Altmetrics
Downloads
182
Views
134
Comments
0
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
12 May 2023
Posted:
16 May 2023
You are already at the latest version
Nomenclature | |
°C | Celsius |
p | Significant level |
r | Number of elementary effects per parameter |
R2 | R-squared (%) |
Ta | Indoor air temperature |
To | Outdoor air temperature |
Abbreviations | |
A/C | Air-Conditioning |
ASHRAE | American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers |
BS | British Standards |
CBE | Center of the Built Environment |
CCHT | Canadian Centre for Housing Technology |
CIBSE | Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers |
CWEC | Canadian Weather for Energy Calculations |
EAHE | Earth Air Heat Exchanger |
EDSL | Environmental Design Solutions |
EN | European Norm |
FLIR | Forward-Looking Infrared Thermometer |
GHG | Greenhouse Gases |
HIS | Heat Stress Index Factor |
HVAC | Heating Ventilation and Air-Conditioning |
IES | Integrated Environmental Solution |
IMAC-R | India Model for Adaptive Comfort |
IRT | Infrared Radiometer Thermography |
OP | Operative Air Temperature |
MCAR | Missing Completely at Random |
PPD | Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied |
PMD | Predicted Mean Vote |
RH | Relative Humidity |
SD | Standard Deviation |
SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
SCAT | European Survey Research Project Database |
TPV | Thermal Preference Votes |
TSV | Thermal Sensation Votes |
WWR | Window-to-Wall Ratio |
References | Study Location | Objective (s) | Methodology | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Li et al., (2022) |
Mongolia | To observe the thermal behavior of the elderly people in terms of their thermal sensation, preference and their thermal adaptive behavior to the winter climate conditions. | Using the in-situ environmental recording devices to measure the indoor air quality of the buildings. Longitudinal field survey was conducted to gather subject respondents’ thermal sensation votes. Questionnaire survey was conducted. Field measurements were recorded. |
Adaptive temperature range for the elderly people was found to be between 15,48 and 25,56 °C . The neutral adaptive thermal comfort temperature was found to be at 20,52 °C. |
Yuan et al., (2022) |
China | To study the significant impact of thermal properties of buildings and thermal comfort preference of elderly people in naturally ventilated residential buildings. | Subject respondents’ thermal sensation votes were gathered through a questionnaire survey. 152 elderly people were recruited for the study. |
The study was found to be that the thermally acceptable level has reached at 16,74 °C for the elderly people in cold climates. Although, elderly people were more vulnerable to temperature below 16,74 °C and less sensitive to temperatures above 15,67 °C. |
Yang et al., (2016) |
Korea | To- explore the impact of different seasonal variations on elderly people’s thermal sensation in nursery homes and to- assess the indoor air quality of occupied spaces in nursery homes. | Software simulation was used to optimize the building envelope by using different thermal parameters, including effective fenestration design principles were applied. | According to the findings of a longitudinal survey, metabolism rate remained constant. At the same time, clothing insulation level (clo) factor had an impact on the adaptive thermal comfort assessment. |
Forcada et al., (2021) |
Eastern Mediterranean basin |
To identify the discrepancies in the thermal sensation votes and to-assess subject respondents’ thermal preference in conjunction with the in-situ environmental measurements which were conducted at the time of undertaking the questionnaire survey in nursery homes in the winter. |
In-situ environmental monitoring was applied. 25 representative nursery homes were selected for the study. |
Therapists and caregivers indicated different thermal sensation votes. This deterministic factor has proven that clothing insulation level is the major indictor for the adaptive thermal comfort assessment. |
References | Indoor Temp (°C) |
Relative Humidity (%) |
Air Velocity (m/s) |
Clothing (clo) |
Outdoor Temp (°C) |
Age (years) |
Metabolic rate (met) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Djamila, (2017) | 22-24,1 | <5% | 0-1 | 0,02-2 | - | 18-75 | 0,8-1,3 |
50 | 0.1 | 0,5-1 | |||||
Yi et al., (2022a) |
-10-60 | 5-95 | |||||
Rawal et al., (2022) | 25–35 | 30 | 0-1 | - | - | - | - |
References | Strategy | Heating load |
Cooling load |
Energy performance improvement | Thermal comfort improvement | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dabaieh & Serageldin, (2020a) |
|
7,9 kWh/m2 | 2,8 kWh/m2 | Achieved annual surplus energy of 180 kWh/m2/annum | Achieved 88% of thermal comfort needs | Sweden |
Dabaieh & Serageldin, (2020b) |
|
20 kWh/m2 | 99,2 kWh/m2 | Annual electrical energy savings of 42,9 kWh/m2/year |
|
Hot arid areas (Egypt) |
Cellat et al., (2020) | Micro-encapsulated phase change materials (PCM) in concrete | - | - | 13% energy savings. | 2 °C indoor temperature gain was achieved | Adana, Turkey |
Fernandez-Antolin et al., (2019) |
|
70,11 kWh/m2 | 18,43 kWh/m2 | Design was able to meet the Passivhaus Standard Building threshold | Not considered | Spain |
Huang et al., (2020) | Cylindrical PCM-assisted Earth Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) | 96% energy consumption reduction | 8,7% energy consumption reduction daily maximum cooling capacity of EAHE was increased by 28,55%–39,74% | Electrical Energy consumption reduced by 78,9% cooling output of the system increased by 20,05% | Not considered | China |
Inputs | Adaptive Thermal Comfort Assessment Criteria | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | ASHRAE-55-2020 80% acceptable limits |
EN-16798 acceptable comfort limits | |||
Mean outdoor air temperature | 25°C | Comfortable Operative air temperature: | 22,1 to 29,1 °C | Class III | 22,1 to 31,1 °C |
Operative air temperature | 25°C | 90% acceptable limits | Class II | 23,1 to 30,1 °C | |
air velocity | 3m/s | Comfortable Operative air temperature: | 23,1 to 28,1 °C | Class I | 24,1 to 29,1 °C |
ASHRAE 55 (%) | Suitability | PPD (%) | Fanger (PMV) | Adaptive (K) |
---|---|---|---|---|
90 | Suitable for high standard thermal comfort | < 10 | -0,5<PMV<+ 0,5 | +2,5 |
80 | Suitable for typical applications when certain parameters are unavailable | < 20 | 0,85<PMV<0,85 | +3,5 |
Model | Region | Age | Outdoor Parameter(s) | Thermal Response |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yang et al., (2016) | Korea | > 65 | 4-days weighted running mean of outdoor air temperature | Clothing insulation |
Wang et al., (2018) |
Shanghai, | > 65 | 7-days weighted running mean of outdoor air temperature |
Neutral temperature |
Yuan et al, (2022) | China | > 70 | Prevailing mean outdoor temperature air |
Neutral temperature |
Zhang et a.l, (2017) | China | > 70 | Outdoor air temperature | Clothing insulation, Thermal sensation vote, Proportion of air-conditioned |
Zhao et al. (2021) | Chongqing, China |
> 60 | Outdoor air temperature | Proportion of windows opened; Proportion of fans used |
Physical and environmental variables (Indoor) | Instruments used |
---|---|
Air temperature (Ta) & Relative Humidity (RH) | SIKA’MH 3350 (Digital Thermo-hygrometer) with TFS 0100E (sensor) temperature probe measurement |
Range/resolution: Temperature: -40 °C to +120 °C /0,1 °C; Relative humidity: 0–100% RH/0.1% | |
Accuracy: Temperature: ±0,5 °C; Relative humidity: ±0,1% | |
Globe temperature (Tg) | K Type Thermocouple temperature probe TP-101 whose probe was inserted in a black-painted table tennis ball (40 mm diameter) (Measurement range: -50 °C to 600 °C; Accuracy: ±2,5 °C) |
Air velocity | UNITEST Vane Thermo-anemometer 93460 (Measurement range: 0,3 m/s -45 m/s; Tolerance: ±3%) |
Personal variables | |
Metabolic activity (met) & Clothing insulation level (clo) | Estimated using checklist from the ASHRAE 55-2020 for corresponding activities & clothing insulation level |
Parameter(s) | Ottawa | Montreal |
---|---|---|
Dry bulb indoor air temperature | Complete | Complete |
Wet dry bulb indoor air temperature | Incomplete | Complete |
Relative humidity | Complete | Complete |
Air velocity | Incomplete | Complete |
Clothing insulation | Complete | Complete |
Outdoor air temperature | Complete | Complete |
Outdoor relative humidity | Complete | Complete |
Metabolic rate | Complete | Complete |
Gender | Complete | Complete |
Age | Not recorded | Complete |
Scale | Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) |
Thermal Comfort Vote (TCV) |
Thermal Acceptability (TA) |
Thermal Preference (TP) |
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | - | Unbearable | - | - |
3 | Hot | Very uncomfortable | - | - |
2 | Warm | Uncomfortable | Very unacceptable | - |
1 | Slightly warm | Slightly uncomfortable | Just acceptable | Warmer |
0 | Neutral | Uncomfortable | - | No change |
-1 | Slightly cool | - | Just acceptable | Cooler |
-2 | Cool | - | Very acceptable | - |
-3 | Cold | - | - | - |
Age band | Cooling energy consumption in August 2015 | Floor level |
---|---|---|
Cooling consumption on weekdays | Cooling energy consumption in summer 2015 | Health condition |
Clothing insulation levels of participants | Heating energy consumption in winter 2015 | Occupation |
Type of cooling control in home | Cooling energy consumption in August 2016 | Heating consumption on the weekend |
Ethnicity | Cooling energy consumption in summer 2016 | Household density |
Thermal preference | Heating energy consumption in winter 2016 | Income |
Interviewed room condition | Metabolic rates of participants | Length of residency |
Orientation | Reasons for thermal discomfort | Space conditioning |
Overall thermal satisfaction in summer | Thermal sensation in bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and living room | Type of cooling system |
Window closing reasons | Window opening patterns in winter | Type of heating system |
Note:Additionally, all categorical variables were recorded in ordinal sequence where possible (e.g., metabolic rate) Variables related to occupants’ thermal preferences were recoded from very cold to very hot All variables were recoded from smallest value to largest value All dichotomous variables were recoded to 1 = yes, 0 = no |
Comparative studies | 80% acceptability |
---|---|
Kalmár (2016) | 25 -30 °C |
Indraganti et al., (2014) | 27,5 -30 °C |
Singh et al., (2011) | 2,8 -31 °C |
Singh & Chani, (2018) | 22,5 -29,8 °C |
21,91 -29,3 °C |
Research Questions | Occupation | Weekday Heating- Consumption Patterns |
Weekend Heating- Consumption Patterns |
Weekday Cooling- Consumption Patterns |
Weekend Cooling- Consumption Patterns |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q 1: What is your occupation? | 1 | 0,253* | 0,109 | 0,098 | 0,167 | |
— | 0,042 | 0,896 | 0,955 | 0,579 | ||
Q 2: When do you turn on heating device(s) on weekdays? | 0,253* | 1 | 0,373* | 0,611* | 0,504* | |
0,042 | — | <0,001 | <0,001 | <0,001 | ||
Q 3: When do you turn on heating device(s) on the weekend? | 0,109 | 0,373* | 1 | 0,522* | 0,706* | |
0,896 | <0,001 | — | <0,001 | <0,001 | ||
Q 4: When do you turn on cooling device(s) on weekdays? | 0,098 | 0,611* | 0,522* | 1 | 0,774* | |
0,955 | <0,001 | <0,001 | — | <0,001 | ||
Q 5: When do you turn on cooling device(s) on the weekend? | 0,167 | 0,504* | 0,706* | 0,774* | — | |
0,579 | <0,001 | <0,001 | <0,001 | 1 | ||
Occupation – Weekend heating consumption, Fisher’s exact = 2,41, p = 0,896, Cramer’s V = 0,109 Occupation – Weekday heating consumption, Fisher’s exact = 12,49, p = 0,042, Cramer’s V = 0,253 Occupation – Weekend cooling consumption, Fisher’s exact = 7,63, p = 0,579, Cramer’s V = 0,167 Occupation – Weekday cooling consumption, Fisher’s exact = 1,76, p = 0,955, Cramer’s V = 0,098 Weekday cooling consumption – Weekend heating consumption, χ²(4) = 54,59, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,522 Weekday cooling consumption – Weekday heating consumption, χ²(4) = 74,57, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,611 Weekday cooling consumption – Weekend cooling consumption, χ²(6) = 119,77, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,774 Weekend cooling consumption– Weekend heating consumption, χ²(6) = 99,69, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,706 Weekend cooling consumption– Weekday heating consumption, Fisher’s exact = 49,70, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,504 Weekday heating consumption– Weekend heating consumption, χ²(4) = 27,89, p < 0,001, Cramer’s V = 0,373 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated