The purpose of this study is to infer an acceptable range of thermal comfort for Japanese people during summer season with a view to the energy conservation in buildings. From September to October, 1984 six college-age Japanese males were exposed for 2.5 hours under seven different conditions in the Waseda University environmental test chamber so as to determine the effects of humidity on thermal and comfort sensations. The results analyzed from the 42 experiments in total are discribed. Fig. 1 shows plan and section of the test chamber. The volume of the test chamber is 19.2 m^3 and floor area is 8.5 m^2. Ceiling and right side wall panels have 5 cm thick air spaces behind the panels. Table 1 shows design specification of the chamber to attain hot and humid summer conditions. Room air temperature can be varied between 20℃ and 39℃ and absolute humidity between 8 g/kg and 27 g/kg. Maximum air change rate is about 100 h^<-1>. The scheme of the air conditioning system is shown in Fig. 2. Table 3 shows the test conditions and the deviation from the set point temperatures and humidities which were measured during actual experiments. Subjects wore almost the same clothings and the mean clo value was 0.45. The mean radiant temperature was equal to the air temperature and air velocity in the occupied zone around 0.25 m/s. Subjects were sitting on the chairs against the air movement direction. Antropometric data for the subjects are listed in Table 2. Fig.3 shows the experimental plan. At the beginning of the test (1) weight, (2) body temperature at armpit, (3) heart beat, blood pressure, (4) skin blood flow were measured. Every five minutes skin temperatures, room air temperature, humidity and room surface temperatures were measured. Remeasuring the above four items at the end of the test, thermal sensation and comfort sensation were asked to be answered as shown in Table 4. Modified temperature (MT) defined as the air temperature of 50 %rh, 0.1 m/s mean air velocity, 0.6 clo, 1.0 met and mean radiant temerature equaled to the air temperature, which would provide the same thermal sensation as under the actual thermal condition was used for data analyses. MT was calculated by Fanger's comfort equation. Fig. 5 shows experimental results of thermal sensation vote. There is no significant difference between 60 %rh and 80 %rh at the air temperature of 25℃. The difference of about 0.7 in thermal sensation vote was found between 40 %rh and 80 %rh at the air temperature of 28℃ and also about 0. 7 difference between 40 %rh and 60 %rh at 31℃. It was found that higher the temperature greater the difference in thermal sensation vote. This is considered to be caused by difference in humidity. In Table 5 the calculated regression equation for the estimated mean thermal sensation vote by Waseda collegeage Japanese male subjects is given as a function of modified temperature. The results with American collegeage male subjects and Danish college-age male subjects are also shown for comparison. Correlation coefficient between modified temperature and thermal sensation for all observations (n=42) was 0.807 and that for the mean of six subjects was 0.968. It was found that thermal sensation has a good relation to the modified temperature. The temperature corresponding to the neutral mean vote can be determined by substituting Y=4 (neutral) into each regression equation. The calculated results for different groups are given in Table 6. Fig. 6 shows the mean thermal sensation vote versus modified temperature for Waseda college-age Japanese male subjects, Danish college-age male subjects and American college-age male subjects. The regression line for Waseda subjects is found very similar to the one for Americans. The mean themal sensation vote versus ET for Waseda college-age Japanese male subjects is shown in Fig. 7. Correlation coefficient between ET and thermal sensation vote for the mean

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

James Gibbs (1682-1754) was one of most important British architects of the eighteenth century. He was also famous as a writer on architecture, and published three books, the second of which was the "Rules for Drawing the Several Parts of Architecture, in a More exact and easy manner than has been heretofore practised, by which all Fractions in dividing the principal Members and their Parts, are avoided" of 1732. The title suggested that the methodology of proportioning classical orders was the most significant feature of his book. Although the book was taken up by Rudolf Wittkower and Wolfgang Herrmann, in relation to the discussions on evolution of the dividing method in England during the eighteenth century, their arguments seem far from satisfactory, since they completely neglected Gibbs's own comments on his method. Moreover, the comparison made by Wittkower and Herrmann of Gibbs's "Rules for Drawing" with other contemporary works such as Claude Perrault's "A Treatise of the Five orders of Columns in Architecture" of 1683 (English edition in 1708 and 1722) does not seem adequate either. The present author holds that Gibbs's method of proportioning the orders and its relation to the whole system of proportion have not so far been examined to the minutest details. The present paper is to inquire into Gibbs's principles of his dividing method and consists of the following five sections : #1. Outline-of the "Rules for Drawing" #2. Method of Proportioning the Orders #3. Proportional System of Five Orders #4. Method of Dividing the Arches and Doors #5. Comparisons of Gibbs with Perrault Two thirds of the text and plates of the "Rules for Drawing" are assigned to architectural orders. Gibbs mainly deals with the proportional system of orders and the method of proportioning. As a result of his studies of the architectural books of Italian Renaissance, he intended to avoid the fractional numbers in the division of orders. In Gibbs's method, the heights and projections of components of the order are generally obtained by dividing the given length into several equal units (Figure 1 and Tables 1, 2). The 'principal parts' are at first proportioned and then divided into the 'essential parts', and finally the essential parts are sub-divided into the 'members'. Two factors of his method are important : the dividing number and the divided ratio. The dividing number is a number into which a part is divided in height and projection. As a result of the division, a component can be measured by its ratio to another component. This is the divided ratio. The ratio is a combination of integral numbers, the sum of which is equal to dividing number (Table 1, A). The idea of 'the method of dividing the orders Mechanically into equal parts' seems to be well materialized here. But there are cases where the sum of integral number which the ratio consists of is not equal to the dividing number (Table 1, B and C), because the measurements of components are taken by adding the unit of the first division to that of another division. In such cases, the measurement is not divided mechanically. Thus, Gibbs's method of proportioning the orders contains two contradicting approarches. It is possible to transform the latter method into the former, but the dividing number becomes larger. Therefore, Gibbs must have introduced the second method in order to keep the dividing numbers small and the divided ratios various. The dividing numbers in Gibbs's system are smaller than ten and Gibbs always adopted two or three for the vertical division (Table 3). As for the horizontal division they are below ten and two is usually taken. There is no apparent rule in their usage, except that the first stage of division begins with five for all the orders and the maximum numger is used in

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)