ASHRAE Journal - January 2022 - 56

TECHNICAL FEATURE
Faber had studied the historic issues by reviewing parliamentary
records on previous investigations, including
reports relating to the studies by Hill, Bedford and the
NPL. In a lecture given at the Institution of Structural
Engineers in February 1949, Faber noted that the historic
approach to the supply of air led to continual complaints
about " hot heads and cold feet, " an issue, which despite
a large number of investigations, was never resolved.24
He said that " arguments might have continued indefinitely
had not Hitler provided the opportunity for a
radical solution. " 25
The original drawings, held at the Parliamentary
Archives in Westminster,26 show that Faber had abandoned
the historic practice of introducing fresh air
through perforated floors and replaced it with a system
of high-level outlets, which he believed would provide
adequate ventilation without exposing MPs to drafts.
One set of outlets, situated below the gallery, was introduced
to inject fresh air horizontally at mid-level. The
second set, located along the edge of the ceiling, was
introduced to supply conditioning air to the top half
of the chamber. He also proposed alternating the supply
from side to side, arguing that it would be " conducive
to alertness " and prevent " any portion of the
anatomy being subjected to a constant air current in any
direction. "
Faber admitted that his concepts needed to be verified
and refined experimentally, and he advised engaging
the MRC and NPL to conduct the studies under his
supervision. In an earlier letter to the Ministry, dated
June 29, 1944, Faber had provided a sketch and detailed
specifications for these experiments27 (Figure 6). He
proposed erecting a life-size section of the bottom half of
the chamber, noting that it was only necessary to study
the effect of the lower outlets below the gallery, which,
due to their relative proximity to the benches on the
principal floor, were more likely to cause discomfort
than the higher outlets inside the ceiling. He wrote that
the purpose of the tests was to simulate the behavior
of the currents and determine how they affected MPs
seated on the main floor, taking into account a range of
velocities (from 300 fpm to 600 fpm [1.5 m/s to 3 m/s])
and temperatures (0°F to 15°F [0°C to 8.3°C] below the
inside temperature).
Responding to advice by Stradling,28 however, the
Ministry of Works insisted that the tests were designed
and delivered by scientists.29 In a letter sent to Eric de
56
ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.o rg
J A N U A RY 2022
Norman, Secretary of the Ministry of Works, on July 31,
1944, he had warned that the engineers should not be in
charge of designing their own experiments, and instead
advised assigning this responsibility to a panel of scientists
from the Department for Scientific and Industrial
Research (DSIR), ensuring the empirical tests are both
scientifically reliable and under an authority independent
from the engineers. He wrote that they " should
be asked to advise on the best type of experiment and
not requested to carry out detailed measurements laid
down by an amateur on research. " 30 In a note to the
Secretary of the MRC dated August 14, 1944, Dr. Reginald
Stradling, Chief Scientific Adviser on Research and
Experiments to the Ministry of Home Security, wrote
that, " the direct responsibility " should be with the engineers
and should not be undermined by the Ministry,
but at the same time the Ministry has the " duty to parliament
in seeing that they have before them a scheme
which promises to be as effective and suitable as experience
and modern science can devise. " 31
This critique is significant as it acknowledges that the
project could only be delivered through a wider collaboration
with other disciplines. It acknowledges building
science and building services engineering as separate
disciplines, offering different, yet complementary
skills, perspectives and body of knowledge. A team of
physicists from the NPL, which collaborated closely with
engineers at the Ministry of Works, was charged with
planning and delivering the experiments, and Bedford
from MRC was reengaged to evaluate the scheme from a
physiological perspective, focusing on thermal comfort
as a design criteria.
The design of the tests was subsequently reviewed by
a panel composed of staff from the Ministry of Works
and the scientists from the MRC and NPL, which had
two meetings with the architects and engineers in
August 1944.32 At the second meeting the NPL proposed
significant changes, arguing that two sets of experiments
would be necessary to provide reliable data. The
first tests constituted airflow simulations with large
physical models, built at a scale of 1:4, which were to
be followed by trials with a life-size model of a section
of the chamber. On August 23, 1944, Bedford submitted
his appraisal of Faber's scheme from a physiological
perspective.33
While satisfied with the proposed experiments as
a way of determining the intensity of current near
http://ashrae.org
ASHRAE Journal - January 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of ASHRAE Journal - January 2022
