000-.~00...0n...~o.0..-.000. .00. ..000 ...Nn.-.~00...0....~n.0..-.000. .00. ..000 ...000-.~=0....0...~n.0..-.000. .00. ".000 ...00-.~00...00.0.8.0..-.80. .00. ".80 ...nn.-.~0n....n.0.~n.0..-.000. .00. ".000 ...nn.-.00n....0.n.~n.0..-.000. .000. ..000 nn...0oo.n... .00. ”.00 ..000..0oo.0uv.0.0.0.0 .nn0. ".000 0....n00..000..000..000.000.000.00n.......000..~00..~000.000.000.0.0.o~.0.0-000.00- .00. “.00 0.....n0o..~00..000..~0o.0.0.000..00.0....000..000..~000.000.0.0.000.-00.0.0..00- .00. “.000 ..000..~00.0..000.000..000. .00. ..000 .000.0..o...~no. .00.- .000 .0038. .00. ".03 ..000..~00..000..0 .00. ..000 .000..~oo. .00. ".000 .00...~00. .00. “.000 ..0000.000....000..000..n..~00.00-n.0.0..0.0..000.00000000.0..~00..000000.0.~00.n0.0... .00. 0 ".00 .000..000. .00. .000 .000. 00. .00. ..000 .000.. .00. .000 ..nno.n......000.0000........000..noo...000...~n0..n.. .00.. .000 000.000 .00. ..000 ..000-.~.0....000..00n~o.0 .00. ".000 .nn.00 .00. ".08 000...000...000..000.0...~.0.000 .00. ”.000 0.00. .00. ".000 .000000000 000no> nnuo. 0 xnoz000< APPENDIX D Sorted and Averaged Validation Barn Weather Data 218 0.0- u .0.. 000 9000 .0.. 000 0. 0 ..0.-.0.. 0.00 ...0.-.0.. 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0|Il. 00 0.00 0.00 0.0 £30300 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0 00 0.00 0. 0- 0 00 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.0 0.0 0 00 00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.0 0 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0. .0. .0. ..0. 08.0 0.. 00 0.00.. 0.000 00 00 .0 08. .00.. .0. .0. .0. .0. 00 000.00 00 .0000 00200 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08000 0800 .0... .00 .050 00.0.0 u: .58 8.x..." ....fim 3: 30:00:01.: 3030.30.59 3988230330333... .05: .05: 33.: 033.5 83: 03305 .0008 F: 8. .0» 83.08 .0 0+ 2. 0- 0.0- u ..0. 000 00000. .0.. 000 0. 0 ...0.-.0.. 0.00 ...0.-.0.. 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 00 0.00 0.0 0.0- 23000000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 0 00 00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0- 0 00 00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0- 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0. .0. .0. .0. 08.0 .0. 00 0.00.. 0.000. .- 00 .0 0.0. .00.. .0. .0. .0. .0. 00 00000 00 0000 0.00000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .08000 0800 .0... .00 .030 .050 .000 .60 0.0.00.0 -50. 8: 0003000000.... 080008080 29830950000303.0030 .0000: .05. o XHozmmmd 000000 0000000 000000 000500 0000 000 00 00 mam—8072.? 0.20:9: ea 8.32 E50: "ED. .00. 00.00. 00 .0 00. 00.00. 0 ..00 0-00. 00 000 .0080 00000 000000. .00. 00.00. 00 0 00. 0.00. 0 0.00... .00000000 00000 000000 000.000. 21159 0.9 a 0p: 99: «9:0: :9: 999 0.90 "090-:«0 9.9 n:«:-:«= 9.« 9.« «.9- «.90 m.« «.n« «.90 «.90 9.9 000muucxuan «.«0 m.«0 «.9- «.00 «.00 o.«0 «.9« «.m0 «.«0 9.90 «.«0 9.9«0 9.9 m.0« «.09 9.90 «.9 «0 n« « 9« «.o «.« «.9: «.00 «.90 «.«0 9.00 n.«0 «.90 «.00 «.a «.9«0 0.« 9.09 «.00 9.90 m.9 « «a « 9o «.«0 «.00 9.0: «.«0 «.n0 9.00 0.«0 «.m0 «.«0 «.n0 «.«0 «.mm0 0.9 «..0 «.0m «.90 «.« 9« m« « 9m «.90 9.00 «.9 «.90 «.90 «.m0 «.90 «.90 «.90 «.«0 9.«0 0.990 0.9 «.«« «.99 «.90 9.9 0 «« « 9a 0.90 «.9 9.9- 9.90 9.90 9.90 «.90 «.90 «.90 «.00 «.90 «.««0 «.n «.9« 9.99 0.00 «.9 «« m« « 99 «.« «.0 «.9: 0.90 0.90 «.90 «.00 «.«0 «.m0 9.«0 9.90 0.90« 0.0 «.n« «.«« «.«0 «.o « 9« « 9« 0.0 o.« 0.9- «.90 «.n0 «.m0 «.90 «.90 0.90 0.90 9.90 9.990 0.90 0.0« «.90 «.90 «.9 n« «« «0 m« 0.0 9.« «.9 9.00 0.«0 «.00 0.«0 0.00 0.«0 «.00 «.00 «.V9« 0.00 «.0« 0.90 «.«0 «.9 v« n« «0 9« 0.0 «.0 0.9 9.90 «.90 «.90 «.«0 «.90 «.«0 0.90 9.90 «.09« 9.90 0.0« 0.09 «.90 «.« «« 00 «0 «9 fig 9 a m a .o a .0 I a 0 a 9 0 a u .u u 9 u « a .0. .0. .0. .0. 0000 .0 .0 0.000 0.000 0. 00 .0 000. .00.. .0. .0. .0. .0. 00 0000000 00 .0000 0.00000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08000 0.800. 00.0 .0000 .0000 .0000 «99 .02 8.09.0 .«E 990 300800800005 «BEBE 00983805032000.0000: 00.00. 00000: 8030 0000306 09000000 80306 00800 08 80 .00 «90m099 0 «.99 0 .uoaz0ucoo. 00 “xnnnupnmrmxmdm 220 «.«. 32.8.. 2.2.2.2.. «.« u..«..-..«.. «.« u..«......«.. «2 «.« «.« «.2 «.« «.2 «.8 «.2 «.2 «2%. «.« «.« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 2.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.««« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 2 «« « «« I 5 «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.8 «.2 «.2 «.2 « 2 « «« «.« «.« «.« «.2 2.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.8 «.2 «.2 «.2 2 2 « «« «2 «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.«« «.2 «.2 «.2 2 2 22 «.« 2.« «.2- «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.««« «.« «.2 «.8 «.2 «.« 2 «« 22 «.« «.« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.« «« «« 2«« «.« «.« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.««« «.« «.2 «.3 «.2 «.2 2 2 22 «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.«« «.«« «.2 «.2 «« 2 22 «.2 «.2 «.«. «.«« «.«« «.«« «.«« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«2 «.« «.8 «.«« «.2 «.« 2 2 2«« «.« «.« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.««« «2 «.«« «.2 «.2 «.« «« 2 22 «.« «2 2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 .2 «.2 «.2 «.««« «.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.« 2 2 22 « a « « a « o __ _. ._ « « « « « « « « u « « E E E E «.2 .. .« «.««« «.««« a 2 .. «s. s! E E E E 2.2.8. 2 «.2 882 2 2 2 a a «« z 282 «8% ...... ...... .32 ...-2 8a 489 cake .EE 8. «33:33.: 82533 o~§§3a§§3« e5: .5: «Bus «338 835 8238 .58 F: a: up .uounaucoov D Nanmmmfl uBfiScmuuoaa (continued) .Ad?!¥EflIEEI)I I) 14 to 16 r M811! Yr In my lour Outside Inside Outside Inside film 81805 10 111026 TCPL IV 87 um Hind umnmtmmmie Whites (ntmmnu am pm- 'l'pk-‘l'o 1'ch m I‘LL): Speed um. 11 :2 :3 u :5 x mm m 29 m u mu 6) U) U) P s f u (1 II lid-S lid-l L m I m “MOM” 0 J I I 8 C 7.8 8.0 7.0 4.1 7.7 6.6 6.6 -1.2 19.1 19.9 21.8 .9 .7 .3 18.0 1.8 160.6 182.5 3.7 6.9 168.5 9.5 208.6 78.6 76.9 74.8 .6 .0 14.8 15.1 16.1 2 15 89 12 11 21 8 23 8 22 4 5.0 7.3 6.0 -0.3 17.6 19.1 18.2 18.5 :MMfifiQOfiNO 88$8888$33“8 20.9 14.5 .2131 23.0 .1 21.4 .6 18.9 .0 19.3 .9 19.0 21.7 15.3 5.9 5.9 3.3 6.0 10.7 20.9 19.9 19.8 0.1 20.7 21.9 19.2 21.9 13.9 6.4 4.0 6.6 9.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 -1.6 -l.0 21.2 19.6 22.1 19.8 .6 18.4 19.5 17.0 19.8 19.0 18.3 17.6 21.8 21.4 27.4 .4 21.5 20.7 27.2 10.4 159.9 .8 18.2 27.4 25.1 3.3 10.7 2.3 11.1 19.3 18.4 19.5 19.3 17.2 15.5 Q 1-0 N V O 9 11.9 10.4 m 0 0-0 I 10.7 9.2' 11.6 In 0 fl 8 13.7 o-d N I 8.7 7.7 3.9 6.9 6.6 4.1 -1.8 -1.1 0.2 «amaze—on FOO 22222 82 \ao-zvuene—c 22« 2222 2222222 2222222 «15.5-me Ragga” qwflehve 2222222 Queue-thaw 0 2222222 .0 24.4 24.3 27.1 2.5 176.1 3.9 161.2 201.3 3.8 173.7 4.3 177.5 4.5 190.8 5.4 14.4 186.2 .9 76.8 79.1 72.0 82.5 _*#*~ 77.2 78.1 61.5 68.7 16.0 NNNNNNN -0.6 7.0 880 ”0” 81805 890 ”T" .0 83.9 8.4 'I'-'G"= 15.2 'I'-'l'= INIIIEIS>>> 0.6 2.8 (continued) I¥FflPEflVEIIJK I) 19 IO 21 F 001811! It In Day flour Outside Inside Outside Inside mus To (F) u 923- rpk-m mm. m A hi- w E: A u—‘Ihm 2“ Egg.“ a a fl fl «us fl at ‘ 1£~ua hone-:0: U gin gnu-BO 3- I Cl anti. 1% «5'1“ ‘3: I Q 1: cu ”fiat-I C fl ¢ ¢ fl =v-d «-3. #3 ¢ 4: 3 F’ 1 Hind Speed Direct. (Oh) (do? 1') ROI. (1) I u. (t) 6 Tap. map. (F) (P) s I I B C .1 23.3 24.0 25.9 24.9 22.9 24.0 -l.1 3.2 4.3 21.7 .7 23.0 24.1 155.5 8.1 12.3 78.3 84.3 .0 24.1 10 19.7 7 14 89 12 9 3.0 4.7 6.7 1.8 5.6 5.4 5.5 24.3 24.1 24.8 .2 23.4 -1.2 24.8 .6 23.6 171.7 7.9 204.0 7.3 194.1 ”.5 20.4 79.5 89 12 4 0.9 -1.3 -0.6 '2.3 23.9 24.6 .6 27.9 24.7 27.9 .9 .9 24.4 87.7 .2 .6 85.3 .3 .2 27.6 19.2 89 12 27 26.3 27.5 27.8 27.9 27.7 .5 87.1 20.8 90 1 13 22 90 1 13 23 90 2 4 21 2112 6.1 27.5 29.0 26.9 28.7 .9 .2 24.4 28.5 27.9 179.9 4.0 200.9 5.9 158.4 6.1 21.4 9.5 3.0 5.6 6.7 7.2 3.4 26.7 28.8 .3 .0 0‘ 21.9 31.3 87.0 27.9 19.5 23.9 23.5 0.4 -1.5 -0.5 -l.7 .3 23.8 21.5 24. 260 24.4 20.5 90 2 2 22 4.1 23.0 24.5 24.3 23.9 4 4 189.5 8.1 6.0 3 11 6.3 27.1 195.2 14.2 184.0 7.8 193.0 19.5 90 2 20 90 2 18 3.1 1.4 24.7 23.2 21.9 9 5.5 4.5 5.2 3.7 5.2 3.3 4.2 4.1 26.8 -1.0 23.7 25.8 .3 24.8 27.0 4.5 4.1 4.8 3.7 5.1 0.7 '0.4 24.4 .0 23.1 24.6 207.9 12.0 191.5 17.9 185.6 12.5 191.7 12.4 170.0 12.3 169.1 17.1 75.2 23.7 24.1 24.8 78.1 0.4 -0.4 .4 25.0 23.6 25.4 23.4 23.8 .3 23.7 27.8 .0 71.7 69.0 20.2 20.3 23.9 25.5 22.7 23.9 24.7 25.9 27.6 .7 24.5 .2 24.9 74.0 12.3 -0.9 -0.6 25.7 24.7 27.2 27.6 20.6 4.7 .1 25.4 27.8 24.8 70.2 21.4 Zfifig 3383883 NNNNNNN -0.6 4.4 820 "U” HIIUS 180 "T“ = .2 10.1 .8 0.3 80.5 6.2 '8'-'0"= 26.3 20.1 "F”-'8'= IVERIGES>>> (continued) I!PHPEH§III)( I) 24 1'0 26 I 01181]! In no my flour Outside Inside Outside Inside (1') u mam (1') r m s 8888- fpk-IO ICPl IND M' 3 111026 TCPL I! 77 II Peak 0 76 P n o u l 73 I I8 Illd-S 1110-8 72 L 71 I J [ind untuuntuemlg mm (Huntsman m; I MMHM” wmnma 81nd mm M I mm M c nn.n» U) m s r 8 8 C 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.3 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 .8 27.9 27.5 26.5 26.8 28.0 h h N 2 3.9 5.7 3.5 6.1 2 0.3 -0.3 2 4.8 2.8 3.1 5.1 3.4 2.5 » 3.8 0.6 -1.4 27.9 .9 27.2 ”Deg—3.40:9 Smfifififlg 88 hNo-dm 2222 27.4 25.6 11.9 168.5 10.0 179.4 11.4 159.7 5.6 8.2 71.3 84.1 75.5 55.8 .4 27.9 .2 25.5 24.2 25.4 24.3 25.8 12 12 13 11 89 12 9 89 12 4 72.2 .2 .6 .6 .0 29.2 89 12 4 187.3 197.4 87.9 31.0 29.7 89 12 28 89 12 25 inc-ohm 22222 2222 8888 M40- 3&0: 30.8 6.8 196.1 9.2 208.4 5.0 201.1 87.8 86 6 92 93.8 .2 30.8 30.3 25.0 24.9 19 5.7 5.3 2.2 4.7 5.1 31.0 30.7 31.2 -0.5 30.3 28.8 III. C 0-0 H 0 F4 4"! 168.7 31.1 10.4 200.7 5.6 .9 .5 89 92 91.6 33.0 . 25.5 2133 3.2 28.2 29.3 -1.1 29.9 30.1 28.3 29.4 .0 31.1 31.0 0 26.0 5.3 5.3 4.3 31.4 32.8 30.4 31.4 30.8 31.4 -0.6 -0.2 31.2 166.0 7.9 4 5 4 4 2 84 82 89 85 33.2 26.1 .3 .4 163.8 28.6 27.6 30.1 30.2 .7 29.9 .1 27.1 29.8 5.7. 3 24.0 30.7 81.9 9 10 2.9 2.8 7.7 6.1 -1.4 '1.2 -1.0 27.7 79.8 .9 24.1 4.0 8.8 28.6 7.3 5.8 4.6 31.1 32.5 .9 28.4 31.5 32.4 31.9 31.5 o-Oe-d 88888888888 4.1 3.7 ' 6.2 -l.6 —0.9 '1.6 -1.2 -0.5 -1.4 -1.7 30.0 31.0 77.4 100.0 31.0 24.3 C P" d 7.9 9.3 5.8 4.6 8.7 8.1 4.1 4.4 6.9 3.1 .5 33.0 .9 .2 32.7 35.4 .6 31.4 .2 30.4 30.8 30.1 31.4 31.2 35.5 31.1 32.5 .1 30.9 32.2 33.2 .4 32.8 34.6 31.1 32.6 89.3 157.1 1 5.8 167.6 2.1 4.7 .8 79.9 76.5 100.0 84.2 .6 81.7 100.0 78.9 30.2 35.3 32.1 33.2 88888 flflfldfl 2.3 2.1 1.7 5.0 1.6 0.6 5.7 3.7 0.8 -0.5 -1.1 30.9 0.6 -1.9 0.1 5.6 5.9 6.0 '5 ‘3 “1 “Q '2 ‘2 883833 NN‘UNO 222222 finmaauq 33.0 .2 .5 .3 .5 30.9 33.3 .5 193.3 180 7 194 9.6 202.5 2.2 10.4 8.2 15.9 .1 78.5 .7 83.3 70.3 .2 100.0 83.7 67.4 33.1 30.6 28.0 27.9 31.4 24.0 26.1 24.7 10 13 30.0 30.6 30.9 48.5 24.9 ‘8 8: 33.1 32.5 31.5 25.6 31.6 52.0 63.4 6.2 195.5 3.6 19 18 N ‘8 “ROI-4’50“ 22222222 31.7 31.7 31.2 .8 160.3 86.5 33.2 87.1 26.1 9 90 2 12 224 ... ... ...- .... .... 2.. .... .... .2 .2 .... ..... .... .... .... .... .2 2 a 2.2 .... ... 2.- .... .... .... 2.. .... .... .2 .... .2. .... .... .... .... .2 2 . .... ... ... ...- 2.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 2.2 .... ...... .... .... .2 2 . 2.2 ... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ...... 2.. 2.. ...... ... .2 .... 22 .2 . .2... 2. 2. ...- 2.. 2.. .... .... .... .... .... .... ...2 ... 2.. 2.. .... .2 . ...... .... ... ... .... 2.. 2.. 2.. .2 2.. .... 2.. 2... ... .... .2 .2 .2 2 ...... .... ... .....- .... .2 .... .... .2 .... .2 .2 .2. 2. .... .2. 22 .2 . . ...... ... ... ... .2 .2 .... .... .... .... .... .... 2.2 ... ...... .2. .... .2 . . ...... ... ... ...- 2.. 2.. .2 .... .2 2.. .2 .2 .2. ... .2 ..2. ...... .2 2 . .... ... ... ...- .... .... .... 2.. .... 2.. .... 2.. ...... 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. .2 .. . 2.2 2. ... 2.- .... .... .... 2.. .... .... 2.. .... 22. 2... .... .... .... .2 2 . 2.... .. .. m . o . a _. _. .. .. .. . . u . u a u . . E E E E .8. .... a .-.... .-.... ... ... .. 22 ....E E E E E a as... .. :2 22... .. 2 2 z a 2 .. .22... .8... ...... .... .8. .8. 2.. .6... 8-..... -2... 2. ......::.E 85.2.8. 2988.25...:::::: ...... 2... 8.2. 8.28 8.... 8.28.8. .... a... 3.28.282 a... mire: 9:35:92 o4 €9.25. 5.... 29-..? «6 9.. ca. 8.8 a; fig fie. 92” «an 2.325: 8 odw .8— a; n.~a was 9% n.m~ n R n 8 ... ... ...- .2 .2 .2 .. . . .... ... ...- .... .... .... .... .... .2 .... .... 2.2 ... .... .... .2 .... 2 2 2 a 2. ... ...- .2 .... .... 2.. .2 2. 2.. .2 ...2 ... .... .... .2 .2 a 2 2 8 . .. -..unun tuflmg .. . . .. o . o __ __ . . .. . __ a . . .. u . . E E E E .8. .... a. .-.... .-.... a. a .. as. 2..... E E E E as... = .5. 22.. a 2 2 a 2 2. .. .28... .8... .... .... .8. .8. 2. .5. 8...... .5. 2. ........:.E 3....an 29.88.22..:..:.....: ...... ...... 8.... 8.38 8...... 8.38 as. .... .... .. €8.28: 8.28 .. 2 2 .2 .uo=:.u:oo. 9 2.922222 (continued) APPENDIX D (F) 0 "1805 $0 (1") T (F) 8 pm- rpk-ro 1m. ave (F) $11086 TCPL IV 71 Peak 0 46 P 45 (1 8 Q'i Influx u-o a: an 9’ ill-'0: .... I 42 L H K J [ind nuannnuummle Matures "Vanuatu m; 192.4 I 81nd Speed Direct. (IN) (609 II) M. (t) 8.8. G (t) F reap. (F) 8 18 28.9 14 28.9 17 rap. (1') 29 no 31 t OUTSIDE (continued) it In Day flour Outside Inside Outside Inside I 8 C 0 ‘ .9 15.3 11.5 3.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 -1.1 -0.5 -0.7 31.6 32.7 33.8 33.5 32.0 33.0 31.4 .1 31.7 32.3 31.9 30.5 31.6 .1 .2 .4 33.5 11.5 .3 61.6 32.3 31.2 31.7 32.3 161.2 .3 .3 11.6 31.8 3.5 2.6 2.7 32.2 32.8 31.6 32.3 32.5 177.9 180.3 17.8 184.0 14.4 177.2 .5 70.0 32.9 28.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.6 4.2 1.1 5.0 1.7 2.3 3.3 33.4 34.9 33.0 33.9 33.5 33.8 -0.3 33.9 79.1 35.2 9 31.2 24 31.0 22 31.2 23 31.2 90 1 30 90 1 10 90 1 10 90 l 10 90 1 11 90 1 5 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 4.2 6.0 .2 33.0 34.3 32.9 34.2 33.1 33.5 -0.4 34.6 33.5 33.5 .9 .9 94.5 93.0 35.5 33.4 33.6 -0.2 32.6 34.4 32.8 33.5 35.2 33.8 33.5 33.2 34.7 33.0 34.6 33.5 33.8 -0.3 33.6 .5 186 17.9 194.3 8.2 208.0 91.9 94.3 15.2 35.5 34.4 33.0 34.6 33.3 33.6 -0.3 35.8 33.3 33.6 35.2 -1.6 -1.8 -0.6 -0.4 33.1 34.8 35.1 .9 32.5 37.3 37.1 35.8 35.1 37.2 9 5 0 32 36 36 93.6 .3 73.9 35.5 31.3 18 30.9 19 30.9 12 30.9 17 30.8 22 30.8 24 30.7 1 35.7 82.6 35.6 .0 33.3 6.2 197.4 11.2 .7 81.2 .7 69.4 37.2 90 1 28 90 1 14 ILZES 1.6 5.4 3.7 2.7 31.1 33.0 32.1 32.9 32.5 31.9 35.8 35.4 34.9 156.8 32.5 .2 34.5 35.5 .3 34.5 .1 35.0 .4 34.9 .9 35.5 33.4 195.4 5.3 5.3 11.3 70.2 82.3 37.8 1 6 1 7 90 1 26 90 1 15 90 1 15 90 90 -2.0 32.5 32.2 175.1 188.0 199 9 93.1 .1 86.3 34.1 33.4 -0.4 33.0 33.8 33.2 34.3 33.1 .3 34.9 .2 34.1 85.7 35.3 4.3 '1.0 -1.2 -0.0 34.8 35.0 35.1 34.4 35.5 36 4.1 4.1 88.4 35.9 8 30.5 9 30.5 24 30.4 21 4.6 2.5 4.5 3.4 2.5 2.9 1.6 2.3 3.1 2.0 3.6 2.8 35.1 .5 33.2 33.9 35.1 32.4 35.6 .3 194.1 6.2 194.4 .6 87.1 74.2 35.5 32.9 32.9 33.3 31.8 33.3 33.1 33.3 34.9 32 8 34.5 2 1 -l.6 -0.3 .9 32.1 35.6 .9 30.9 .6 34.5 31.3 .0 .4 31.9 151.1 6.2 9.4 34.0 72.3 . 30.4 1.9 2.7 -0.4 32.8 .4 33.2 .5 34.0 34.0 32.4 35.0 33.2 33.8 32.5 35.8 32.3 32.5 191.3 10.8 193.5 5 5 5.1 -1.9 '1.2 -1.7 35.1 35.2 35.8 34.7 188.6 57.8 67.4 7.7 20 30.0 34.0 1 28 3.1 5.3 2.7 2.6 5.3 33.1 31.9 .5 35.3 33.7 32.0 37.4 .6 .2 33 33.4 .6 78.4 81.4 82.4 73.1 33.6 29.9 20 29.9 21 35.3 33.5 71.7 34.0 90 1 14 32.4 0.1 -1.1 32.5 32.8 .1 34.4 72.1 29.7 11 29.6 20 29.5 12 29.5 1.5 4.5 1.1 3.5 32.3 31.2 33.0 71.4 32.4 90 1 14 90 1 19 90 1 31 90 1 28 34.0 34.8 -0.8 34.4 78.3 76.8 73.2 33.4 1.2 5.3 30.6 30.7 -0.1 31.1 34.0 72.6 58.3 30.5 34.7 -1.8 32.9 35.4 34.6 .1 68.6 8.0 189.3 34.7 29.4 21 (continued) APPENDIX D 29 10 31 F oursns (continued) Yr lb Day Hour Outside Inside Outside Inside (F) u m- rpk-ro mm. m :1 111016 TCPL av uxuus to I a” g) g) T P 16 0 15 o 14 l 13 Hid-8 lid-l 12 L '1” “tuttttntuuflnmwlg Matures (”sunning AUG 11 J Wind Speed Direct. I ”MUM” mm m H mm m c an m r mm m z I 8 C 0 2.1 1.2 2.0 1.6 3.5 5.3 2.4 2.3 0.4 3.8 1.0 31.0 31.8 .1 30.5 31.4 -0.9 -1.6 -1.6 -1.3 °1.1 31.8 31.9 1 19 3.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 3.0 2.8 2.6 4.5 0.9 1.2 8.1 32.4 32.8 30.8 31.2 32.5 .3 31.9 32.1 31.1 31.6 31.6 8.8 110.0 34.0 0'" -0.6 -0.6 -2.2 -0.1 32.1 31.9 31.6 33.3 35.6 31.5 31.3 .4 32.6 .0 33.0 .4 34.8 31.8 31.4 31.1 34.1 33.2 31.1 33.8 31.4 31.9 33.1 31.4 32.1 .3 31.0 33.3 32.1 31.1 8.3 111.1 10.0 202.2 1.5 161.5 11.5 203.6 .9 81.9 15.2 19.6 33.9 2 28.8 12 31.1 ”"888 flfiflfid 888888888 21265 32.3 31.3 31.5 31.6 32.0 10.9 33.6 on '4 N 83 2.0 3.0 2.8 8.6 4.8 1.4 2.9 2.6 6.5 4.1 31.1 31.4 ééi ‘Q '7 '7 3315315: van ééé 33.1 32.1 .3 33.4 -0.1 33.1 32.1 33.5 33.8 -0.2 -2.1 .9 31.1 32.8 33.3 h S! 35.6 .0 41.9 32.9 34.0 31.9 g -0.1 32.4 33.5 34.1 neea 8883 QGMc-OQ.‘ aééifié quno—o §§§§§§ "'9” o o o n I", -NMQI‘ II. 9.95059 séiég NC” 0 I 0 38153181 IDN 33.1 31.0 16 30.5 10 30.4 12 30.3 11 11 2 23 M N N ii 90 90 2 5 9 O '4 a 33.5 90 2 12 90 2 16 90 2 23 90 2 20 34.1 100.0 30.1 <- 51.3 61.3 39.5 18 29.1 16 28.8 .8 10.3 201.6 33.9 46.1 34.8 3.8 0.1 -0.1 3.1 33.8 180 '0" MINUS INC ”1" = 1.9 12.9 4.1 'l”-"G”= 29. «pa- AVERAGES)» (continued) IKIWFHEBIEI131 I) 34 m 36 r ourslns Yr no nay flour Outside Inside Outside Inside (1’) u MINUS Tb m r mx- rpk-ro 1cm. we (I?) s m I: 111016 1‘CP1. IV 16 11 NH Peak P 0 15 (1 14 I 13 Hid-S Hid-l 12 1 find unnauuauuflm‘pm Matures (Huntsman “G 11 0|th (deg I) I J mm! anL 81nd M n u. m a rap. (F) r reap. (P) E A 8 C D 1.6 1.8 1.0 3.8 3.4 4.3 0.8 0.1 -0.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 31.6 -0.8 -1.1 .8 .4 36.3 31.6 38.2 31.3 38.0 36.9 34.6 .3 31.5 13.9 206.0 39.0 18.6 85.3. 81.1 36.1 3 35.1 13 35.2 N N F‘ 31.5 38.0 .9 .1 31.4 :3 38.5 31.4 .8 13.2 39.0 N -1.6 -0.1 -0.0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 36.2 38.0 31.6 38.5 31.9 31.6 31.9 36.4 .0 40.0 38.3 38.0 .6 .1 39.4 32 33 33 "‘00-. 22 23 23 38.3 39.1 35.9 .0 31.4 39.9 31.9 38.0 38.2 35.6 38.9 31.9 31.5 38.5 1.5 210.1 191.4 8.8 5.4 209.5 .4 14.2 85.1 36.3 Han“ 5.5 2.0 5.1 39.5 39.0 40.2 190.2 38.5 9.2 200.0 1.4 40.2 81.5 33.9 21 m 53 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 888888888888888 1.5 1.0 5.7 .0 39.0 38.0 31.5 31.6 38.1 31.1 31.1 31.5 38.5 6' :5 d- 5% to u-n ‘ F! 0-0 .2117 1.2 4.8 2.0 4.9 0.0 2.5 3.5 3.1 -0.5 0.9 -1.8 -0.5 -2.2 31.3 41.0 41.0 31.1 41.9 36.8 41.2 41.8 41.3 31.9 40.5 36.8 40.5 41.8 35.4 42.1 36.9 40.1 34.4 41.3 31.9 40.8 35.1 42.1 181.6 186.1 .7 161.0 195 11.0 3.1 12.2 3.8 12.2 14.3 100.0 14.5 80.8 .3 41.8 100.0 11.5 12.1 0‘ M 36.9 39.5 fiQQfi 8883 2°83 C‘Ov-Otfl noun—o FOO-INF! 35.6 35.8 181.1 .8 11.2 31.5 35.6 '5 h N F. 0.3 2.4 -l.0 -0.4 51.4 38.9 39.4 1.9 4.2 2.6 1.5 2.1 31.4 .0 31.1 31.0 31.4 39.2 39.1 31.5 1.8 3.5 1.0 4.1 3.2 2.1 2.6 2.0 0.8 2.8 0.3 2.2 2.0 -l.5 -0.6 -1.0 -0.1 39.6 31.9 31.0 .6 .0 .9 31.9 31.3 .0 31.9 38.1 31.0 .3 35.8 39.5 31.4 31.2 38.8 0‘ 39.5 39.0 40.6 31.1 31.5 31.1 31.2 31.5 38.1 165.2 12.1 200.3 8.8 185.3 4.1 11.1 .6 .5 .2 13.6 12.0 80.5 84 80 64 39.2 40.4 31.1 39.1 22 35.5 24 35.3 14 35.2 35.1 34.9 90 1 15 11 90 1 31 90 1 28 -0.1 35.3 35.3 195.9 13.4 51.1 31.1 11 -1.9 -1.2 -1.3 -0.2 110.0 192.2 8.3 10.2 1.4 2.4 31.4 31.1 35.3 38.6 36.9 31.6 110.0 13.0 193.1 16.1 204.6 11.1 10.6 .1 31.0 21 31.3 31.6 31.1 18.3 88.2 10 34.1 3 1.0 1.5 2.2 1.9 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.3 -0.1 -1.2 -1.1 -1.6 .0 36.6 36.2 31.2 34.8 35.5 34.5 .6 31.8 34.8 31.8 35.8 ' 35.3 35.3 .3 36.4 .2 .2 36.9 31.3 192.0 96.8 11.6 115.1 1 10.8 8.1 .1 18.9 80.3 89 0 83 Qfiffi 8:3: ’03: '4th FIN” c-Oc-Oo-Oc-i (continued) APPENDIX D 34 'IO 36 I MB!!! (continued) It In my flour Outside Inside Outside Inside (I) 0 Mills To 1 (F) S (F) 118086 TCPL II (F). H Peak 0 16 II P 15 SI () 14 l is Mid-s Mid-l 12 L J Mind unanneunemmlg may“ (”attenuate “a pug- ”(.190 101. m; (WM (499 '1 Speed Direct. 8100 it) 8.8. G (t) i rap. (1') up. if) I 8 C 0 3.3 2.6 1.3 2.2 -0.1 31.5 .2 35.9 52.6 13.8 8.1 116.2 38.4 31.4 38.4 36.5 91.0 9.5 201.4 38.0 31.3 16 34.2 60119 90 1 3 1.1 -0.4 35.8 34.1 36.1 36.0 35.9 19.4 6 34.1 24 34.0 3.0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.5 -0.4 186.4 31.1 35.9 .8 31.2 31.6 31.1 36.2 31.1 35.5 38.3 8.8 12.1 9.1 1.9 6.6 80.5 90 1 14 1.6 3.6 2.8 3.4 4.3 0.6 2.8 2.3 35.1 36.5 34.6 35.1 .0 38.1 35.6 34.8 118.4 209.0 163.4 168.3 84.6 18.4 36.2 36.6 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 61.3 100.0 38.6 .1 39.3 31.5 .4 39.9 38.8 .1 39.4 40.4 40.5 39.0 39.0 .4 85.5 40.5 41.0 8 35.8 Q N 3.0 4.1 39.1 38.4 39.8 .6 94.1 36.3 4 35.1 15 35.6 n N 3.9 199.9 40.4 40.4 40.5 40.3 40.3 31.1 40.4 39.9 0.5 31.5 10.9 88.9 40.9 h N 36.1 38.2 36.3 36.3 38.5 31.2 1.3 2.9 1.6 38.3 161.6 11.2 200.5 16.5 208.6 10.6 18.1 6.3 39.2 2 12 21281 3.0 2.6 38.4 31.1 .0 38.6 -0.5 2.5 31.1 -0.3 2.3 40.0 38.5 154.6 1 N 38.1 31.1 31.2 39.5 41.1 40.2 35.5 3 35.4 20 35.4 1 fl N 4.3 5.3 2.6 4.0 3.8 2.4 2.1 -0.2 '1.5 -0.2 39.5 39.1 39.2 .9 31.9 39.8 .9 40.0 41.1 .4 43.0 155.1 201.1 42.5 d N 40.1 40.5 41.0 40.3 38. 5.4 39.2 as N 38.0 31.8 3.6 4.1 4.5 5.2 38.9 -1.5 -0.4 31.4 3.1 39.6 38.1 39.1 39.5 39.2 3.1 4.0 -0.9 -1.2 39.0 38.2 31.4 .8 40.5 39.4 .3 38.5 .3 0 5 5 0 5 .6 .5 .9 .4 .1 38.6 N 39. 40.5 1.9 201.1 38. 4.1 202.1 40.1 111.1 91.9 91.4 40.1 39. 8.6 100.0 40.1 6 34.5 5 34.3 ‘ N 39.1 39. 188.4 100.0 ‘ N 8 0.1 2.1 2 -0.1 AVG "U” MIMUS AVG ”T” = 9.1 4 6.1 16.2 3.8 'l'-UG'= .9 35.1 ”F'-"8” 1mm») (continued) APPENDIX D 39 no 41 1' 0013108 it 110 Day flour Outside Inside Outside Inside man (1') I (F) n MINUS TO 1 (F) S (F) (F) 110016 TCPL IV 11 Peak 0 16 P c: ::.1; a: 00-4 an 32'? 33 " a: 12 I! L 11 38 K '1“ neeuunuuumwla Wat“ (”nineteen AVG Pm- m-fo 1'ch AVG 15 1 Mind speed Direct. (IP11) (deg 1') u. (t) a R.H. (t) a tap. (F) 3 I 8 C 0 3.2 2.6 0.2 0.6 1.8 2.5 0.9 2.2 2.8 3.1 -0.3 41.6 .0 -0.4 43.3 40.4 42.1 43.0 42.2 41.8 42.3 42.9 .3 43.2 6.1 193.1 93.2 87.9 100.0 100.0 43.4 38.8 19 40.7 15 40.3 10 40.3 14 40.1 2 11 90 1 4 0.5 -0.5 43.8 43.2 40.0 44.8 43.3 152.0 199 14.0 43.1 90 1 16 90 1 30 90 1 21 40.0 40.5 39.1 _39.8 .9 .8 40.8 41.5 39.9 41.6 .6 12.0 34.9 41.6 41.3 -1.3 40.9 -1.9 -0.6 -1.2 0.4 -1.7 39.0 40.4 181.6 40.9 43.3 40.0 11.4 53.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.5 3.4 40.5 41.3 41.9 42.1 42.4 .7 43.1 .5 .4 41.3 42.8 13.6 201.6 11.9 194.1 .5 .2 82.8 12.6 42.4 3 Fl .3 .7 41.9 42.2 40.7 41.1 42.6 42.6 42.8 39.9 M II. 41.1 40.6 40.5 39.1 41.1 41.0 198.5 192.6 11.4 81.4 13.8 100.0 14.8 42.1 14 39.8 19 39.1 12 39.7 1 16 d 42.2 41.8 41.9 40.2 40.2 .1 42.1 7.3 4.5 56.7 100.0 41.6 '4 2.9 43.3 42.8 42.6 43.0 41.6 43.1 0.5 41.1 -0.6 188 9 43.5 ZLZS) 1.4 2.8 1.3 3.3 2.4 0.3 0.9 39.6 40.4 41.0 41.5 .4 41.6 42.6 41.2 13.3 204.9 4.9 183.6 17.2 .3 .7 .0 .3 81.0 53.4 70.7 40.9 13 39.5 14 39.5 23 39.4 3 9 1 23 1 F. 2.9 0.2 40.8 42.5 42.3 0.2 ~1.1 42.4 42.5 39.6 42.4 42.9 80.6 43.6 40.8 40.9 41.8 39.6 40.7 40.6 .6 .9 .3 39.9 156.0 .4 .6 81.0 37.8 41.1 42.1 -0.5 2.8 42.2 .0 .1 43.0 43.4 39.0 42.8 166.0 6.8 173.1 11.1 200.5 9.9 207.7 10.4 209.3 6.8 43.4 42.2 13 39.4 12 39.4 14 39.3 18 39.2 21 9 9 1 30 1.8 -0.1 -0.6 -0.5 41.1 41.1 41.8 41.9 42.2 41.4 39.6 39.1 39.0 39.7 39.2 41.4 40.8 40.5 2.5 2.2 1.2 40.3 40.7 41.8 -l.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 2.7 41.1 42.1 43.2 42.5 .0 91.9 75.9 41.8 3 F! 41.9 41.8 41.1 41.4 39.9 40.1 41.4 -1.3 -0.3 0‘ 41.1 40.9 .5 80.6 40.6 39.2 «3 0-0 40.4 40.1 .9 43.9 .6 42.1 39.6 41.5 41.5 42.1 40.5 9.1 192.1 .4 63.1 13 39.2 11 90 1 31 u-O 88888888888888 -0.8 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 41.8 -0.6 41.1 41.6 39.8 165.6 9.9 161.5 9.1 206.6 8.3 194.4 9.6 8.2 10.1 .1 .9 42.6 91.1 39.1 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.3 0.6 0.1 40.9 40.7 41.9 41.6 40.4 40.8 39.1 38.8 41.1 .7 .8 16.1 41.1 16 39.1 22 38.9 20 38.9 ... ("I H 51 39.5 40.5 39.1 40.5 41.0 41.1 41.1 40.8 40.4 v-I 41.3 41.2 40.8 41.4 39.4 39.5 41.0 41.1 .3 83.9 v-O 2.3 1.7 0.3 181.9 41.8 .1 41.2 42.0 40.1 40.2 40.4 41.0 41.9 81.8 41.6 38.1 0-4 N 0.5 42.6 41.0 41.1 41.4 41.6 -0.2 -0.4 41.1 41.9 181.6 12.8 201.4 43.2 78.3 41.1 10 41.2 8 41.3 20 38.1 1 Cd N 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.1 41.4 .3 42.4 42.8 41.6 43.2 42.1 93.5 91.1 43.1 N 42.3 -0.1 42.2 43.6 41.9 41.9 9.9 202.2 .1 3.8 43.8 Fl. N 39.1 39.1 39.6 38.8 39.8 -l.0 43.3 -0.8 40.1 39.4 .1 158 4.8 184.0 15.1 39.7 2 12 2.5 1.7 43.2 42.4 42.2 42.6 43.8 43.2 44.1 5 40.1 58 88888888 (continued) 1) APPENDIX mus To (F) (F) mx- i'pk-I'o new. no 13 n 15 16 n were new. av Mid-s Mid-ll sun In: Peak (1‘) (r) r 12 M8 11 38 wind nnnnnnununnnnwwlg Matures (Fltuttfltttt “a (lib) (dog I) Hind Speed Dimct. 11.11. (I) (3) tap. map. (F) (F) 39 IO 41 F OUTSIDE (continued) It 110 Day flour Outside Inside Outside Inside U S R 42.3 J 191.1 1 G I I E 2 40.5 1 A 8 C 0 90 2 22 90 2 22 90 2 5 90 2 12 90 2 12 90 2 22 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 -1.3 -0.3 41.9 42.1 43.2 41.5 42.3 42.0 42.7 42.5 9.1 10.1 11.0 73.6 .9 .9 .0 .2 61.0 44.5 42.6 42.6 41.3 42.3 41.7 42.2 -0.5 -2.6 41.7 9.9 199.6 11.6 210.1 18.0 178.8 11.5 185.1 10.1 11.2 44.0 40.4 1.3 1.3 0.2 2.8 2.0 41.8 41.1 41.2 41.2 40.1 38.8 41.4 41.3 42.7 41.2 41.9 19 40.1 21 0.5 -0.3 41.2 41.6 40.7 41.4 40.3 41.2 -0.9 -0.5 41.1 41.6 74.4 39.9 40.7 41.1 41.0 41.5 42.2 41.8 15.3 43.4 44.8 41.3 22 42.3 42.1 43.7 41.1 .5 42.2 42.6 -0.4 2.4 41.9 42.9 204.2 11.1 79.1 3 39.8 24 39.6 1.0 1.4 0.1 41.7 -1.1 40.6 42.1 40.8 42.0 42.4 40.8 190.0 .9 .7 67.2 43.6 2 21 90 90 2 1 1.9 1.5 2.8 3.2 1.8 0.7 41.8 41.4 41.6 42.6 41.3 40.5 41.0 41.5 -0.5 9.0 203.8 14.1 43.1 6 39.6 23 233() 40.6 40.3 41.8 39.7 40.9 39.9 40.1 -0.8 -1.4 -0.4 -0.7 INC "U” MIMUS BUG ”T" = 41.0 193.3 .8 .2 65.8 42.8 39.2 90 2 21 90 2 21 90 2 22 1.5 2.1 11.0 179.9 42.8 40.7 42.0 42.7 41.9 42.2 40.7 42.0 1.2 61.0 42.5 39.2 4 39.0 21 42.9 41.3 41.9 41.7 42.1 42.1 42.0 .6 9.3 208.2 10.6 71.6 43.4 41.6 70.6 79.0 2.6 "l”-”G"= .4 39.1 "F”-”E' AVERAGES>>> PEAK - 101. IV = Peak taperature ninus tiemowpie avenge tqnnture Ink-1'0 = quaeratum at the peak ninus outside teqerature I'CPI. AVG anus 1'0 = Average tint-oomph tneratune lines outside tqenture AVG $11016 = Average twentme for themcowies one through six APPENDIX E Simulation Barn Environment at Different Ventilation Opening Areas and Latent Heat Adjustments 231 ”omhn.=- 5.8 ”cm was.“ nm~_ °s¢m°=.° ~.e~ m..~ m.~- ...ss 2.. @.h~ ..~- m.=_ .m~. e_ m=.~..s "was”.e- s.o s.» mo_s.~ ms~_ ceases.= a.s~ =.s~ a.~- -..¢ a.. n.s~ ~.~- e.=~ .m~. a. . momsn.e- s.e a.» e_a.h ~s~_ _°¢no=.° o..~ s.s~ m.~- .°.==_ e.. =.t~ ~.~- ..e_ n__m a. m=._..s namtm.°- ~.o ~.a mess.” mews .ean=°.= m.m~ a.s~ s.~- ~n.eo a.. e.- ..~- m.=~ m._m °_ . mansn.=- “.2 n.» ”is.“ mmn_ _oan=°.= a..~ a.- _.m- »=.e°_ m.. s.- ..m- a.a _.h~. o. me._..s ammsn.c- s.@ s.» mim.~ m.n_ mm.M==.a a.n~ n.n~ a..- .°.=°_ m.. n.n~ a..- o.a _s.~_ as . nonsm.=- ~.m 5.” -o.s ~.n_ _mmn==.o m.- e..~ ...- ~°.°=_ n.. e..~ m..- a.a .~_. m m°._..s nomsm.°- ..m s.” h~m.s onm_ s~.n°°.° ~.n~ m..~ s..- ~=.ao o.. s..~ e..- =.s_ .~_. m . manin.=- h.“ ».s -a.. ”mm" semna=.= a.=~ m.n~ a..- .=.=°_ m.. ”.nN a..- «.9 “as. m m°._.=s namsn.=- a.“ s.s s~a.. ~.n~ no.n°°.= .._~ o..~ ...- .9.992 m.. a..~ ...- a.a “as. m . namsm.°- ~.m a.» h~m.s nn.. m¢.m°°.= ~.o s.a_ n.~- .s.ee~ ~.. a.¢_ ..h- ~.a mm-_ m m°._.=s nonsm.=- ~.m a.» e~o.a °~._ esMfi°°.e _.a m.m_ =.~- .=.°=_ ~.. ..mc 9.5- ~.a mn-~ m . "was”.e- ..m «as "a.“ o~m_ hmm~°°.= e.s_ =.- _.e- ~a.aa m.. ~._~ 9.2- °.=_ ass. a ma..=s namsm.=- ..m ”as as.“ e.n~ _m°M==.c a.a~ m.c~ ..e- »=.°°_ m.. ..=~ ..o- a.a cos. a . nomsn.°- ..m “we ”a.“ °.m~ mca~o=.e ~.~_ m.c~ ..m- .°.==_ m.. ..=~ ..o- a.a was. a ma..=s "smhn.=- ..m ”as ”a.” _mn~ sconcc.s °.~_ ¢.a_ a.e- .=.=°_ m.. “.mc a.m- a.m sea. a . mamsm.s- ..m ”as ne.~ e~cc n¢-=c.c ..m s.m~ _.a- .=.=°_ ~.. m.m_ ~.o- ”.5 ~e-~ a ma...s namsm.=- ..m ”as ms.h an._ .s¢~°°.° n.. =.m. ..m- ~=.ce_ c.. s..~ m.a- 9.0 =°-_ a . moms”.e- m.. «as was.“ sen" imm~os.= ..ei c.m_ s.~- ”c.2a m.. ~.s_ 8.5- ~.a eta” m- °a..¢a nomim.o- m.. «as was.“ sam_ -s~°=.° °.m~ a.s_ m.m- »=.°=_ m.. e.o_ “.m- m.a eta” m- . namin.=- 0.. ”as mas.“ ”sn_ Nim~==.° ..." m.h~ ".m- .e.o=_ ... ..s_ _.m- m.a as». m- c¢..=s manhn.c- m.. “as «no.. so._ mes~oc.e =.n~ =.m_ a.a- se.oec n.. «.m_ =.m- n.a «as. m- . nom.n.°- m.. “as one.“ .5." a.m~°c.= .._ n.~_ a.=c- .e.==~ =.. ~.- =._~- I.” ene__ m- as..=s mansn.=- m.. «as ana.. .=m_ _m-o=.c ..s- =.~_ e.-- «s.=°_ a.” a.=_ ..~_- a.» ons__ m- . 55.58 ...... n _. ...: 2:9. .4. .i u s so. a: .i u an... a; 1. ~23 gmmuzm 85:5 85.50 .5 mm...— agfi 33:5: SE am.— an." new: “.525 an... E 2.5— mg E .58. ma~m2~ az~x .=.¢ a¢¢p=m= mou mp=gomm¢ moo: pm as: an nu: .=.z mug ma~mz~ u=~m=~ p=u> aim: uaaa maumsao panned gamma—Eggnog mucosumcmoc use: acouoq can mound ocwcoao :Owuoafiuco> accumuuwo um ucoecouw>cm :uom cofiumasswm m XHOZMEB< 232 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 .999 999999.9 ..9. 9.9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 ..99 9999 99 . 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9... 9.9 99.999 9.. 9... 9.9 9.9 .9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9... 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 9.9 .9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 .999 999999.9 ..9. 9.9. 9.9 99 999 9.. ..9. 9.9 9.99 999. 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99 9 9999 999999.9 ..9. 9.9. 9.9 99.99 9.9 .... 9.9 9.99 999. 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.9. ..9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 9.99 9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 9999 9.9999.9 9.9. 9.9. 9.9 99.99 9.9 9.9. 9.9 9.99 9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.. 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.. 9.99 .9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.9. 9.. 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.. 9.99 .9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99.999 9.. ..99 9.. 9.99 999. 99 9 9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 ..99 9.99 9.9 99..9 9.9 9.9. 9.. 9.99 999. 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 9.9999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.9 9.99 9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99.99 9.. 9.9. 9.. 9.99 9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99 999 9.. ..99 9.9 9.99 .9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99 999 9.. ..99 ..9 9.99 .9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99.99 9.9 9..9 9.9 9.99 999. 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 9999 999999.9 9..9 9.99 9.9 99.99 9.9 9.99 9.9 9.99 999. 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9.99 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9 99.999 9.9 ...9 9.9 9.99 9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 9999 999999.9 ..99 9.99 9.9 99.99 9.9 9.99 9.9 9.99 9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.9- 9.99 .9999 99 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 .999 .99.99 9 ..99 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.9- 9.99 .9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 9999.9 9999 99..99.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99..9 9.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 99 99.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 9999.9 9999 999.99.9 9.99 ..99 9.9- 99.99 9.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 9999 99..99.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 9..99 9.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 9999 99 99.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 9999.9 9999 999.99 9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.99 9.9 9.99 ..9- 9.99 9999 99 . 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 9999 999.99.9 ..99 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.9- 9.99 .9999 99 99.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 999 .99.9 .999 .99.99.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9.. 9.99 9.9- 9.99 .9999 99 . 99999999999 99. 9 9 .99 9.9999 9 9 9 9 9999 999 9 9 9999. 999 9 999999 9529... 39mg mam—8 .E «H: .33.. P229599 an... amp E 899: 8.25 E an.— EE 2. E has 29.9.9: 8:: ...... .95—.5”: ~8 8.383 g SHEER! ...... a: new: 899: 5:. Eu: 8.: 83:5 EEK.— EE «2:. 598 E S— 9oesn9ucoo9 n 9992999: 233 9999999998.. 99999 9 99 999999999999 9999 99999999 999 999999 99 9999998999 99999999 999 99 998999999 999 9999999999 99.9.9: .9 .9999 99999999. 99.9 9999.9 99999999 9998999999 9.99999 99.9 899 9999999999 9999 u . .9 9999999 999 99999 99 9999 9999999 99 99999 999 9999 99 9999 99 99999 99 99.9.9999 899 8999 .9999 999.999.5999 9 99 9999999 999 99. 9999 9999959 99999999 9999999 9.99 9999 .9 .9999. 99999.9- 9.9, 9.9 999.9 9999 9999999 9.99 9.99 9.99 99.999 9.9 9.99 9999 9.99 999. 9. 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9.99 9999999 9.99 9.99 9.99 99.999 9.9 9.99 9.99 9.99 999. 9. . 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999.9999 9.9. 9.99 9.99 99.999 9.9 9.99 ..99 9.99 9999 9. 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9.99 9999999 9.99 ..99 9.99 99.999 9.9 9.99 9.99 9.99 9999 9. . 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 .99.9 9999 9999999 9.9. 9.9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 ..99 99999 9. 9.9.99 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 9999999 9.9. 9.9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. ..9 9.99 99999 9. . 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 9999 9999999 9.9. 9.9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 9.99 999. 99 9.9.99 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 9999 9.99999 9.9. ..9. 9.9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 9.99 999. 99 . 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 9999 999.9999 9.9. 9.9. ..9 99.999 9.. 9.9. 9.9 9.99 9999 99 9.9.99 99999-9998 99.. 9 ._ ..99 9.9999 9 9 9 9 9999 999 9 9 999... 999 9 999999 $539.99 mama—6 mam—8 .5 £99 986.. 9.98:5: any an... E ”an: mic—U an..." SE was— mg a .2»: mSmE 8:: ....z 959.59. ~8 2.389: 3 838.533 ....n a: 89m:— 855 5: .58. 8.3 Sum—.8 ES 999 999.9 9999 9.99.9999 999 9oesc9ucoo9 m x~ozmam¢ 234 999.9.9- 9.9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9..- 99.99 99.9 9.99 ..9- 9.99 999. 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 999 99.9 9.9 999999.9 9.99 9..9 ...- 99.99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 9999 99 99.9999 999.9.9- 9.9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9..- 99.99 99.9 ..99 9.9- 9.99 9999 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9..- 99.99 99.9 9..9 9..- 9.99 .9999 99 99.9999 99999.9- 9.9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 ..99 9..- 99.99 99.9 9..9 9.9- 9.99 .9999 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9. 99.99 .9.9 9.99 9..- 9.99 999. 99 99.9999 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 9.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9. 99.99 99.9 9.99 9..- 9.99 .99. 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 999 .99999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 9999 99 99.9999 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 9.9 999 .99999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9. 99.99 99.9 9.99 9..- 9.99 9999 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 ..99 9.9- 99.999 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9..9 99999 99 99.9999 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 .99.9 .999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 ..9- 9..99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 99999 99 9 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99..9 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 99.9999 99999.9- 9.9 ..9 999.9 999 99.999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 9 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9.99 ..9- 9..9 999. 9 99.9999 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 999 99.999.9 9.99 9.99 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 9 99999.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.9 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9..9 9.99 9.9- 9..9 99999 9 99.9999 999.9.9- 9.9 9.9 999.9. 9.99 999999.9 9.9 9.99 9.9- 99.999 9..9 9.99 9.9- 9..9 99999 9 9 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9..9 9.99 9.99- 9..99 99.9 9.99 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 99.999 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 ...9 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9..9 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 9 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.99- 99.99 99.9 9.99 ..9- 9.99 999. 9 99.999 99999.9- ..9 999 999.9 .999 .99999.9 9.99 ...9 9.9- 99.99 99.9 9..9 9.9- 9.99 999. 9 9 99999.9- ..9 999 99.9 9.99 999999.9 9.. 9.99 9.99- 99.999 99.9 9.99 9.99- 9..9 99999 9 99.999 999.9.9- ..9 999 99.9 9999 .99999.9 ..9 9.99 9.99- 99.999 9..9 9.99 9.99- 9..9 99999 9 9 999.9.9- 9.. 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.99 9.99 9.99- 99.99 99.9 9.99 9.99- 9.99 9999 9- 9.999 999.9.9- 9.. 999 9999.9 9999 999999.9 ..9 9.99 9.99- 99.999 99.9 9.99 9.99- 9..9 9999 9- 9 999.9.9- 9.. 999 999.9 9999 999999.9 9.9 9.99 9.99- 99..9 99.9 ..99 9.99- 9..9 999. 9- 9.999 99999.9- 9.. 999 9999.9 9999 .99999.9 9.9 ..99 9.99- 99.999 99.9 9.99 9.99- ...9 999. 9- 9 999.9.9- 9.. 999 .99.9 9999 .99999.9 9.9 9.9 9.99- 99.999 99.9 9.9 9.99- 9.99 99999 9- 9.999 999.9.9- 9.. 999 999.9 9999 9.9999.9 ..9- 9.9 9.99- 99.999 .9.9 9.9 9.99- ..99 99999 9- 9 99999999999 999 9 9 999 999999 9 9 9 9 9999 999 9 9 99999 999 999999 999999999 399 9999.98 9.9 99999 99999 99.999999 99999 999.9 99999 9999999 99999999 9999.9. 999.9 9.999 989 9999.9 .9999 999999 99999 .99.9 99999999 98 9.9999999 88 999999 9.9 9999 .999 9999 999999 999999 9.9999 .9999 99.99 9999.599 9999.999 999 999.9 9999 9.999999 999 9uusc9ucou9 m xHozmmm¢ 22355 m_w.a.=- ~.m p.” m¢_.. "ma m~9.m.o- ~.¢ a.» ¢~.h mma m_o.m.c- ~.m v.” ~.h mm¢ m_¢.~.°- ~.¢ u.» ~o_.. sha m_m.n.o- ..h «a» ~¢_.~ wma m_e.n.=- ... “an ¢a_.. 95¢ m_o.n.=- ... «a» ~¢..~ cog m_m.n.=- ..h “an mo_.s ago m~Q.n.c- ... ”an no~.. a_°~ m.c.n.°- ... “an ~=~.h ace. m~¢.fi.o- N.“ as» ~o_.~ .og m_m.n.o- s.“ .sa ~a_.~ 5mg m_¢.n.e- 5.5 “ha ~o~.. “cm m_m.n.°- ~.~ ”ha _a_._ sow m_c.m.o- 5.. “so ~.~ .ma m_¢.n.=- 5.“ ”Na ¢m~.~ .am m_m.n.=- M.” a.» nm~.~ .oa m_o.n.°- m.. a.» na_.~ an m_e.m.=- m.. a.” Ma_.~ am; m_c.n.o- m.~ ..a mag.“ _ma m_m.n.o- m.” p.» ~.~ ”ma m_m.n.=- m.” w.» ~a_.. maa m_¢.n.=- a.“ »_a ad.“ m.a m_m.m.=- a.“ a- a~_.~ mna m_m.n.e- «.5 a.» ad.“ a.o m_w.”.=- a.“ »_m ma_.. ”mm m_¢.n.=- a.“ ,_a ma_.~ 95m m.m.n.=- a.“ ,_a .¢_.~ cam m_m.n.=- 5.5 .~¢ am_.. who p=u_u~mhuoo cg. u . .ng uvmaoc.c mmnacc.e n~ma=c.c mnnmco.e womsoc.c cvc~ce.e moo~ee.e cmvhoe.o n~m~==.c c—wsoo.= c-9=c.c ~c~ooc.e ounoec.c ~=~occ.e ~m~oco.c n~c¢ao.o cm~moc.o voavoo.e on~mco.o omovco.c -_moo.e vnovcc.o ~n~vcc.o -mnco.o mm—vco.o «conco.c scfivca.o ovmnco.c cannoo.o nma >hmaux== mzma ma~m=~ =z~3 .=.~ a¢¢h=m= may uh=aomm¢ moo: Aomacqucoov a... a.” ”o.¢o ~M.~ m.a. ~.m =.¢~ nm~m a. _._.=a ~.o. _.a um._o ~..~ ~.a. m.o ~.o_ nm~n a. . o.o. _.a .°.e°_ ~=.~ ~.o. N.“ ..m_ oa~n_ a. _._.=a m.o. °.a ._.~o mg.“ ..s. a.» ¢.m_ ma~fi_ a. . n... a.m “n.6m mg.“ a... ~.. ..m_ mm”. on .....a m.n. ..m .m.~o ~_.~ ~.n. 9.. c.m~ on”. ma . n... ¢.m -.am _=.. a... a.“ n.m~ .-m an _._.=a ..n. ”.0 .~.na n_.~ ..m. ..h m.m_ -~n an . m.~. $.m .=.°°_ -.¢ ~.~. o.m u..~ ma_M~ an _.~.=d ~.m. ~.c .=.=o_ -.o ..n. n.» a.._ .m_n~ an . $.sn ”.n .~.m¢ ~n.. ..o. o.. $.md an". an _._.=3 “.5” ¢.~ 09.99 mm.“ aha. =.m ".9" h-m an . a..n ~.n ...em “N.“ “.9. m.. $.m_ -~n an _._.=a _.~n a.~ «c.9a an.“ a.=. a.“ ".9. h-m an . c.5n ~.n .=.=°_ so.» _.¢n ..n ~.m. ..m_n~ a” _._.=a a.mn h.~ .m.ca ”a.“ ¢.¢n a.n ..m_ .¢_n~ a" . n.nn 5.: ,~._¢ "a.” =.mm ~.~ a.m~ an”. m~ ~.~.=a m.~n ".9 .a..a ...” a.mn ~.~ ~.m. «an. m~ . ~.nn “.9 .~.~a ¢~.~ “.mn ~.~ ¢.m_ -~m m~ _.~..a m.~n ”.9 ”o.ma ofl.s w.mn ¢.~ “.9. -~m m~ . _.nn 9.: ”o.¢o .m.o «.mn a.e _.m_ .¢.n_ n~ "...ga n.~n ~.= »_.na ma.“ n..n n._ ..m_ .¢~n~ mN . ..aN °.~- .a.~m .m.. n._n ..c- ..9" an". =~ ~._.=4 m.- ..~- .~._m “c.” ~.~m ".9 ~.o_ an”. °~ . ..QN =.~- .°.aa m..~ °._n o.a- n.o_ -~m a~ _.~.=a m.- m.~- »_.~a “0.. a._n 6.9- ¢.m_ .-n QN . ~.c~ ".N- «c.5a ~_.~ a.a~ a..- o.m~ .a_n~ =~ _.~..d ...~ o.~- ...co ¢~.~ m.a~ n..- $.m_ .._fi~ =~ . ...~ ...- ...oa mg.“ ~.- ~.~- ¢.m_ an". n. m=._.=a . u . “=0: mum h u m\~<. =\. mu=¢=u “gm“ “guy u=_m=~ mu=¢=u “gm“ .zuh mpg: ”we; azuh an». x E a a: ...... 5.. 85: man: 5, 5.. 8.. 858 .55 2:: «may sumo ”kahuna «on m XHDZNQQ< 236 .m.-.=- ..m "a. ma.“ ... ....oo.° ..o ... ..~.- ....» .~.°. .... m...- n.-- mea. e na..=. ma.-.=- ..m a.» ....“ .o. «......o ~.m n.m n.~.- ...". m.... ..9. 0...- ..-- mam. a ae.-.e- ..m a.» .na.m .aa c...co.c ~.n ..m ..~.- ....m ...a ..m m.~.- n..~- ...~_ g ma..=. a».-.=- ... “a. ”a.“ go» «......o o.~ n.a m.~.- ...... ...m ..a ..N.. n..~- ec.~. a ma.-..- ... ”om n... a.” .~..°°.= ..o a.“ m.... ....o ...m m... o.n.- N..~- ..9" m- o..=. ca.-..- m.. ”am ”No.” °~a mom.oc.o ..n ... 9...- ...... mm.a ... ....- a.c~- a... n- wa.-.=- m.. ”cm ”N... N.» ¢~..°°.= m.m a.m m...- ~a..m a... n.. ..n.- ...~- a... a- a..=. ma.-.o- m.. “cm .~°.o n~a ...9... ... ... ....- «9.... ...m ..9 ~...- ..o~- a... n- a¢.-..- n.. “cm ”.... .nm ...9... n..- ..n 9...- .0.... c~.a ... ....- ~.e~- an... m- a..=. mm.-.c- ... ... no... ... .Nn.°o.° ~.~- m.. 9...- ...co. w..m ... ~.m.- a.a.- on... n- .zu.u...uoo :35 . a an. n mpg“ pzm> nzmzzzon magma N..N NN.N NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N N..NN NN.N NN..N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N. NN.N N..NN NN.N NN.NN NN.N NNN.N N.N NNNNNN NNN. NNNNNN NNNNNN ~n.~ mc-mn.m nv.c mc.~ nfiecc.c ma.= so.n a~cc=.= m~.~ ~o.o "nece.o .N.N mm.a ~vooe.c o~.m q~.n~ mmooo.e “N.. om.a~ .mece.e «v.9 av.o~ o-cc.e on.n o~.nm hmfiac.e co.=~ mm.mn aa~oe.o om.~_ NNN.- NNN.N NNN NNN NNN.N-5N NNNNNNN oauw ca mx=m mag: pzm> a_az= pzmuummmmoo uaammumm aczzmp=~ mpgzmpm =2: zmmzum h~amm .N muuzzsu mac: nznnzzon ¢~.m~ on.nw cs.m~ v~.n~ vs.m~ c~.m~ on.m~ vs.n~ vh.m~ v~.m~ ~¢m w u>¢u w mmou Eben mug—58mg mama—Um:— =~§m> 2.83m: 5.58;: .58 .58 .88 m8“. Emu Ema 95mg”... nzH3m= uzmzmmo uz~=mmo m~¢ an: «H: mmmm pxm «mum hxu zmum hxu mama sum 92—3 :2": aczzmhz~ Agm¢¢ pagan pmmmom zuam op ~ mean: azc kahuna mz~¢hzoo zoahnaoa m_=h mo=~m> Hawo ocm muasmwm coflumasoamo ucmfiowuuwoo whommwum HmcuwucH mamficm U xHozmmm< A15: 815: C15: 015: E15: F15: 615: H15: 115: J15: K15: L15: M15: N15: 015: P15: 015: R15: 515: T15: [W9] 244 Appendix G (continued) First row cell values -O.22488 [W8] 13.4 30 0.6 -0.4 -O.2 -0.2 [W9] +815*(DlS-AlS)/@SQRT(@ABS(DIS-A15)) [W9] +815*(B15-A15)/@SQRT(@ABS(E15-A15)) [W9] +BlS*(PIS-A15)/@SQRT(@ABS(F15-A15)) 0.65 [W11] 0.65 [W7] [W7] [W9] (F2) (F2) (F2) [W8] (F2) 9.32 23.74 9.32 [W9] +K15*M15*H15' [W11] +L15*N15*115 [W9] +K15*015*J15 +P15+Q15+R15 [W7] (@ABS(Q15)/7850)*3600 LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Albright, Louis D. 1978. Airflow Through Baffled, Center- Ceiling Slotted Inlets. Transactions of the ASAE. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. 21(5): 944-952. Albright, Louis D. 1990. Environmental Control for Animals and Plants. ASAE Technical Publication. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1990. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work Environment. Adopted by ACGIH for 1990. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH. Andersen, Karl T. 1987. Investigation of Condensation in Uninsulated Livestock Buildings. In: Latest Deve10pments in Livestock Housing. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. ASAE Standards. 1995. Design of Ventilation Systems For Poultry and Livestock Shelters. ASAE EP-270.S, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 42nd ed. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. ASAE Standards. 1990. Standards, Engineering Practices and Data Adopted by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 37th ed. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. ASHRAE. 1989. Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. ASHRAE. 1981. Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. 245 246 Bartussek, H. 1989. Natural Ventilation by Thermal Buoyancy and by Outside Convection: Practical Application of Natural Ventilation Systems With Chimneys and Breathing Ceilings. In: Agricultural Engineering: Vol. 2 Agricultural Buildings. Dodd, V. A., and P. M. Grace (eds.). Commission Internationale du Génie Rural, Balkema, Rotterdam. 2: 1299-1304. Bickert, W. G. 1994. Designing Dairy Facilities to Assist in Management and to Enhance Animal Environment. Dairy Systems for the let Century. Proceedings of the Third International Dairy Housing Conference, Orlando, February 2-5, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Bickert, W. G. and R. R. Stowell. 1993. Design and Operation of Natural Ventilation Systems in Dairy Free Stall Barns. Livestock Environment IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Livestock Environment Symposium, Coventry, July 6-9, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Bickert, W. G. Extension Agricultural Engineer, Michigan State University. 1992. Interview by author. 29 October, Michigan State University, Michigan. Bickert, W. G. and R. R. Stowell. 1990. Experiences With Natural Ventilation in Michigan and Elsewhere. Paper No. 904553. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Bickert, W. G. and T. H. Herdt. 1985. Environmental Aspects of Dairy Calf Housing. Continuing Education Article. Michigan State University. 7(5): 8309- S316. Bottcher, R. W., D. H. Willits, and G. R. Baughman. 1986. Experimental Analysis of Wind Ventilation of Poultry Buildings. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. 29(2): 571-578. Brannigan, P. G. and J. B. McQuitty. 1971. The Influence of Ventilation on Distribution and Dispersal of Atmospheric Gaseous Contaminants. Canadian Agricultural Engineering. 13(2): 69-75. Brockett, Betty L. 1986. A Control Model for Natural Ventilation Systems in Agricultural Buildings. Masters Thesis. Cornell University. Brockett, B. L. and L. D. Albright. 1987. Natural Ventilation in Single Airspace Buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 37: 141-154. 247 Bruce, J. M. 1974. Wind Tunnel Study: Suckler Cow Building. Farm Building Progress. October, 38: 15-17. Bruce, J. M. 1975. A Computer Program for the Calculation of Natural Ventilation Due to Wind. Farm Building Research and Development Studies. November, 1975. Bruce, J. M. 1977. Thermal Buoyancy: A Comparison of Theory and Experiment. Farm Building Progress. 47(1): 23-25. Bruce, J. M. 1978. Natural Convection Through Openings and Its Application to Cattle Building Ventilation. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 23: 151-167. Bruce, J. M. 1987. The Environmental Requirements of Livestock. Agricultural Engineer. 42(4) pp 137-140. Bruce, J. M. 1988. The Theory and Application of Natural Ventilation to Livestock Housing. Third International Conference on Housing and Environment for Livestock. Pig Research Institute, Taiwan. Bruce, J.M. 1992. Letter From J.M. Bruce to Richard Tillotson, 10 January. Original in the Hand of Richard Tillotson, RR2, Crookston, MN. Campbell Scientific. 1989. CRIO Measurement and Control Module Operator's Manual. Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah. Choiniére, Y., J. A. Munroe, and A. S. Tremblay. 1990. Control Strategy For Sidewall Openings of Cold, Modified and Warm Environment Dairy Housing. Paper No. 90-4557. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI. CIGR. 1984. Report of Working Group on Climatization of Animal Houses. Commission Internationale du Génie Rural, Published by the Scottish Farm Building Investigation Unit, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen. CIGR. 1992. Climatization of Animal Houses. Second Edition. Center for Climatization of Animal Houses - Advisory Services, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, State University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. Clark, P. C. and J. B. McQuitty. 1987. Air Quality in Six Alberta Commercial Free-Stall Dairy Barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering. 29(1): 77-80. 248 Curtis, Stanley E. 1983. Environmental Management in Animal Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Curtis, S. E. and J. G. Drummond. 1982. Air Environment and Animal Performance. In: Handbook of Agricultural Productivity. M. Recheigl (ed.). C.R.C. Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 2: 107-118. Curtis, Stanley E. 1972. Air Environment and Animal Performance. In: Journal of Animal Science. 35(3): 628-634. American Society of Animal Science, Champaign, IL. DeShazer, J. A. and D. G. Overhults. 1982. Energy Demand in Livestock Production. Livestock Environment II. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. pp 17-27. Diesch, Mark A. and D. P. Froehlick. 1987. Production and Environmental Simulations in Livestock Housing. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 87-4514. Down, M. J., T. A. McMahon and G. J. Redding. 1985. The Design of Livestock Buildings For Natural Ventilation: The Theoretical Basis and a Rational Design Method. Agricultural Engineering Report No. 73/85. University of Melbourne. Parkville, Australia. Dunklin, Edward W. and T. T. Puck. 1947. The Lethal Effect of Relative Humidity on Air-borne Bacteria. In: Journal of Experimental Medicine. 87: 87-101. Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Baltimore. Ehrlemark, A. and K. sallvik. 1990. Calculation of the Heat and Moisture Dissipation From Cattle. ASAE Paper No. 90-4068. St. Joseph, MI. Emswiler, J. E. 1926. The Neutral Zone in Ventilation. American Society of Heating and Ventilation Engineers. 32:59-63. Esmay, Merle L. and John E. Dixon. 1986. Environmental Control for Agricultural Buildings. AVI, Westport, CN. Fabian, E. E. and L. D. Albright. 1982. Natural Ventilation of Livestock Buildings Using Solar Chimneys. ASAE Paper No. 82~4041. St. Joseph, MI. 249 Flatt, W. P., L.A. Moore, N. W. Hoozen, and R. D. Plowman. 1965. Energy Metabolism Studies With a High Producing Lactating Cow. Journal of Dairy Science. 48: 797. Fogle, F. F. 1925. Why Ventilate Farm Barns and How. Michigan Quarterly Bulletin. 8(1): 20-26. Fujita, Sekai. and M. Nara. 1993. The Heat Balance Characteristics of Roof Materials in Livestock Building. Livestock Environment IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Livestock Environment Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Harrigan, Timothy M. 1985. Moisture Related Deterioration of the Wood Truss System: A Survey of Naturally Ventilated Dairy Barns in Michigan. Masters Thesis. Agricultural Engineering Department, Michigan State University. Hartung, J. 1994. Environment and Animal Health. In: Livestock Housing, Ch. 2. C. M. Wathes and D. R. Charles (eds.). Wellingford: CAB International. Hellickson, Mylo A. and J. N. Walker. 1983. Ventilation of Agricultural Structures. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI. Hoxey, R. P. 1984. Design Wind Loads for Closed Farm Buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 29: 305-311. Iqbal, M. and A.K. Khatry 1977. Wind-Induced Heat Transfer Coefficients from Glasshouses. Transactions of ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. 1977: 157-160. Jalvingh, A. W. 1992. The Possible Role of Existing Models in On-farm Decision Support in Dairy Cattle and Swine Production. Livestock Production Science, 31: 351-365. Janni, K. A. and K. M. Bussmann. 1983. Development of Transport Phenomena Equations Describing Summer Natural Ventilation in Livestock Buildings. Scientific Journal Series of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station on Research Paper No. 13,206. St. Paul, MN. Janni, K. A. and K. M. Bussmann. 1984. Transport Phenomena Equations for Describing Natural Ventilation in Livestock Buildings. ASAE Paper No. 84-4530. St. Joseph, MI. 250 Lapedes, D. N., ed. 1978. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Technical Terms. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, London. Leahey, G.M., J. B. Holter, and W. E. Urban Jr. 1972. Energy and Protein Utilization and Forages Fed to Dry Cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 56: 587-591. Lidwell, O. M. and E. J. Lowbury. 1949. The Survival of Bacteria in Dust. II. The Effect of Atmospheric Humidity on the Survival of Bacteria in Dust. In: Journal of Hygiene. 48(6): 21-27. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Macdonald, Angus J. 1975. Wind Loading of Buildings. Table 3.6. Pressure Coefficients for Pitch Roofs of Rectangular Clad Buildings. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Malecki, J., S. Gorski, C. TuPaj, M. Lazoryszczak. 1993. Effect of Gravity Ventilation Facilities Control on the Microclimate Condition in Home Stockfarm Buildings. Proceedings of the Fourth International Livestock Environment Symposium, Coventry, ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. Matheson Gas Products. 1990. Kitagawa Gas Detector TUbe System Handbook, Chicago. MBMA. 1986. Low Rise Building Systems Manual. Metal Building Manufacturers Association, Inc. 1230 Keith Building, Cleveland, Ohio. Michigan Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 1991. Annual Summary of Production Records. Michigan DHIA, Lansing, MI. Moe, P. W. 1981. Energy Metabolism of Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 64: 1120. MWPS-l. 1987. Structures and Environment Handbook. Midwest Plan Service. Iowa State university, Ames, IA. MWPS-33. 1989. Natural Ventilating Systems for Livestock Housing. Midwest Plan Service. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Newberry, C. W. 1974. Wind Loading Handbook. Department of the Environment. Building Research Establishment. London. 251 Noble, W. C. 1969. The Evidence for Airborne Infection. In: Aerobiology--Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. I. H. Silver (ed.). Academic Press, New York, NY. Quille, T. J., J. B. McQuitty, and P.C. Clark. 1986. Influence of Manure-Handling Systems on Heat and Moisture Loads in Free-Stall Dairy Housing. Canadian Agricultural Engineering. 28(2): 175-181. Sachs, Peter. 1978. Wind Forces in Engineering. Pergamon Press Inc., New York. Sallvik, K. G. 1981. The CIGR Work for Climatization in Animal Houses. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 81-4059. Scott, N. R., J. A. DeShazer, and W. L. Roller. 1983. Effects of the Thermal and Gaseous Environment on Livestock. In: Ventilation of Agricultural Structures. Mylo Hellickson and John Walker (eds.). Monograph No. 7, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 49085-9656. Shepherd, D. G. 1965. Elements of Fluid Mechanics. Harcourt, Brace, and World. New York. Sherman, M. H. 1980. Air Infiltration in Buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California at Berkley. Shrestha, G. L. and C. O. Cramer. 1984. Simulation of Ventilation by Thermal Buoyancy in an Enclosed Building. ASAE Paper No. 84-4026. St. Joseph, MI. Shrestha, Ganesh, C Cramer, and B. J. Holmes. 1990. Wind Induced Natural Ventilation of an Enclosed Building. Paper Number 904001. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Sinden, F. W. 1978. Wind, Temperature, and Natural Ventilation -- Theoretical Considerations. Energy and Buildings. No. 3 pp. 275—280. Smith, R. A., J. B. McQuitty, and J. J. R. Feddes. 1980. Heat and Moisture Loads in Dairy Barns. CSAE, Ottawa, ON. Songer, Joseph R. 1966. Influence of Relative Humidity on the Survival of Some Airborne Viruses. In: Applied Microbiology. 14(1): 35-42. American Society for Microbiology, Baltimore, MD. Strom, J. S. and Anne Feenstra. 1980. Heat Loss From Cattle, Swine, and Poultry. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 80-4021. 252 Swinbank, W. C. 1963. Long Wave Radiation from Clear Skies. Royal Meteorological Society Quarterly Journal. 89(381): 339-348. Tamura, G. T. 1979. The Calculation of House Infiltration Rates. ASHRAE Transactions. 85: 58-71. Thompson, H. J. 1957. Influence of Humidity and Wind on Heat Loads Within Dairy Barns. University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 618. Columbia, MO. Thompson, H. J. and R. E. Stewart. 1952. Heat and Moisture Exchange in Dairy Barns. Agricultural Engineering. 33(4): 201-206. Timmons, M. B. and G. R. Baughman. 1981. Similitude Analysis of Ventilation by the Stack Effect From an Open Ridge Livestock Structure. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. 24(4): 1030-1034. Timmons, M. B., R. W. Bottcher and G.R. Baughman. 1984. Nomographs for Predicting Ventilation by Thermal Buoyancy. Transactions of the ASAE. 27(6): 1891- 1893. Timmons, M. B. 1990. How Does Natural Ventilation Work and Why. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 904551. Turner, L. W., C. M. Wathes, and E. Audsley. 1993. Dynamic Probabilistic Modelling of Respiratory Disease in Swine, Including Production and Economic Effects. Livestock Environment IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Livestock Environment Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956. Summary of Hourly Observations: Lansing, Michigan. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. USDA, 1974. Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. Forest Products Laboratory, USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 72. Wathes, C. M. and D. R. Charles., ed. 1994. Livestock Housing. Ch. 6, Air and Surface Hygiene, by C. M. Wathes. Wellingford: CAB International. Webster, Wright, Visher, Yeck, R. 253 A. J. F. 1973. Heat Loss From Cattle With Particular Emphasis on the Effects of Cold. in: Heat Loss From Animals and Man...Assessment and Control. J. L. Monteith and L. E. Mount (eds.). Proceeding of the 20th Easter School in Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham, London, Butterworths. D. N., G. D. Bailey, and L. J. Goldberg. 1969. Effect of Temperature on Survival of Airborne Mycoplasma Pneumonia. In: Journal of Bacteriology. 99(2): 491-495. American Society for Microbiology, Baltimore, MD. Stephen Sargent. 1966. Climates of the United States. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS. G. and R. E. Stewart. 1959. A Ten-Year Summary of the Psychroenergetic Laboratory Dairy Cattle Research at the University of Missouri. Transactions of the ASAE. 2: 71-77. Zhang, J. S., K. A. Janni, and L. D. Jacobson. 1989. Modeling Natural Ventilation Induced by Combined Thermal Buoyancy and Wind. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. 32(6): 2165-2174. "I(Willi(lifllflllllr