2014 Book ThermalComfortAndEnergy-Effici

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN
APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
Doreen E. Kalz
Jens Pfafferott
Thermal Comfort
and Energy-
Efficient Cooling
of Nonresidential
Buildings
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/8884
Doreen E. Kalz Jens Pfafferott
•
Thermal Comfort
and Energy-Efficient
Cooling of Nonresidential
Buildings
123
Doreen E. Kalz Jens Pfafferott
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Offenburg University of Applied Sciences
Systems ISE Offenburg
Freiburg Germany
Germany
ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-04581-8 ISBN 978-3-319-04582-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014931763
The Author(s) 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must
always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the
Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface
This guidebook on low-energy cooling and thermal comfort supports HVAC

planners in reducing the cooling-energy demand, improving the indoor environ-
ment, and designing more cost-effective building concepts.
High-performance buildings have shown that it is possible to go clearly beyond
the energy requirements of existing legislation and obtaining good thermal
comfort—both in summer and winter. However, there is still a strong uncertainty
in day-to-day practice due to the lack of legislative regulations for mixed-mode
buildings under summer conditions—buildings which are neither only naturally
ventilated nor fully air-conditioned, but use a mix of different low-energy cooling
techniques.
Most of the new nonresidential buildings are mechanically cooled with low-
energy techniques using a mix of ambient heat-sinks such as ground, night, or
evaporative cooling. Moreover, more and more retrofit projects have also been
using mixed-mode low-energy cooling in recent years.
Based on the findings from monitoring campaigns (long-term measurements in
combination with field studies on thermal comfort), simulation studies, and a
comprehensive review on existing standards and guidelines, this guidebook gives a
pathway toward a successful implementation of passive and low-energy cooling
techniques in energy-efficient nonresidential buildings.
v
Acknowledgments
Some of the material presented in this publication has been collected and devel-
oped within the Project THERMCO—Thermal comfort in buildings with low-
energy cooling; establishing an annex for EPBD-related CEN standards for
buildings with high-energy efficiency and a good indoor environment, EIE/07/026/
SI2.466692. The guidebook is a result of the joint effort of nine European coun-
tries. All of them contributed by collecting information and carrying out a long-
term monitoring campaign in nonresidential buildings.
Furthermore, the meta-analysis of European buildings is extended by moni-
toring results from German nonresidential buildings. Monitoring and evaluation
were funded by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy (BMWi) under the
programs ‘‘Energy-Optimized Building’’ (BMWi 0335007P/C), ‘‘Energy-opti-
mized construction in refurbishment’’ (BMWi 0335007C), ‘‘LowEx:Monitor’’
(BMWi 0327466B), and ‘‘ModQS’’ (BMWi 0327893A), as well as by the Federal
Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (Zukunft Bau), which is
gratefully acknowledged.
All the people who have contributed to the project are gratefully acknowledged:
A. Wagner (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany), B. Olesen and P. Strøm-
Tejsen (Technical University of Denmark), J. Kurnitski (Helsinki University of
Technology, Finland), M. Santamouris and T. Karlessi (National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Greece), F. Allard and Chr. Inard (University of La
Rochelle, France), K. Kabele and M. Kabrhel (Czech Technical University), L.
Pagliano and P. Zangheri (Politecnico di Milano, Italy), A.-G. Ghiaus (Technical
University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, Romania), O. Seppanen (REHVA,
Belgium), W. Warmuth and J. Farian (PSE, Germany), M. Sonntag (Fraunhofer
ISE, Freiburg), as well as G. Vogt, and F. Hölzenbein.
Monitoring, data acquisition, and commissioning are challenging tasks. The
authors would sincerely like to thank the various evaluation teams for their
excellent support, discussion, and cooperation: I. Repke, P. Obert, G. Mengedoht,
G. Lindemann, M. Ehlers, F. Ghazai, C. Sasse, D. Schmidt, J. Kaiser, M. Kappert,
C. Prechtl, R. Koenigsdorff, S. Heinrich, T. Häusler, E. Bollin, M. Melcher, T.
Knapp, and B. Bagherian.
A range of international experts provided input and commented on the under-
lying methods on monitoring, questionnaires, and data evaluation. Their comments
and suggestions were of great value: Fergus Nicol, Richard de Dear, and Sebastian
Herkel.
vii
Contents
1 Impact of Cooling on Energy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1

1.1 Current and Future Cold Market in Europe. . . . . . . . . ....... 2
1.2 Technologies and Concepts for Cooling Nonresidential
Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 4
1.3 Building Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 13
2 Thermal Indoor Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.1 Human Responses to the Thermal Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Health and Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Criteria for Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Overall Satisfaction with the Thermal Environment . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 Standards on Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 21

3.1 Static Approach to Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 22
3.2 Adaptive Approach to Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . ....... 24
3.3 Discrepancy Between Static and Adaptive Approaches
to Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 31
4 User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings . . . . . 33

4.1 Methodology and Analysis of the Field Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Building and Energy Concepts of Demonstration Buildings . . . . 37
4.3 Results of Survey and User Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Satisfaction with Room Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5 Determination of the Comfort Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Office

Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . 51
5.2 Summary: Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings . . 62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
ix
x Contents
6 Thermal-Comfort Evaluation of Office Buildings in Europe. ..... 65

6.1 Description of the Investigated Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 65
6.2 Monitoring Results for European Office Buildings . . . . . ..... 74
6.3 Cross-Comparison of Thermal-Comfort Performance
in Summer for 42 Office Buildings in Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.4 Humidity Performance in Summer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.5 Conclusion: Cross-Comparison of Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . 106
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7 Application of Cooling Concepts to European Office Buildings . . . 109

7.1 Simulation Study of Cooling Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2 Simulation Results and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
8 Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

8.1 Success Factors for Low-Energy Cooling Concepts . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.2 Integral Design of Low-Energy Cooling Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . 122
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Abbreviations
AA Ambient Air
AC Air-Conditioning
ACH Air Change Rate
AHU Air Handling Unit
AMC Air-Based Mechanical Cooling
AVG Average
BHEX Borehole Heat Exchanger
CH Chiller
CHP Combined Heat and Power
COP Coefficient of Performance
CP-w Water-Based, Ceiling Suspended Cooling Panel
CT Cooling Tower
DC District Cooling
DH District Heating
E Electricity
e Exterior
f Free
Fin Final
HP Heat Pump
HR Heat Recovery
HX Heat Exchanger
i Interior
m Mechanical
Max Maximum
Min Minimum
MMC Mixed-Mode Cooling
MV Mechanical Ventilation
n/k Not Known
NV Night-Ventilation
PC Passive Cooling
PMV Predicted Mean Vote
xi
xii Abbreviations
POE Post-Occupancy Evaluation

PPD Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied
Prim Primary
SBS Sick Building Syndrome
SPF Seasonal Performance Factor
SU Split Unit
T Temperature
TABS Thermo-Active Building Systems
Therm Thermal
W Week
WMC Water-Based Mechanical Cooling
Y Year
Nomenclature
ho;c operative room temperature
he actual ambient air temperature
he;d daily mean ambient air temperature
he;d;max daily maximum ambient air temperature
he;month monthly mean ambient air temperature
hrm daily running mean ambient air temperature
How to Read This Guidebook
This guidebook is based on the evaluation of realized low-energy buildings all

over Europe, using a standardized method based on existing monitoring data.
1. Impact of Cooling on Energy Use
First, we take a look at the current and future cold market in Europe and define
low-energy cooling concepts for nonresidential buildings. Low-energy build-
ings have to meet various building-physical requirements.
2. Thermal Indoor Environment and Guidelines for Thermal Comfort
A brief introduction to various aspects of thermal comfort in air-conditioned,
passively cooled, and mixed-mode buildings.
3. User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings
Users feel satisfied with thermal comfort in the monitored low-energy office
buildings. Due to the different expectations on interior thermal comfort, it
should be evaluated in passively cooled buildings as well as in buildings with
free and mechanical night ventilation in accordance with the adaptive-comfort
model in EN 15251. By contrast, the thermal comfort in buildings should be
evaluated according to the PMV model, when air-conditioning systems, fan-
coil cooling, or water-based radiant cooling systems are employed. Even in
these buildings, users adapt to the prevailing outdoor climate conditions.
However, they only tolerate slightly higher room temperatures as compared to
the temperature setpoints of 24.5 C ±1.5 K as defined in EN 15251.
4. Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Nonresidential
Buildings
There is a strong uncertainty in day-to-day practice due to the lack of legislative
regulations for mixed-mode buildings, which are neither only naturally venti-
lated nor fully air-conditioned but use a mix of different low-energy cooling
techniques. The practitioner receives a practical approach on how to evaluate
thermal comfort and energy use in nonresidential buildings with low-energy
cooling.
5. Thermal Comfort Evaluation of Office Buildings in Europe

Case studies in eight European countries provide precise information con-
cerning good- and best-practice examples. All buildings were evaluated by
xiii
xiv How to Read This Guidebook
using the same approach. It is clearly demonstrated that it is feasible and

valuable to compare different cooling strategies based on a consistent meth-
odology. Furthermore, this methodology can be applied in day-to-day practice
in the planning, commissioning, and operation of buildings since these
parameters are well-established and easily accessible.
6. Application of Cooling Concepts to European Nonresidential Buildings
High performance buildings have shown that it is possible to clearly go beyond
the energy requirements of existing legislation and to obtain good thermal
comfort.
7. Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling
Mixed-mode- and low-energy-cooling buildings provide good thermal comfort
with a limited cooling capacity, e.g., enabling ground-cooling in combination
with thermo-active building systems or part-time active air-cooling. A com-
prehensive assessment procedure considers thermal comfort, the energy
demand for cooling, and overall energy consumption.
This guidebook provides design guidelines for architects and HVAC-engineers
working on typical building concepts in the European climate zones.
Chapter 1
Impact of Cooling on Energy Use
Abstract Cooling of the built environment is a relatively new and rapidly expanding
market in Europe. The pressures associated with energy efficiency call for combining
energy-conservation strategies as well as for energy-efficient technologies in order to
reduce a building’s carbon footprint. Low-energy cooling technologies improve the
users’ thermal comfort and reduce the energy demand for cooling—and often also for
ventilation. However, buildings need to meet minimum requirements for the appli-
cation of low-energy cooling due to the limited cooling capacity.
Buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and cause a
significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate change. In
Europe, buildings account for 40–45 % of the total energy consumption, according
to (EUR-Lex 2002 and EEA 2006). In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions
from the construction sector have been increasing by almost 2 % per year since
1990. CO2 emissions from residential and commercial buildings are expected to
increase continuously at a rate of 1.4 % annually until the year 2025 (Brown et al.
2005). Given that buildings are responsible for approximately 20 % of the
greenhouse gas emissions, there is a growing awareness for the important role
buildings play in reducing their environmental effects (Stern et al. 2006). On the
one hand, emissions associated with buildings and appliances are expected to grow
faster than those from any other sector. On the other hand, reducing energy
consumption in buildings is estimated to be the least costly way to achieve large
reductions in carbon emissions (McKinsey 2007).
Pressures associated with energy efficiency call for combining energy-conser-
vation strategies as well as for energy-efficient technologies in order to reduce a
building’s carbon footprint. Two key targets were set by the European Council in
2007: First, ‘‘a reduction of at least 20 % in greenhouse gases by 2020,’’ and
second, ‘‘a 20 % share of renewable energies in EU energy consumption by 2020’’
(COM 2008). Following Article 9 of the EPBD Recast 5/2010 (EPBD 2010),
member states shall ensure that by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly
zero-energy buildings. Incorporating renewable energy as well as energy-efficient
and sustainable design features into buildings allows for the reduction of both the
resource depletion and the adverse environmental impacts of pollution generated
D. E. Kalz and J. Pfafferott, Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling 1

of Nonresidential Buildings, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_1, The Author(s) 2014
2 1 Impact of Cooling on Energy Use
by energy production. Sustainable and energy-optimized buildings attempt to

harness their architecture and physics in order to provide a high-quality interior
environment with the least possible primary energy consumption.
1.1 Current and Future Cold Market in Europe
Cooling off the built environment is a relatively new and rapidly expanding market in
Europe. Its growth is motivated mainly by the rising standard of living, which has
made this type of equipment affordable. At the same time, people’s requirements on
comfort have increased. The demand for comfort cooling has been steadily
increasing in all European countries, both old and new EU member states, as well as
in the accession countries. Market experience shows that once 20 % of the office
space in a city is air-conditioned, the rental value of noncooled spaces decreases
(ECOHEATCOOL 2006). The European ECOHEATCOOL Project presents an
overall definition and description of the European cooling market and its potential
growth. The study concludes that the potential cooling demand and the pace of
expansion for the European cooling market are greater than earlier indications.
However, a development toward the cooling saturation level found in the USA (of
70 % for the residential and 73 % for the service sectors) is probably unlikely, due to
differences in climatic conditions (ECOHEATCOOL 2006). Considering the current
market trends in Europe, a saturation rate of 60 % for the service and 40 % for the
residential sector is assumed to be realistic. This would result in a fourfold increase of
the cooling market between 2000 and 2018, corresponding to 500 TWh for the EU. A
major increase in energy consumption for air-conditioning is expected to occur
between 2006 and 2030 (Weiss and Biermayr 2009).
The impact of cooling in Europe is increasing, yet substantive data, statistics,
and prognoses on the continent’s current cold market and energy consumption
remain scarce. At present, the use of energy for comfort cooling is to a high degree
unknown on an aggregated EU level. In contrast to the heat market, estimations
and predictions for cooling are more complex (ECOHEATCOOL 2006), since its
electricity use is usually embedded in the buildings’ total electricity consumption.
Usage is spread across a range of electricity consumption equipment and is very
rarely monitored on an aggregated level. Moreover, aggregated benchmarking
information is not being systematically collected. Since the estimation of elec-
tricity use is also built up from various sources (such as chillers, auxiliary
equipment, re-cooling systems, and even ventilation systems), it is a complex task
to monitor and to analyze the cooling energy use in buildings. Data for the services
sector’s energy consumption are less detailed and complete than for the residential
sector (Weiss and Biermayr 2005). Reliable estimations on cooling-energy con-
sumption have to be made either by means of the cooling capacity of sold or
installed equipment and the assumptions of the cooling demand or by means of
costly surveys. However, all reliable sources document a strong increase in the
1.1 Current and Future Cold Market in Europe 3
cooled and air-conditioned built environment in Europe. A continuous growth is

expected in both the residential and the service sectors.
So far, in most European countries, the amount of energy required for heating is
much greater than the one used for space cooling. However due to high internal
loads, the proliferation of fashionable glass façades, to thermal insulation and
rising standards of comfort, the cooled area is steadily increasing. Events like the
extraordinarily hot summer of 2003 are accelerating this trend and steadily rising
mean annual temperatures are increasing the specific energy demand for space
cooling (Aebischer et al. 2007). Considering air-conditioning in the residential
sector, a correlation between the market saturation and the climate can be
observed. The nondomestic market probably has different dynamics, but there is
little reliable information on these (Riviere 2008). The current level of sales
suggests that climate is less influential, with relatively high levels of sales (relative
to residential use) in moderate climates. In the USA, Japan, and (as far as can be
ascertained) in Europe, market penetration into nondomestic buildings is higher
than into dwellings (the USA is 80 % commercial and 65 % residential, Japan is
100 % commercial and 85 % residential, Europe is 27 % commercial, and 55 %
residential) (Riviere 2008).
The European market for air-conditioning is relatively young and still growing
substantially. The installed stock is far from the saturation levels seen in other
parts of the world and the sales figures show no sign of approaching market
saturation. There are very few relevant statistics on the stock of installed products,
but rather on sales—though not comprehensive (Riviere 2008).
The relative growth of the electricity demand is largest in southern countries
due to general comfort requirements calling for more cooling, a trend which is
slightly reinforced by the changing climate. Although the share in electricity for
cooling purposes will increase in all countries, it does so at a significantly higher
level in southern Europe, by about 45 % (Jochem and Schade 2009). Because of a
strongly differing growth rate across EU member states, the relative share of the
total cooled floor-area of EU countries such as France or Germany, which was
large in the 1980s, has diminished in the 1990s. The high growth rate in central air-
conditioning systems installed in Italy and Spain means that these countries now
account for more than 50 % of the EU market.
In the building sector, decentralized air-conditioning units dominate the dis-
tribution systems and district cooling accounts with 1–2 % of the cooling market.
In 2007, 500 million Euros were generated by selling cooling, air-conditioning,
and ventilation systems in Germany. Therefore, Germany is the European market
leader, followed by Italy with a revenue of 460 million Euros. Air-conditioning
systems contribute to the major part of the revenue (50,000 units) with approx. 500
million Euros, followed by water-based chillers (7,000 units) with 150 million
Euros (Chillventa 2009).
In the EU, the energy efficiency of air-conditioning systems is not a criterion
that presently plays any major role in their design or installation process; the
efficiency improvements that do occur rather tend to happen haphazardly. Air-
conditioning constitutes a rapidly growing electrical end use in the European
FINAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN EU-27 AC MARKET SHARE BY TYPE
services split > 12kW;

15% 7%
industry
28% RAC < 12kW;
36%
household
26% chillers; 45%
VRF; 2%
transport
31% rooftops; 5%
packages; 5%
Fig. 1.1 Left Share of total final energy consumption [%] distributed to the major energy service
sectors in EU-27 for 2006 (Weiss and Biermayr 2005). Right AC market share by AC type
expressed in terms of newly installed cooled area in EU buildings in 1998 (Adnot 2003)
Union, yet the possibilities for improving its energy efficiency have not been fully
investigated. The average Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) is about 3.57 for water-
based systems, whereas it is 2.52 for systems with air as a rejection medium under
conditions of a testing standard (Adnot 2003). For the electricity consumption to
meet the cooling load, it is assumed that system losses (such as auxiliary-heat
supplementary load, distribution losses, suboptimal control, etc.) account for 25 %
of the load. The aggregated seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) for cooling is
expected to be 2. Additional electricity consumption for air-handling units, pumps,
and other auxiliaries not taken into account in the SEER value is at 25 % of the
electric consumption (Riviere et al. 2010) (Figs. 1.1, 1.2).
1.2 Technologies and Concepts for Cooling Nonresidential

Buildings
At present, there is no unambiguous classification for cooling strategies or ter-

minology. Cooling strategies for nonresidential buildings may be distinguished as
follows:
• Passive Low-Exergy cooling: Passive cooling strategies refer to technologies or
building design features that cool the building space or prevent the building
from overheating without any energy consumption, i.e., energy-consuming
components such as fans or pumps are not used. Passive cooling techniques
encompass heat and solar protection, heat modulation and dissipation: solar
shading, high-quality building envelope, passive use of solar-heating gains, day-
lighting concepts, sun-protection glazing, static solar shading devices, heavy-
weight building construction, moderate ratio of glass to façade, and natural
ventilation through open windows (Santamouris 2007; Pfafferott 2004).
1.2 Technologies and Concepts for Cooling Nonresidential Buildings 5
COOLING ENERGY 1 BUILDING AREA 2

140 3500
residential residential
120 3000
cooling energy [kWh therm/(m²a)]
service
building area [million m²]

service
100 2500
80 2000
60 1500
40 1000
20 500
0 0
CZE DEN FIN FRA GER GRE ITA ROM CZE DEN FIN FRA GER GRE ITA ROM
DEVELOPMENT COOLING ENERGY FOR AC 3 (TOTAL) DEVELOPMENT COOLING ENERGY FOR AC IN SERVICE 4
80 80
70 AUT 70 AUT
GER GER
energy use for AC [TWh]

energy use for AC [TWh]
60 DEN 60 DEN
ESP ESP
50 POL 50 POL
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2005 2020 2030 2050 2005 2020 2030 2050
ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE FOR COOLING5 AREA CONDITIONED / COOLED 6

550 550
500 500
area conditioned / cooled [Mm²]
electrical energy use [TWh/a]
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
DEN FIN FRA GER GRE ITA
7
ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEMAND FOR COOLING AC-COOLED FLOOR AREA IN EU BUILDINGS 8
2500 others GER
North 13% 11%
2250 GRE
South
2000 5%
electrical energy [TWh]
East UK
1750 West 8%
1500
1250
1000 ESP
750 24%
500 ITA
250 25%
0 FRA
POR
2005 2020 2035 2050
2% 12%
b Fig. 1.2 Current and future cooling market in Europe. Chart 1 Calculated specific cooling-
energy demand [kWhtherm/m2a] for selected European countries, considering the residential and
service-building sector (ECOHEATCOOL 2006). The calculation method includes: frequency of
outdoor temperatures, national electricity-demand variations, and specific market information
from international databases, international statistical reports and commercial-market reports.
Chart 2 Total building area of the residential and service sector for selected European countries
[million m2] (ECOHEATCOOL 2006). Chart 3 Future development of energy consumption for
air-conditioning [TWhel] (Weiss and Biermayr 2005); results of the expected development of
energy consumption (electricity) for air-conditioning. ‘‘The calculation of the long-term energy
consumption for air-conditioning is based on a bottom-up model and considers both impacts, the
current diffusion of technology and the influence of higher cooling demand due to increasing
cooling-degree-days from global warming’’ (Weiss and Biermayr 2005). Chart 4 Energy
consumption for air-conditioning in the service sector [TWhel] (Weiss and Biermayr 2005).
Chart 5 Annual electrical energy use for cooling [TWhel] available on the domestic market for
the period from 1986 to 2002 (ECOHEATCOOL 2006). Chart 6 Area air-conditioned in each
country and year. The cooled area is estimated by combining manufacturer statistics (capacities,
number of pieces) and national statistics [square meters cooled] (Adnot 2003). Chart 7
Electrical-energy demand for cooling in four European regions (EU-27 ? 2) [TWhel] (Jochem
and Schade 2009). Chart 8 National shares of installed central air-conditioning floor area in EU
buildings in 1998 (Adnot 2003)
• Active Low-Exergy Cooling: In IEA ECBCS Annex 37, ‘low-exergy (or LowEx)
systems’ are defined as heating or cooling systems that allow the use of low-
valued energy as their energy source, e.g., environmental heat sources and sinks,
waste heat, etc. In practice, this means systems that provide heating or cooling
energy at a level close to room temperature (Ala-Juusela 2003). Environmental
energy is defined as low-temperature heat source (4–15 C) in winter and high-
temperature heat sink (15–25 C) in summer, being provided in close proximity
to the building site such as surface-near geothermal energy from the ground and
groundwater, the use of rainwater and ambient air. Borehole heat exchangers,
ground collectors, energy piles, earth-to-air heat exchangers and ground-water
wells are technologies to harvest surface-near geothermal energy down to a
depth of 120 m. Ambient air is utilized naturally, by opening windows and
ventilation slats, or mechanically, by supply and/or exhaust air systems. In
cooling mode, environmental heat sinks are often used directly or with a heat
exchanger. Electrical energy (high exergy) is only needed to operate the aux-
iliary equipment (pumps and fans) as well as the measurement and control
systems. Though a clear definition is missing, many authors, HVAC planners
and companies define integrated concepts with cooling temperatures higher than
16 C and hybrid ventilation systems as ‘‘low-energy cooling concepts’’ (Babiak
et al. 2007). These techniques may only be applied to buildings with a low heat-
flow density, which is typical for low-energy buildings only. Hence, low-energy
cooling is based on a building concept which allows for reduced cooling loads.
• Mechanical Cooling: Mechanical cooling includes systems that use common
refrigeration processes applied for air-conditioning (air-based systems) or
radiant (i.e., water-based) cooling. Most of the cold production for air-condi-
tioning for buildings is generated with vapor compression machines. In the
1.2 Technologies and Concepts for Cooling Nonresidential Buildings 7
evaporator, the refrigerant evaporates at a low temperature. The heat extracted

from the external water supply is used to evaporate the refrigerant from the
liquid to the gas phase. The external water is cooled down or—in other words—
cooling power becomes available. The key component is the compressor, which
compresses the refrigerant from low pressure at a low temperature to higher
pressure (at a high temperature) in the condenser. Electrical energy (high ex-
ergy) is consumed by the motor used to drive the compressor (Henning 2004).
• Thermally Driven Cooling: Thermally driven chiller-based and desiccant sys-
tems are key solutions for solar-assisted air-conditioning. The process principle
is the same as described before, but the driving energy is heat in the sense of a
thermally driven process. Most common types of thermally driven chillers are
absorption and adsorption chillers. The working principle of an absorption
system is similar to that of a mechanical compression one with respect to the key
components of evaporator and condenser. A vaporizing liquid extracts heat at a
low temperature (cold production). The vapor is compressed to a higher pressure
and condenses at a higher temperature (heat rejection). The compression of the
vapor is accomplished by means of a thermally driven ‘‘compressor’’ consisting
of the two main components of absorber and generator. The heat required can be
supplied, for instance, by direct combustion of fossil fuels, by waste heat or solar
energy. Instead of absorbing the refrigerant in an absorbing solution, it is also
possible to adsorb the refrigerant on the internal surfaces of a highly porous
solid. This process is called ‘‘adsorption.’’ Typical examples of working pairs
are water/silica gel, water/zeolite, ammonia/activated carbon or methanol/acti-
vated carbon. In absorption machines, the ability to circulate the absorbing fluid
between absorber and desorber results in a continuous loop. On adsorption
machines, the solid sorbent has to be alternately cooled and heated in order to be
able to adsorb and to desorb the refrigerant. Operation is therefore periodic in
time (Henning 2004). More details on thermally driven chillers are given in
‘‘Solar-Assisted Air-Conditioning in Buildings—A Handbook for Planners’’
(Henning 2004).
• District Cooling: District cooling is a system in which chilled water for space
and process cooling is distributed in pipes from a central cooling plant to
buildings. A district cooling system contains three major elements: the cooling
source, a distribution system and customer installation. Chilled water is gen-
erated by compressor-driven chillers, absorption chillers or other sources like
ambient cooling or ‘‘free cooling’’ from lakes, rivers, or oceans. District heat
may be the heat source for absorption chillers, but with today’s technique, only
if there is waste heat available. If the heat from the power generation process
wasn’t being used in summer, it could be economically converted and used to
produce cooling. The production from a centralized facility allows for
improvements in energy conservation. The generation of cooling may be a mix
of several energy sources, for example, chillers and free cooling. Cooling
generation may also be configured with thermal storage in order to reduce
chillers’ equipment requirements and lower operating costs by shifting the peak
load to off-peak times. The successful implementation of district cooling
systems depends largely on the ability of the system to obtain high-temperature

differences between supply and return water. The significant installation costs
associated with a central-distribution piping system and the physical operating
limitations (e.g., pressures and temperatures) of district energy systems require
careful scrutiny with the design options available for new and existing build-
ings’ HVAC systems. This is crucial to ensure that the central district cooling
systems can operate with a reasonable size of distribution piping and pumps in
order to minimize the pumping-energy requirements (LowEx IEA ECBCS
Annex 37).
The monitored and analyzed nonresidential buildings in the framework of the

guidebook employ passive and active low-exergy cooling concepts as well as
mechanical cooling strategies. Table 1.1 presents a suggested categorization of
cooling in nonresidential buildings and describes the heat sinks usually applied to
the systems. The guidebook of IEA ECBCS Annex 37 presents a very compre-
hensive description of LowEx-technologies—for harvesting environmental energy
and for the delivery of heating/cooling energy to the building space—for heating
and cooling applied in nonresidential and residential buildings.
1.3 Building Requirements
In the past few decades, the envelope of modern buildings has improved signifi-
cantly. Therefore, buildings with a comparatively low heating and cooling
demand—the cornerstone of a sustainable energy concept—can be realized in mid-
European climates. Those buildings aim at establishing a pleasant interior envi-
ronment without costly building service equipment and excessive energy use.
While the heating demand in nonresidential buildings could be reduced signifi-
cantly, the cooling demand is growing because of increased internal loads by office
appliances and increased glazed areas on modern commercial buildings. This trend
has been amplified by warmer summers in many areas and an increased demand
for comfort.
Cooling demand for comfort purposes in buildings is mainly due to climatic
conditions. Other important factors are building standards, the cooling system
installed, and occupant behavior (ECOHEATCOOL 2006):
• Regional climatic conditions: temperature and humidity differences depending
on geographical position. The predominating factor is usually the outdoor air
temperature.
• Urban climatic conditions: the climate in densely built areas can differ from the
surrounding climate, for example in temperature, wind speed, and humidity.
• Building design: the architectural and structural design features of the building
have a strong impact on its indoor climate (building layout, insulation, window
Table 1.1 Categorization of cooling systems into (I) passive LowEx-cooling, (II) active LowEx-cooling, (III) mechanical cooling and (IV) thermally driven
cooling see also Table 5.1 for technical application
(I) Passive LowEx cooling (II) Active LowEx cooling
Structural Air-based systems Air-based systems Water-based systems
design
De-/Central Decentral Central Decentral Central Central
w/ cooling w/o cooling Direct cooling Indirect
cooling
Cooling generation Quality of building Windows Solar Façade- Exhaust-air Exhaust-/Supply-air system with Borehole heat Borehole heat
shell (insulation) chimney ventilation system earth-to-air heat exchanger exchanger exchanger
unit w/o heat
exchanger
Air-tightness Ventilation Atrium Exhaust-/ Direct evaporative cooling Groundwater
slats Supply-air well
system
Static/Movable Indirect evaporative cooling Cooling tower
solar-shading
devices
Solar glazing w/ heat
exchanger
Window/Façade
ratio
Heat rejection None Ambient air Ambient air Ambient air Ambient air Heat recovery Ground Ground
Ambient air Groundwater
Ground Ambient air
(continued)
9
Table 1.1 (continued)
10
(I) Passive LowEx cooling (II) Active LowEx cooling
Structural Air-based systems Air-based systems Water-based systems

design
De-/Central Decentral Central Decentral Central Central
w/ cooling w/o cooling Direct cooling Indirect

cooling
Temperature-level – Variable Variable Variable Variable 8–18 C 8–18 C 8–18 C
heat sink
Air treatment None None None None None None None None
Distribution system None None None Fan Air-duct system, Air-duct system, fan Hydronic Hydronic
fan system system
Delivery system None None None None None None TABS TABS
Ventilation Ventilation
system system
Temperature-level – Variable Variable Variable Variable 16–24 C 16–22 C 16–22 C
delivery system (ambient (ambient (ambient (ambient air)
air) air) air)
Final energy None None None Low | aux. Low | aux. Low | aux. energy Low | aux. Low | aux.
energy energy energy energy
Efficiency (SPF) – – – Low SPF 4 SPF 4 SPF 15–20 SPF 15–20
Costs Low–Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Intensive Intensive
(continued)
1 Impact of Cooling on Energy Use
(III) Mechanical cooling (IV) Thermally driven cooling
Air-based systems Water-based systems Heat transformation
Decentral Central Central Desiccant (open cycle) Closed cycle
Cooling generation Air-to-air Air-to-air Water-to-air Air-to-water Water-to- Liquid sorbent Solid sorbent Absorption Adsorption
water
Split unit Roof-top Rev. heat Rev. heat Rev. heat Counterflow Dehumidifier Liquid sorbent Solid sorbent adsorption
split pump pump pump (water/silica gel)
unit
Rev. heat Chiller Chiller Absorber Rotor Water/lithium

pump bromide
VRF Fixed-bed process
Heat rejection Ambient Ambient Ground Ambient air Ground Solar energy Solar energy Water/lithium Solar energy
air air bromide
Groundwater Groundwater District heat District heat District heat
Ambient air
Temperature-level Variable Variable 8–18 C Variable 8–18 C None None 35–60 C 30–40 C
heat sink
Air treatment Dehumid. Dehumid. Dehumid. Dehumid. Dehumid. Dehumid. Dehumid. None None
Distribution system None Air-duct Air-duct Hydronic Hydronic Air-duct system Air-duct system Hydronic pipe Hydronic pipe system
system system pipe pipe system
system system
(continued)
11
12
(III) Mechanical cooling (IV) Thermally driven cooling
Air-based systems Water-based systems Heat transformation
Decentral Central Central Desiccant (open cycle) Closed cycle

Delivery system None Fan-coil Fan-coil unit Fan-coil unit Fan-coil unit AHU AHU Fan-coil unit Fan-coil unit
unit
Induction Induction Induction Induction Induction unit Induction unit
unit unit unit unit
AHU AHU AHU AHU AHU AHU
TABS TABS TABS TABS
Temperature-level 14–20 C 14–20 C 14–20 C 14–22 C 14–22 C 14–22 C 14–22 C 6–12 C 13–18 C
delivery system
Final energy High High High High High Low, waste heat Low, waste heat Moderate Low, waste heat
Efficiency (SPF) SPF SPF 3 SPF 3–4 SPF 2.5–4.0 SPF 3–6 SPF [ 10 SPF [ 10 SPF 0.6–1.3, SPF 0.6–0.8
1.9–3.3 evaporative evaporative thermal energy
cooling cooling only
Costs Low Moderate High Moderate High Low Low Moderate Moderate
1 Impact of Cooling on Energy Use
1.3 Building Requirements 13
orientation, shading, ventilation, daylighting concept, and micro-climate around

the building).
• Building use: internal heat gains from occupants, lighting, and equipment
account for cooling demand.
• Comfort requirements and use: working hours, vacation period, and the required
indoor temperature have a major impact on cooling demand and consumption.
References
Adnot J (ed) (2003) Energy efficiency and certification of central air conditioners (EECCAC).
Final report, vol 1–3. Study for the D.G. Transportation-Energy (DGTREN) of the
Commission of the E.U, Paris
Aebischer B, Catenazzi G, Jakob M (2007) Impact of climate change on thermal comfort, heating
and cooling energy demand in Europe. In: Proceedings ECEEE summer studies. Saving
energy—just do it!, European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, La Colle Sur Loup,
4–9 June 2007
Ala-Juusela M (ed) (2003) LowEx guidebook: low-exergy systems for heating and cooling of
buildings. Guidebook to IEA ECBCS annex 37. International energy agency—energy
conversation in buildings and community systems programme. ECBCS Bookshop,
Birmingham
Babiak J, Olesen BW, Petrás D (2007) Low temperature heating and high temperature cooling.
REHVA Guidebook 7. Rehva, Brüssels
Brown MA, Southworth F, Stovall TK (2005) Towards a climate-friendly built environment.
Prepared for the Pew Center on global climate change. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://
www.pewclimate.org/technology-solutions/pubs. Accessed Dec 2013
Chillventa (2009) http://www.chillventa.de/en/
COM (2008) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Europe’s
climate change opportunity., Brussels, 23 Jan 2008
ECOHEATCOOL (2006) The European cold market, final report, work package 2, Ecoheatcool
and Euroheat & Power 2005–2006. Euroheat & Power, Brussels
EPBD (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
2010 on the energy performance of buildings. OJ L 153:13–35. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
EUR-Lex (2002) Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16
December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Official Journal of the European
Communities. L 1/65. http://eur-lex.europa.eu
European Environment Agency (2006) Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in
Europe. Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/. Accessed Dec 2013
Henning H-M (ed) (2004) Solar-assisted air-conditioning in buildings—a handbook for planners,
1st edn. Springer, Wien
Jochem E, Schade W (2009) ADAM 2-degree scenario for Europe—policies and impacts.
Deliverable D3 of work package M1. ADAM Adaptation and mitigation strategies: supporting
European climate policy. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
(Fraunhofer-ISI), Karlsruhe
McKinsey & Company (2007) Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: how much at what cost.
http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service. Accessed Dec 2013
Pfafferott J (2004) Enhancing the design and operation of passive cooling concepts. Dissertation,
University of Karlsruhe. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart
Riviere P (ed) (2008) Preparatory study on the environmental performance of residential room
conditioning appliances. Final report of ECODESIGN project, contract TREN/D1/40-2005/
LOT10/S07.56606
Riviere P, Adnot J, Spadaro J, Hitchin R, Pout C, Kemna R, van Elburg M, van Holsteijn R
(2010) Sustainable industrial policy—building on the ecodesign directive—energy-using
product group analysis. Final report of ECODESIGN project, contract TREN/B1/35-2009/
LOT6/S12.549494
Santamouris S (ed) (2007) Advances in passive cooling. EarthScan, London
Stern N, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameon C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz
S, Edmonson N, Garbett S-L, Hamid L, Hoffman G, Ingram D, Jones B, Patmore N, Radcliffe
H, Sathiyarajah R, Stock M, Taylor C, Vernon T, Wanjie H, Zenghelis, D (2006) Stern
review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury London. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.
uk/stern_review_report.htm. Accessed July 2011
Weiss W, Biermayr P (2005) The solar thermal potential in Europe. Final report of RESTMAC
project. AEE—Institute for Sustainable technologies, Vienna
Weiss W, Biermayr P (2009) Potential of solar thermal in Europe. Final report of RESTMAC.
Bruxelles, Belgium
Chapter 2
Thermal Indoor Environment
Abstract Room temperature and indoor air quality have a strong impact on the
overall satisfaction with the thermal environment. Responses to our thermal indoor
environment have a considerable effect on health, comfort, and performance.
Formal methods have been developed to design the interior environment. Thermal
comfort takes both global and local parameters as well as static and dynamic
aspects into consideration.
The thermal indoor environment is a composition of many and diverse aspects.

Hence, the perspective on thermal comfort may change its evaluation by occupants
(Corgnati et al. 2011).
2.1 Human Responses to the Thermal Environment
Responses to our thermal indoor environment have a considerable effect on health,

comfort, and performance. There has been considerable scientific investigation
into these responses and formal methods have been developed to design and to
develop the interior environment. Existing methods for the evaluation of the
general thermal state of the body, both in comfort and under heat- or cold-stress
considerations, are based on an analysis of the heat balance for the human body.
Under cool to thermo-neutral conditions, heat gain is balanced by heat loss, no
heat is stored, and body temperature equilibrates, that is:
S ¼ M-W-C-R-Esk -Cres -Eres -K in W=m2 ð2:1Þ

where:
S Heat storage in the human body;
M Metabolic heat production;
W External work;
C Heat loss by convection;
R Heat loss by radiation;

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_2, The Author(s) 2014
16 2 Thermal Indoor Environment
Esk Evaporative heat loss from skin;

Cres Convective heat loss from respiration;
Eres Evaporative heat loss from respiration;
K Heat loss by conduction.
The four environmental factors influencing this heat balance are: air and mean
radiant temperature (C), air speed (m/s), and partial water vapor pressure (Pa).
The three personal variables are: metabolic heat production due to the activity
level (W/m2 or met), the thermal resistance of clothing (clo or m2K/W), and the
evaporative resistance of clothing (m2Pa/W). These parameters must be in balance
so that the combined influence will result in a thermal storage equal to zero. A
negative thermal storage indicates that the environment is too cool, and vice versa.
In order to provide thermal comfort, the mean skin temperature also has to be
within certain limits and the evaporative heat loss must be low.
Human responses to the thermal environment and to internal heat production
serve to maintain a narrow range of internal body temperatures of 36–38 C. The
human body has a very effective thermoregulation system, which uses blood flow
for heat transport (high blood flow: enhanced heat dissipation—low blood flow:
reduction of heat losses) with the hypothalamus acting as its main ‘‘thermostat.’’
There are two categories of human responses to the thermal environment:
voluntary or behavioral responses, and involuntary or physiological autonomic
responses. Voluntary or behavioral responses generally consist of avoidance or
reduction of thermal stress through modification of the body’s immediate envi-
ronment or of clothing insulation. Physiological responses consist of peripheral
vasoconstriction to reduce the body’s thermal conductance and increased heat
production by involuntarily shivering in the cold, and of peripheral vasodilation to
increase thermal conductance and secretion of sweat for evaporative cooling in hot
environments. Autonomic responses are proportional to changes in internal and
mean skin temperatures. Physiological responses also depend on the point in a
diurnal cycle, on physical fitness, and on the sex of the individual. Behavioral
responses rely on thermal sensations and discomfort. The latter appears to be
closely related to the level of autonomic responses so that warm discomfort is
closely related to skin wetness and cold discomfort similarly relates to cold
extremities and shivering activity.
However, there is no physiological acclimatization to cold environments; the
most common way to compensate for cold environments is behavioral adaptation
by clothing adjustment. In warm environments, sweating is a very efficient way of
losing heat. However, the sweat rate is limited, as well as how much a person can
sweat during a day. Clothing, posture, and reduced activity are all behavioral ways
of adapting to hot environments. Studies have also shown that people’s expecta-
tions may change and influence their acceptability of the thermal environment.
Besides the general thermal state of the body, a person may find the thermal
environment unacceptable or intolerable if the body experiences local influences
from asymmetric radiation (opposite surfaces with high temperature differences,
2.1 Human Responses to the Thermal Environment 17
solar radiation on single parts of the body, air velocities, vertical air-temperature
differences or contact with hot or cold surfaces (floors, machinery, tools, etc.).
In existing standards, guidelines or handbooks, different methods are used to
evaluate the general thermal state of the body in moderate, cold, and hot envi-
ronments; but all are based on the heat balance and listed factors (EN ISO
7730:2005 2005; DIN EN ISO 11079:2007 2007).
Due to individual differences, it is impossible to specify a thermal environment
that could satisfy everybody. There will always be a share of dissatisfied occu-
pants. However, it is possible to specify environments that are likely to be
acceptable for a certain percentage of the occupants. If they have some kind of
personal control (change of clothing, setting of room temperature in a single office,
increase of air velocity, change of activity level and posture), the overall satis-
faction with the environment will increase significantly and every occupant may
be satisfied. Due to local or national priorities, technical developments and cli-
matic regions, a higher thermal quality (less dissatisfied occupants) or a lower one
(more dissatisfied occupants) may be sufficient in some cases.
2.2 Health and Individual Performance
Besides influencing people’s comfort, the thermal environment may also affect
their health and performance:
• Extreme cold or hot environments are of high risk to the human body (heat
stroke, frostbites, etc.). However, if thermal indoor conditions are less extreme,
raised room temperatures have been associated with an increased prevalence of
symptoms typical for the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) or nonspecific, yet
building-related symptoms such as headache, chest tightness, difficulty in
breathing, fatigue, irritation of eyes and mucous membranes—all of which may
be alleviated after the individual leaves the building (WHO 1983).
• Thermal conditions can affect productivity and work performance through
several mechanisms, such as the following: thermal discomfort distracts atten-
tion and generates disorders that increase maintenance costs. SBS symptoms
have a negative effect on mental work. Cold conditions lower finger tempera-
tures and thus have a negative effect on manual dexterity. Rapid temperature
swings have the same effects on office work as slightly raised room tempera-
tures, while slow temperature swings cause discomfort that can lower concen-
tration and increase disorders. Vertical thermal gradients reduce the perceived
air quality or lead to a reduction in room temperature which then causes troubles
of cold at floor level.
• The hypothesis that thermal conditions within the thermal comfort zone do not
necessarily lead to optimum work performance is supported by the results of
several studies. They showed that subjects performed best at a temperature
lower than thermal neutrality. However, a strong relationship between thermal

sensation and relative office-work performance, based on a statistical analysis of
data from laboratory and field measurements, is discussed with controversy.
Some authors establish quantitative relations between indoor environmental
quality and work performance and even derive a model that integrates the
economic outcome of improved health and performance into building cost-
benefit calculations, in conjunction with initial, energy and maintenance costs.
Other authors interpret the results from these field studies from the users’ per-
spective and conclude that their performance is strongly related to their satis-
faction with the thermal environment. And user satisfaction is related to both
their expectation and sensation of the thermal environment.
In the context of this guidebook, we assume that low-energy cooling improves

the indoor environment, hence reduces negative health effects and improves the
work performance. However, these effects have not been quantified or even eco-
nomically evaluated.
2.3 Criteria for Thermal Comfort
Different physical parameters affect physiological reactions to the environment.

Thus, these parameters (air, radiant and surface temperature, air velocity and
humidity) are also the basis for defining criteria for an acceptable thermal envi-
ronment. The criteria result in requirements for general thermal comfort (PMV/
PPD index or operative temperature) and for local comfort disturbance (i.e., draft,
radiant asymmetry, vertical air temperature differences and requirements on sur-
face-temperature differences). They can be found in international standards and
guidelines such as EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005), CEN/CR 1752 (2001), EN
15251:2007-08 (2007), and ASHRAE 55:2004-04 (2004), or in their national
derivate respectively.
Operative Room Temperature. The most important criterion for the thermal
environment is the operative temperature. As a sufficient approximation for most
cases, it can be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the air temperature and the
mean radiant temperature of surrounding surfaces in an occupied zone. Air tem-
perature refers to the average value of the temperature in space and time in an
occupied zone (ASHRAE 55:2004-04 2004). For a first general thermal comfort
evaluation, a simplified calculation of the mean radiant temperature can be carried
out, with surface temperatures weighted by the different surface areas.
Parameters for Local Discomfort. Besides the operative temperature, there are
further temperature-related criteria to describe the thermal environment, particu-
larly to assess local discomfort. The temperature asymmetry is also based on the
radiant temperature of surfaces and is defined as the temperature difference
between either two vertical (wall) or horizontal (ceiling and floor) surfaces.
Another criterion is the absolute surface temperature, mainly important for the
2.3 Criteria for Thermal Comfort 19
floor to which the body has constant contact for long periods in many situations.
Finally, the stratification of the air temperature has to be taken into account as a
criterion for local comfort. Accepted temperature ranges for these three criteria can
be found in EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005) and ASHRAE 55:2004-04 (2004).
Humidity. Humidity is addressed only as a boundary condition for general
comfort [an upper limit is given in (ASHRAE 55)].
Air Velocity. Air velocity can be experienced either as draft sensation or may
lead to improved thermal comfort under warm conditions. It may occur due to
enforced air movement (open window/door, air outlet of ventilation system) or to
buoyancy effects (air falling down along a cold window surface). Allowable air
velocities and acceptable limits for draft rates—in terms of predicted percentage of
people dissatisfied with draft—are summarized in (ISO 7730:2005 2005) and
(ASHRAE 55:2004-04 2004). ISO 7730:2005 (2005) describes an allowance for
higher air velocities in order to offset an increased operative room temperature,
which was adopted by ASHRAE 55:2004-04 and in EN 15251:2005-07 standards.
2.4 Overall Satisfaction with the Thermal Environment
Further environmental parameters, e.g., air quality, visual or aural environment,

can interact with the thermal environment and therefore influence thermal comfort
or overall satisfaction in a space.
For most parameters describing the thermal environment, relationships between
the parameter itself and a predicted percentage of people rating the indoor con-
dition as (un)acceptable are established. People may be dissatisfied due to general
thermal comfort and/or local thermal comfort parameters. However, there is no
method for combining these percentages of dissatisfied persons to give a good
prediction of the total number of occupants deeming the thermal environment
unacceptable.
In comparison to the thermal environment, there is a large number of criteria
and requirements for other indoor environment qualities such as air quality, visual
and aural comfort. On the one hand, there is a possible physical interference of the
different comfort requirements, e.g., for daylight and resulting solar heat gains
through windows or recommended ventilation rates and noise from outside
through open windows. On the other hand, the various comfort criteria have an
impact on the (overall) occupants’ satisfaction with the workplace and probably on
thermal comfort. They also include social and architectural aspects related to a
specific workspace. As there is not enough proof for quantitative correlations, their
evaluation is only possible through a direct assessment after the building went
under operation.
Figure 2.1 exemplarily shows a survey result for German office buildings. The
subjective votes on satisfaction levels with different environmental parameters
were given with respect to their relevance for the occupants’ overall satisfaction
with their workplaces (Gossauer and Wagner 2008).
Fig. 2.1 Matrix with

relevant satisfaction
parameters from a field study
in 17 German office
buildings. The parameters are
weighted by their correlation
coefficients against the
overall satisfaction with the
workplace (importance of the
parameter). For details of the
survey, see (Gossauer and
Wagner 2008)
The lower left field shows parameters with high satisfaction levels but the
weighting calculation shows that they are less important for the general satisfac-
tion with the workplace. In the lower right field, occupants are satisfied with the
parameters that are more important for general satisfaction levels. The upper left
square shows parameters with higher dissatisfaction but less importance for gen-
eral satisfaction whereas parameters in the upper right combine higher dissatis-
faction levels with higher importance for the general satisfaction with the
workplace.
References
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (2004) Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc., Atlanta
CEN/CR 1752 (2001) Ventilation for buildings—design criteria for the indoor environment.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Corgnati SP, Gameiro da Silva M, Ansaldi R, Asadi E, Costa JJ, Filippi M, Kaczmarczyk J,
Melikov AK, Olesen BW, Popiolek Z, Wargocki P (2011) Indoor climate quality
assessment—evaluation of indoor thermal and indoor air quality. Rehva guidebook 14.
Rehva, Brussels
DIN EN ISO 11079:2007-12 (2007) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—determination and
interpretation of cold stress when using required clothing insulation (IREQ) and local cooling
effects. Beuth, Berlin
EN 15251:2007-08 (2007) Criteria for the indoor environment. Beuth, Berlin
EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—analytical determination
and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local
thermal comfort criteria. Beuth, Berlin
Gossauer E, Wagner A (2008) Occupant satisfaction at workplaces—a field study in office
buildings. In: Proceedings of windsor conference on air-conditioning and the low carbon
cooling challenge, London Metropolitan University, Windsor, July 2008
World Health Organization (WHO) (1983) Indoor air pollutants: exposure and health effects.
EURO Reports and Studies No. 78, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen
Chapter 3
Standards on Thermal Comfort
Abstract International standards give criteria for thermal comfort based on the
evaluation of room temperatures and their deviation from the comfort temperature.
The static approach to thermal comfort is derived from the physics of heat transfer
and combined with an empirical fit to sensation. It defines constant comfort
temperatures for the summer and winter period considering different clothing. The
adaptive comfort model considers the thermal sensation of the occupants and
different actions in order to adapt to the thermal environment as well as variable
expectations with respect to outdoor and indoor climate. The comfort temperature
is dependent on the outdoor temperature. Though standards clearly define the static
approach as general criterion and the adaptive approach as optional approach for
naturally ventilated buildings only, the application in buildings with lowenergy
cooling and strong users’ impact on the indoor environment is critically reviewed.
Human thermal comfort is defined as the state of mind that expresses satisfaction
with the surrounding environment (ASHRAE 55:2004-04 2004). Thermal comfort
is achieved when thermal equilibrium is maintained between the human body and
its surroundings and the person’s expectations of the surrounding conditions are
satisfied. Occupant satisfaction was first considered in the 1980s, when it was
found that some chronic illness was building-related (e.g., reported symptoms like
lethargy, headaches, dry eyes, and dry throat) (Bordass et al. 2001a). Current
national and international regulations draw on diverse—and partly controversial—
results from thermal-comfort studies carried out in laboratories or in the field.
There are two main models to determine human thermal comfort and to predict the
occupant’s satisfaction with the interior conditions: (i) the heat-balance approach
used in the standard EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005) and (ii) the adaptive approach
described in the standards EN 15251:2007-08 (2007), ASHRAE 55:2004 (2004),
and the Dutch guideline ISSO 74:2005 (Boersta et al. 2005). The discussion about
thermal comfort and user satisfaction has mainly been concerned with nonresi-
dential buildings rather than dwellings, but has implications for the residential
sector.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_3, The Author(s) 2014
22 3 Standards on Thermal Comfort
3.1 Static Approach to Thermal Comfort
The static approach to thermal comfort (EN ISO 7730:2005) is derived from the
physics of heat transfer and combined with an empirical fit to sensation (predicted
mean vote and predicted percentage of dissatisfaction) (Fanger 1970). The
required four environmental input variables are air and mean radiant temperature,
air speed, and humidity. The two personal variables are clothing and metabolic
heat production. The predicted mean vote PMV is the thermal comfort index
probably most widely used for assessing moderate thermal indoor environments. It
rests on the steady state heat transfer theory, obtained during a series of studies in
climatic chambers, where the climate was held constant. It predicts the expected
comfort vote of occupants on the ASHRAE scale of subjective warmth (-3 cold to
+3 hot) as well as the predicted percentage of dissatisfaction (PPD) for a certain
indoor condition.
ISO 7730:2005-10 | Room Temperature Versus Seasonal Ambient Air Tem-
perature. Thermal-comfort requirements in ISO 7730 rest upon the heat-balance
approach (Fanger 1970) and are distinguished into a summer and a winter season.
The ranges of temperature which occupants of buildings will find comfortable are
merely influenced by the characteristic heat insulation of clothing. Therefore, the
defined comfort criteria are generally applicable for all rooms, independent of the
building technology for heating, cooling, and ventilation (Fig. 3.1).
ho;c ¼ 24:5 C for summer season ð3:1Þ
ho;c ¼ 22:0 C for winter season ð3:2Þ

The criterion for thermal comfort is stipulated as an average operative room
temperature of 24.5 C for the summer and 22 C for the winter period, with a
tolerance range depending on the predicted percentage of dissatisfied occupants:
±1.0, ±1.5, and ±2.5 C (classes I, II, and III).
Fanger’s thermal-comfort model requires the input variables metabolic rate and
the insulation level of clothing. For the winter period, a clo of 1.0 is assumed,
which represents typical winter clothing with long-sleeved overgarment and long
trousers. The summer period is described with a clo factor of 0.5, representing
light, short-sleeved overgarment and light pants. The prevailing ambient condi-
tions are not considered in the model. Therefore, it is not explicit how Fanger’s
model refers to summer or winter conditions. Judging from field studies (Haldi and
Robinson 2008), the clothing level can be reliably modeled by outdoor conditions,
for example by using regressions on running mean ambient air temperature. At
15 C, this would result in a clo factor of 0.7 and is suggested by the authors to be
used as a distinction between the winter and summer periods.
DIN EN 15251:2012-12 (National Annex) | Room Temperature versus Daily
Maximum Ambient Air Temperature. The German Annex to EN 15251 defines two
comfort ranges for the summer period with reference to the maximum daily
3.1 Static Approach to Thermal Comfort 23
ADAPTIVE COMFORT MODELS STATIC COMFORT MODELS
ASHRAE 55 DIN 1946
EN 15251-ADAPTIVE EN 15251-PMV
ISSO74 DIN EN 15251 (NA)
Fig. 3.1 Models for the evaluation of thermal comfort: ASHRAE 55, DIN 1946, EN 15251-
Adaptive, EN 15251-PMV, ISSO 74 and DIN EN 15251 (NA) (from upper left) for eight low-
energy buildings in Europe (for description of the buildings, see Sect. 6.1). Hourly measured
operative room temperature portrayed over ambient air temperature. Reference value for ambient
air temperature differs according to the comfort model
ambient air temperature—i.e., below or above a maximum temperature value of

32 C (Fig. 3.1).
ho;c ¼ 24:5 C for he;d;max 16 C ð3:3Þ
ho;c ¼ 22 C þ 0:25 ðhe;d;max 16 CÞ for 16 C\he;d;max 32 C ð3:4Þ
ho;c ¼ 26 C for he;d;max [ 32 C ð3:5Þ

Though the German national annex allows for categories I to IV, it defines only
category II for new and retrofitted office buildings, with a tolerance band of ±2 K.
Diverging from EN 15251, no exceedance of this tolerance band is allowed.
3.2 Adaptive Approach to Thermal Comfort
Since the publication of the PMV equation in the 1970s, there have been many
studies on thermal comfort in buildings under operation. Some of these studies have
given support to PMV while others have found discrepancies, and it has become
apparent that no individual field study can adequately validate PMV for everyday
use in buildings (Humphreys and Nicol 2002). The fundamental assumption of the
adaptive approach is expressed by the adaptive principle: ‘‘if a change occurs such
as to produce discomfort, people react in ways which tend to restore their comfort’’
(Nicol and Humphreys 2002; Nicol and McCartney 2002). EN 15251:2007-08
(2007) and ASHRAE 55 (2004) describe the adaptive approach that includes the
variations in the outdoor climate and the person’s control over interior conditions to
determine thermal preferences. It is based on findings of surveys on thermal
comfort conducted in the field. Data about the thermal environment were correlated
to the simultaneous response of subjects under real working conditions. The ther-
mal response of subjects is usually measured by asking occupants for a comfort vote
on a descriptive scale, such as the ASHRAE or Bedford scales (Nicol and
Humphreys 2002; Nicol and Roaf 2005). Based on field studies, de Dear (1998)
proposed new thermal-comfort standards for naturally ventilated (NV) buildings,
leaving PMV as the standard for air-conditioned (AC) buildings.
The adaptive comfort model considers the thermal sensation of the occupants and
different actions in order to adapt to the (changing) thermal environment (e.g.,
change of clothes, opening windows) as well as variable expectations with respect to
outdoor and indoor climate, striving for a ‘‘customary’’ temperature. The underlying
assumption is that people are able to act as ‘‘meters’’ of their environment and that
perceived discomfort is a trigger for behavioral responses to the thermal environ-
ment. Although these phenomena cannot yet be described theoretically in full detail,
a model was derived from results of field studies, representing limits to the operative
temperature as a function of the outdoor temperature. This simplified approach also
avoids difficulties occurring with the assumption of appropriate clo and met values,
as has to be done with the PMV approach. They are included in the resulting accepted
temperature as part of the adaptation.
DIN 1946-2:1994-01 | Room Temperature versus Hourly Ambient Air Tempera-
ture. Although a guideline for mechanical ventilation systems in nonresidential
buildings, designers and planners often fall back to the former German guideline
DIN 1946-2 (1994) (‘‘Ventilation and Air-Conditioning’’) in order to evaluate
thermal comfort. The standard defines a correlation between the room and the
prevailing ambient air temperature and is motivated by the energy-saving potential
3.2 Adaptive Approach to Thermal Comfort 25
of setpoints, which depends on the ambient temperature and affects a compromise

between comfort and HVAC operation. This correlation results in an adaptive
criterion, since DIN 1946-2 (1994) defines the range of thermal comfort depending
on the prevailing, actually ambient air temperature (Fig. 3.1):
ho;c ¼ 25 C for he 26 C ð3:6Þ
ho;c ¼ 25 C þ 1=3 ðhe 26 CÞ for he [ 26 C ð3:7Þ

Since May 2005, DIN 1946-2 (1994) has been substituted by the guideline
DIN EN 13779:2004-09 (2004) (‘‘Ventilation of Non-Residential Buildings—
Performance Requirements for Ventilation and Air-Conditioning Systems’’),
which does not consider a comparable comfort criterion any longer.
EN ISO 15251:2007-8 | Room Temperature versus Running Mean Ambient Air
Temperature. EN 15251 evaluates the operative room temperature in relation to
the running mean of the ambient air temperature (Fig. 3.1). Again, the temperature
range defining thermal comfort in summer correlates with user satisfaction: ±2.0,
±3.0 and ±4.0 C (classes I, II, and III). The different ranges refer to the cate-
gories defined in the standard (category I: less than 6 % dissatisfied, category II:
less than 10 % dissatisfied, category III: less than 15 % dissatisfied, category IV:
more than 15 % dissatisfied—based on occupants’ expectations on indoor
climate).
ho;c ¼ 18:8 C + 0:33 hrm for summer season ð3:8Þ
Figure 3.1 shows these operative temperature limits for nonmechanically
cooled buildings. The outdoor temperature has to be calculated as a weighted
running mean value, referring to the idea that most recent experiences (last one to
7 days) might be more important for the ‘‘thermal memory.’’ The running mean
ambient air temperature hrm is given as a function of the one at the previous days
hrm-1 and the daily mean ambient air temperature of the previous days he,d-1 with
a = 0.8.
hrm ¼ ð1 aÞ he;d1 þ a hrm1 ð3:9Þ
ISSO74:2005 | Room Temperature versus Running Mean Ambient Air Tempera-
ture. This guideline from the Netherlands was the first European standard using an
adaptive approach to thermal comfort and therefore considers the thermal adap-
tation. The comfortable room temperature responds to the running mean ambient
air temperature of the last 3 days using the same formula as EN 15251 but with a
different reference temperature (Fig. 3.1).
ho;c ¼ 17:8 C + 0:31 hrm;2:4 for summer season ð3:10Þ
with hrm;2:4 ¼ ðhe;d þ 0:8 he;d1 þ 0:4 he;d2 þ 0:2 he;d3 Þ=2:4 ð3:11Þ
The ISSO 74 algorithm is based on a meta-analysis of existing models and

considers—distinguished from other standards—the users’ expectations and their
efficient possibility for adaptation to the indoor environment—and not the cooling
technology—as an indicator for the relevant comfort model. Since 2008, this
approach has also been used for the design of new buildings for the German
government (BBR-Lex 2008)—divergent from the German standard
DIN EN 15251 (NA).
ASHRAE 55:2002 | Room Temperature versus Monthly Mean Ambient Air
Temperature. ASHRAE 55 defines thermal comfort for naturally ventilated build-
ings with reference to the monthly mean ambient air temperature for the adaptive
model, since this is generally available from meteorological stations (Fig. 3.1).
ho;c ¼ 17:8 C þ 0:31 he;month for summer season ð3:12Þ
The tolerance range is determined depending on occupant satisfaction, namely
±2.5 C for 90 % acceptance and ±3.5 C for 80 % acceptance.
Most relevant PMV and adaptive comfort models with the respective reference
value for ambient air temperature are illustrated in Fig. 3.1: ASHRAE-55,
EN 15251 (adaptive, PMV, and German annex), ISSO 74, DIN 1946, and
ISO 7730. Thermal-comfort results are presented for eight European buildings: an
hourly measurement of the operative room temperature is plotted against the
specific ambient air temperature. Obviously, the defined comfort requirements for
the winter season—running mean ambient air temperature below 15 C—are
similar for all comfort models. Room temperatures are limited to a range of 19 to
24 C.
On the contrary, comfort requirements differ significantly for the summer
season, especially for the adaptive and static comfort models. Considering the
latter, the defined setpoints for room temperature range between 20 and 26 C
(comfort class II). For the adaptive models, the room temperature setpoints
increase with higher ambient air temperatures. Although thermal-comfort results
differ significantly between European buildings, most of the buildings comply with
the temperature requirements of the adaptive models. This does not hold true for
the static comfort models, where temperature limits are often violated.
Figure 3.2 presents the thermal footprint of the European buildings: thermal
comfort is evaluated for all six comfort models, considering the upper temperature
limits during the summer season. Obviously, different comfort results are
achieved, depending on the comfort model applied.
In summary, comfort models defined in various standards and guidelines result
in different conclusions. In some cases, results differ considerably, in particular for
the adaptive versus the static approach. Therefore, it is important to develop a
classification of cooling concepts and the corresponding thermal-comfort models.
3.2 Adaptive Approach to Thermal Comfort 27
GERMANY DENMARK
ger_09
FRANCE ROMANIA
GREECE ITALY
FINLAND CZECH REPUBLIC
class I class II class III class IV
Fig. 3.2 Thermal comfort of eight European buildings (for description of the buildings, see
Sect. 6.1), evaluated in accordance with the introduced standards. Abbreviations as follows:
DIN 1946 (DIN), ASHRAE 55 (ASHRAE), German annex to DIN EN 15251-NA (VDI), PMV
approach in EN 15251:2007-08 (2007) (PMV), adaptive approach in EN 15251:2008-07
(Adaptive). Thermal comfort with respect to class II should be guaranteed during 95 % of the
occupancy (dotted line). Example: for the Danish building, thermal comfort is in compliance with
class II during 95 % of the occupancy when considering the adaptive comfort models and with
class III when considering the PMV comfort model. However, the operative room temperatures
are higher than permitted during the entire summer season for the VDI and DIN 1946 models.
Squares indicating classes I to IV are ordered from left to right
3.3 Discrepancy Between Static and Adaptive Approaches

to Thermal Comfort
The last few decades of thermal-comfort research have produced an irreconcilable

debate between two philosophies: the ‘‘PMV’’ and the ‘‘adaptive’’ model have
contrasting assumptions about the way people respond to their environment.
Ongoing research investigates whether the application of a certain thermal-comfort

approach should depend on the type of building, e.g., naturally ventilated, low-
energy, and air-conditioned building, respectively. The adaptive model considers
three categories of adjustment people in buildings undertake to achieve thermal
comfort: behavioral, physiological, and psychological adjustment.
• Everyday condition: Humphreys and Nicol (2002) argue that using a steady-
state equation to predict responses of people in a dynamic equilibrium is merely
an approximation. PMV can be seriously misleading when used to predict the
mean comfort votes of groups of people in everyday conditions, particularly in
warm environments. It is the common agreement among several researchers that
the relationship based on laboratory experiments should be tested in the field
before they are included in comfort standards.
• Non-air-conditioned buildings: de Dear and Brager (2001, 2002) found PMV to
overestimate the subjective warmth sensations of people in naturally ventilated
buildings. The bias in PMV is strongly related to the prevailing mean outdoor air
temperature, in a manner that is nonlinear. De Dear and Brager (1998) as well as
van der Linden et al. (2006) show that occupants evaluate the indoor climate
differently in buildings where they can individually influence it, e.g., by oper-
ating windows, doors, and blinds. In such buildings, higher indoor temperatures
are more accepted than Fanger’s model predicts, especially during periods with
higher outdoor temperatures. Therefore, van der Linden et al. (2006) state that
the static comfort model is the only appropriate one for sealed air-conditioned
buildings, because the model can only take effects of behavioral adaptation into
account (adjustment of clothing, level of activity, increase in air velocity). The
generalization of the PMV model for non-air-conditioned buildings is consid-
ered to be inappropriate.
• Occupant’s control: Occupants with more opportunities to adapt to the envi-
ronment or (vice versa) to adapt their environment to their own requirements
will be less likely to suffer discomfort (Nicol and Humphreys 2002), which is
increased if control is not provided, or if the controls are ineffective, inappro-
priate, or unusable. Bordass et al. (2001a, b) and Gossauer (2008) confirm these
findings through comprehensive occupant surveys in the UK and Germany,
respectively. Raja et al. (2001) as well as Rijal et al. (2007) state that windows
are extensively used by occupants. At indoor temperatures above 20 C, the
number of subjects reporting the opening of windows increases strongly with
indoor temperature and approaches 100 % at more than 27 C. The importance
of individual occupant control is already acknowledged by the German orga-
nization ‘Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen’ (DGNB 2009), where
occupants’ influence on the surrounding condition is one factor for building
certification. In addition, the U.S. ‘Green Building Council’s Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design’ accreditation system has three aspects
associated with thermal comfort, out of which one specifically applies to the
control of operable windows (U.S. Green Building Council, LEED 2006).
3.3 Discrepancy Between Static and Adaptive Approaches to Thermal Comfort 29
• Occupants’ expectation: Thermal sensation is influenced by an individual’s

experience and expectation of the building’s climate, based on the outdoor
temperature of that particular day and the preceding ones. However, results of a
study by Gossauer (2008) in Germany reveal that occupants might appreciate
the opportunity to condition the office or to influence the temperature at the
workplace, respectively, at higher ambient air temperatures.
• Effectiveness of intervention: Post-occupancy evaluation studies demonstrate
that occupant satisfaction with comfort correlates with opportunities to make
interventions and with their effectiveness (Gossauer 2008; Leaman and Bordass
2001). Simplicity and convenience of intervention are paramount.
• Overall comfort: Intensive research based on field studies has determined that
satisfaction with workplace conditions is not exclusively driven by thermal
comfort, but is also affected by very diverse factors such as visual and acoustic
comfort, interior design, the occupant’s expectations and control of the sur-
roundings, the user’s behavior as well as social, cultural, and psychological
parameters (Wagner et al. 2007; Leaman and Bordass 2001, 2007; Bischof et al.
2003; Humphreys and Nicol 2000a; Humphreys and Hancock 2007; Hellwig
2005). It is often stated that physiological acclimatization to heat or cold does
not affect the preferred bodily condition to thermal comfort, but it is generally
agreed that it does affect people’s tolerance to body states differing from it
(Humphreys and Nicol 2002).
• Health: Roulet (2001) states that, obviously, excessive energy consumption by
the HVAC system does not result in better health. As a general rule, the higher
the energy consumption, the larger is the number of sick-building syndromes
(generally found in fully air-conditioned buildings (Bischof et al. 2003)).
• Forgiveness: In passively air-conditioned buildings (openable windows, sun-
shading systems), more adaptive mechanisms are typically available to the
occupant for comfort and consequently support a greater individual awareness
of the available adaptive opportunities. Buildings in which people have easy
access to a variety of building controls enabling direct effects on comfort are
found to show an attitudinal shift to occupant ‘‘forgiveness.’’ Leaman and
Bordass (2007) coined this term as a description of how people extend their
comfort zone by overlooking and allowing for inadequacies of the thermal
environment (Kwok and Rajkovich 2010). Forgiveness factors are defined for
different building types, sorted in accordance with the ventilation system
employed. Buildings with natural ventilation are found to have the highest
forgiveness scores, i.e., people may be more likely to tolerate otherwise
uncomfortable conditions in buildings with natural ventilation.
• Occupant’s tolerance: Investigations by Humphreys and Nicol (2000b) show that
it is increasingly common for users to tolerate hotter conditions than a generation
ago. On average, people were comfortable at about 20 C in 1978 (from data
collected earlier) and at about 23 C in 1998 (from data compiled by de Dear and
Brager in 1998). Low-energy buildings tend to be warmer in summer than con-
ventional air-conditioned buildings, but thermal comfort in them has been rated as
more comfortable and satisfying (Leaman and Bordass 2007). However, it needs
to be verified if the 1998 findings are applicable to today’s comfort requirements,

since people spend a lot of time in air-conditioned spaces such as shopping malls,
cars, trains, banks, etc. Therefore, higher indoor temperatures might now be
perceived as more unpleasant and uncomfortable.
• Dress code: Changes in clothing and activity also change the conditions under
which people feel comfortable. If no dress code is required, the occupant can
adapt more easily to the surrounding conditions by changing clothes (Nicol and
Humphreys 2002) and might therefore accept higher indoor air temperatures.
Occupants are more satisfied with room temperatures if they do not have to
adhere to a dress code (Gossauer 2008). Haldi and Robinson (2008) found by
means of questionnaires that occupants are adaptive in terms of clothing if they
do not have to adhere to a formal dress code. They found a clear linear rela-
tionship between the running mean ambient air temperature and the level of
clothing insulation. Outdoor temperature was found to be twice as effective as
indoor temperature to explain the variation in clothing level.
• Productivity: The great challenge in correlating interior comfort and occupant
productivity is that there is no common agreement on the definition and the
methodology to measure productivity in office work. Some researchers argue
that studies on the relation between warmer environments and productivity are
not very conclusive (van Linden et al. 2006). Some studies demonstrate a
decrease in productivity at higher ambient temperatures [e.g., by Wyon qt. in
(Fitzner 2004)]. Others show a positive effect on productivity when people have
adaptive opportunities, like openable windows, fans and blinds to alter their
subjective warmth. In addition, field studies reveal that perceived productivity
does not vary with indoor air temperature and that productivity positively cor-
relates with the perception of general comfort and health. Therefore, some
researchers believe that adaptive comfort models in moderate climates will have
no adverse affect on productivity, provided that adaptive opportunities are
available. Occupants who perceive that they feel comfortable, also tend to say
they feel healthy and productive at work. Thus, health, comfort, and produc-
tivity are often surrogates to each other (Bordass et al. 2001a). Fitzner (2003)
presents a literature review on productivity.
• Energy Savings: On the one hand, the provision of occupant comfort has a major
bearing on energy consumption. On the other hand, an energy-efficient building
that cannot provide comfortable and high-quality working conditions will either
affect the well-being—and therefore the productivity—of the occupants or drive
them into taking actions that may compromise the energy economy of the
building (e.g., subsequent installation of portable cooling devices) (Nicol 2007).
In brief, an energy-efficient concept without occupant comfort compromises the
sustainability and profitability of the property. As a result, an optimum is needed
between energy efficiency, interior comfort, and expenditure, both for new
constructions and refurbishments. The EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive) Article 7 requires the inclusion of information on the interior climate
of a building for the certification of energy use. Besides, post-occupancy
evaluation and field studies show that high energy use for the heating and
3.3 Discrepancy Between Static and Adaptive Approaches to Thermal Comfort 31
cooling of buildings does not necessarily correlate with high occupant satis-
faction. The sustainability of building and technical plant performance needs to
be considered in the framing of standards (Roulet et al. 2006a, b; Humphreys
and Nicol 2002; Nicol and Humphreys 2009).
References
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (2004) Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy.
BBR-Lex (2008) Richtlinie B12–8132.1/0 zu baulichen und planerischen Vorgaben für
Baumaßnahmen des Bundes zur Gewährleistung der thermischen Behaglichkeit im Sommer.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bauen und Stadtentwicklung, Berlin
Bischof W, Bullinger-Nabe M, Kruppa B, Schwab R, Müller BH (2003) Expositionen und
gesundheitliche Beeinträchtigungen in Bürogebäuden—Ergebnisse des ProKlimA-Projektes.
Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart
Boersta AC, Hulsman LP, van Weele AM (2005) ISSO 74 Kleintje Binnenklimaat. Stichting
ISSO, Rotterdam
Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M, Leaman A (2001a) Assessing building performance in use 2:
technical performance of the probe buildings. Build Res Inf 29(2):103–113
Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M, Leaman A (2001b) Assessing building performance in use 3:
Energy performance of the probe buildings. Build Res Inf 29(2):114–128
CEN/CR 1752 (2001) Ventilation for buildings—Design criteria for the indoor environment.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
de Dear R (1998) A global database of thermal comfort field experiments. ASHRAE Trans
104(1b):1141–1152. Reprinted in Schiller Brager G (ed) (1998) Field studies of thermal
comfort and adaptation. ASHRAE Techn Data Bull 14(1):15–26
de Dear R, Schiller Brager G (1998) Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference. ASHRAE Trans 104(1a):pp.145–167. Reprinted in Schiller Brager G (ed) (1998)
Field studies of thermal comfort and adaptation. ASHRAE Techn Data Bull 14(1):27–49
de Dear R, Brager G (2001) The adaptive model of thermal comfort and energy conservation in
the built environment. Int J Biometeorol 45:2s
de Dear R, Brager G (2002) Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings—revisions to
ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy Build 34(6):549–561
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e. V. (DGNB) (2009) http://www.dgnb.de.
Accessed Dec 2013
DIN 1946:1994-01 (1994) Ventilation and air-conditioning: technical health requirements. Beuth
Verlag, Berlin
DIN EN 13779:2004-09 (2004) Ventilation for non-residential buildings—Performance require-
ments for ventilation and room-conditioning systems. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
EN 15251:2008-07 (2007) Criteria for the indoor environment. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
Fanger PO (1970) Thermal comfort analysis and applications. Environmental Engineering.
Mc-Graw-Hill, New York
Fitzner K (2003) Productivity. In: Nilsson PE (ed) Achieving the desired indoor climate.
Studentliteratur AB, Stockholm
Fitzner K (2004) Einfluss des Raumklimas auf die Produktivität. HLH 55(9):59–60
Gossauer E (2008) Nutzerzufriedenheit in Bürogebäuden—eine Feldstudie. Dissertation,
Gossauer E, Wagner A (2008) Occupant satisfaction at workplaces—a Field study in office
buildings. In: Proceedings of Windsor conference on air-conditioning and the low carbon
Haldi F, Robinson D (2008) On the behavior and adaptation of office occupants. Build Environ
43(12):2163–2177
Hellwig R (2005) Thermische Behaglichkeit, Disserion. TU München
Humphreys MA, Hancock M (2007) Do people like to feel ‘neutral’?: exploring the variation of
the desired thermal sensation on the ASHRAE scale. Energy Build 39(7):867–874
Humphreys MA, Nicol JF (2000a) Effects of measurement and formulation error on thermal
comfort indices in the ASHRAE database of field studies. ASHRAE Transactions
206:493–502
Humphreys MA, Nicol JF (2000b) Outdoor temperature and indoor thermal comfort: Raising the
precision of the relationship for the 1998 ASHRAE database of field studies. ASHRAE
Transactions 206:485–492
Humphreys MA, Nicol JF (2002) The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes in every-
day thermal environments. Energy Build 34(6):667–684
ISO EN 7730:2005 (2005) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Analytical determination
and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local
thermal comfort criteria. International Organization for Standardization, Genova
Kwok AG, Rajkovich NB (2010) Addressing climate change in comfort standards. Build Environ
45(1):18–22
Leaman A, Bordass B (2001) Assessing building performance in use 4: the probe occupant
surveys and their implications. Build Res Inf 29(2):129–143
Leaman A, Bordass B (2007) Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Build Res Inf
35(6):662–673
Nicol JF (2007) Comfort and energy use in buildings—getting them right. Energy Build
39(7):737–739
Nicol JF, Humphreys MA (2002) Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for
buildings. Energy Build 34(6):563–572
Nicol JF, Humphreys MA (2009) Derivation of the adaptive equations for thermal comfort in
free-running buildings in European standard EN15251. Build Environ 45(1):11–17
Nicol JF, McCartney K (2002) Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe. Energy
Build 34(6):623–635
Nicol JF, Roaf S (2005) Post-occupancy evaluation and field studies of thermal comfort. Build
Res Inf 33(4):338–346
Raja IA, Nicol JF, McCartney KJ, Humphreys MA (2001) Thermal comfort: use of controls in
naturally ventilated buildings. Energy Build 33(3):235–244
Rijal HB, Tuohy P, Humphreys M, Nicol F, Samuel A, Clarke J (2007) Using results from field
surveys to predict the effect of open windows on thermal comfort and energy use in buildings.
Energy Build 39(7):823–836
Roulet CA (2001) Indoor environment quality in buildings and its impact on outdoor
environment. Energy Build 33(3):183–191
Roulet CA, Johner N, Foradini F, Bluyssen P, Cox C, Fernandes E, Müller B, Aizlewood C
(2006a) Perceived health and comfort in relation to energy use and building characteristics.
Build Res Inf 34(5):467–474
Roulet CA, Flourentzou F, Foradini F, Bluyssen P, Cox C, Aizlewood C (2006b) Multicriteria
analysis of health, comfort and energy efficiency in buildings. Build Res Inf 34(5):475–482
U.S. Green Building Council, LEED (2006) New construction reference guide, 2nd edn. USGBC,
Washington
van der Linden AC, Boersta AC, Raue AK, Kuvers SR, de Dear RJ (2006) Adaptive temperature
limits: a new guideline in The Netherlands—a new approach for the assessment of building
performance with respect to thermal indoor climate. Energy Build 38(1):8–17
Wagner A, Gossauer E, Moosmann C, Gropp T, Leonardt R (2007) Thermal comfort and
workplace occupant satisfaction—results of field studies in German low-energy office
Chapter 4
User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort
in Office Buildings
Abstract Thermal comfort in nonresidential buildings is evaluated in accordance

with the European standard EN 15251 which defines two comfort models based on
the cooling concept implemented in the building: the adaptive model and the PMV
model. However, many office and administration buildings cannot be clearly
allocated to a specific comfort model according to the respective cooling concept
employed. A field study confirms that the standard for thermal interior comfort
should provide two models. However, the strict allocation of building categories
(building with/without mechanical cooling) in EN 15251 could not be verified. It
seems reasonable to classify buildings into air-based and water-based low-energy
cooling systems with limited cooling capacity or to do so with respect to the
degree of coupling between indoor and outdoor climate conditions.
Thermal comfort in nonresidential buildings is evaluated in accordance with the

European standard EN 15251:2007–08 (2007) which defines two comfort models
based on the cooling concept implemented in the building: the adaptive model and
the PMV model (Chap. 3). However, many office and administration buildings in
Europe cannot be clearly allocated to a specific comfort model according to the
respective cooling concept employed. For example, some buildings use free
cooling or mechanical night-ventilation in combination with active cooling devi-
ces (e.g., thermo-active building systems using water as the active medium).
Furthermore, cooling concepts using environmental heat sinks (e.g., direct cooling
by means of geothermal energy) constitute energy-efficient solutions for Central
European climates, but cannot ensure stringent room-temperature setpoints with
respect to the PMV comfort model due to system inertia and system-related
temperature differences.
Since the standard must formulate unambiguous conditions, DIN 15251 con-
tains the following definition:
Buildings without mechanical cooling: buildings that do not have any mechanical cooling
and rely on other techniques to reduce high indoor temperature during the warm season
like moderately sized windows, adequate sun shielding, use of building mass, natural
ventilation, night-ventilation, etc. to prevent overheating.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_4, The Author(s) 2014
34 4 User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort
In this context, ‘‘mechanical cooling’’ is defined explicitly and is distinguished

from passive cooling methods in terms of the guideline as follows:
Cooling of the indoor environment by mechanical means used to provide cooling of
supply air, fan-coil units, cooled surfaces, etc. The definition is related to people’s
expectations regarding the internal temperature in warm seasons. Opening of windows
during day and night time is not regarded as mechanical cooling. Any mechanically
assisted ventilation (fans) is regarded as mechanical cooling.
The term ‘‘mechanically cooled’’ encompasses all concepts employing a

mechanical device to condition the space, such as supply and/or exhaust air sys-
tems, thermo-active building systems, and convectors. Only buildings employing
natural ventilation through open windows fall into the category of ‘‘non-
mechanical’’ concepts. This method may be applied when certain requirements are
met: thermal conditions are primarily regulated by the occupants by operating
windows that open to the outdoors. Furthermore, occupants are engaged nearby in
sedentary activities and are supposed to feel free to adapt their clothing to thermal
conditions.
This strict definition of the standard EN 15251 according to the cooling concept
employed, however, differs significantly from the conditions formulated in the
adaptive comfort model, which is guided by the possibility of effective user
influence and not by the cooling concept, e.g., (van der Linden et al. 2006) and
(ISSO 74 2004). Which definition is better to describe the comfort model to be
used in nonresidential buildings with technically limited cooling capacity: the
technical cooling equipment or the users’ expectations? Several publications refer
to this unanswered question (de Dear and Brager 1998; Humphreys and Nicol
2000), but a definitive proposal fails due to the small sample sizes of such
buildings in field studies (de Dear and Brager 2002).
The objective is to assess the occupant perception of and satisfaction with
thermal comfort in two office buildings located in close proximity to each other in
Freiburg in south-west Germany, where two different cooling concepts are
employed. Results were obtained in long-term field surveys through daily ques-
tioning and accompanying measurements in high temporal resolution. A model to
predict the comfort temperature in summer was calculated by means of regression
analyses, based on the available data from the field survey and compared to the
models in the EN 15251 guideline (Kalz et al. 2013).
The study is designed to answer the following questions:
(1) Can an adaptive comfort model be used to assess thermal comfort in non-
residential buildings? Do their occupants tolerate higher operative room
temperatures with rising outdoor temperatures, provided that the occupants
can influence the indoor environment?
(2) Do occupants have an altered perception of the operative room temperature
subject to the cooling concept employed?
(3) Does user satisfaction with thermal comfort change depending on the cooling
concept?
4 User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort 35
(4) How is the comfort temperature determined for different cooling concepts,
considering the relationship between room temperature, ambient air temper-
ature, and occupant satisfaction? How can cooling concepts be allocated to the
defined comfort models in the standards? Should the standard be extended or
complemented?
4.1 Methodology and Analysis of the Field Survey
Investigation and Participants. The study was conducted in two office buildings in
Freiburg, located less than 500 m apart (Fig. 4.1). One of them (SIC) is air-
conditioned in summer in accordance with a mechanical night-ventilation concept
(exhaust ventilation system, ‘‘air-based’’). The second building (SCF) employs
thermo-active building systems with water as the active medium (concrete-core
conditioning, ‘‘water-based’’) and a supply-and-exhaust air system (see Sect. 4.2).
In both buildings, the occupants can influence the indoor environment, i.e., they
can individually open/close windows, control the external solar-shading system,
and a dress code is not observed.
The investigation was carried out during the summer of 2009 (July 1 to Sep-
tember 30) in the office rooms of the SIC building and in the following year, 2010
(June 1 to September 30), in the SCF office building. User perception of and
satisfaction with thermal comfort was determined by means of daily, computer-
based questionnaires.
In the SIC building (2009, night-ventilation concepts), 26 occupants partici-
pated in the survey; in the SFC building, there were 29 participants (Table 4.1).
Some of the occupants interviewed in the SIC building moved to the SCF building
in spring 2010. Therefore, twelve of them took part in both surveys.
Survey of User Perception and Satisfaction. Daily computer-based surveys were
carried out during the period of investigation. A query appeared on the users’
computer screens at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., in which the occupants were asked to
answer four questions about thermal room comfort. The questions and the scaling
were as follows:
• How do you perceive the operative room temperature to be at the moment?
(with 7 = hot; 1 = cold)
• How satisfied are you with the operative room temperature at the moment? (with
4 = very dissatisfied; 1 = very satisfied)
• Do you perceive any air movement/air draft at the moment? (with 5 = not at all;
1 = very much)
• How do you perceive the air humidity to be at the moment? (with 5 = very dry;
1 = very humid)
Table 4.1 Information on method and execution of postoccupancy evaluation as well as

measurements
Air-based cooling (SIC) Water-based cooling (SCF)
Participants
Number 26 (9 female and 17 male 29 (9 female and
occupants) 20 male occupants)
Age Up to 25 years: 4 users Up to 25 years: 2 users
Between 26 and 35 years: 18 Between 26 and
users 35 years: 19 users
Between 36 and 45 years: 3 Between 36 and
users 45 years: 8 users
Between 46 and 55 years: no Between 46 and
users 55 years: no users
Over 55 years: 1 user Over 55 years: no user
Questioning
Period 07/01/09–09/30/09 06/01/10–09/30/10
Frequency Daily; in the morning at 11 a.m. and in the afternoon at 3 p.m.
Note: The question stays on the screen until the user answers the
question. Therefore, the response times vary slightly if a
person is not at the workplace at the time of questioning
Methodology Computer-based questioning
Questions 1. How do you perceive the operative room temperature to be at
the moment? (with 7 = hot; 1 = cold)
2. How satisfied are you with the operative room temperature at
the moment? (with 4 = very dissatisfied; 1 = very satisfied)
3. Do you feel any air movement/air draft at the moment? (with
5 = not at all; 1 = very much)
4. How do you perceive the air humidity to be at the moment?
(with 5 = very dry; 1 = very humid)
Measurements
Location At the workplace of the occupants interviewed
Indoor climate Operative room temperature [C] and relative air humidity (%) in
12-minute resolution
User behavior Opening of windows, status of No measurements
solar shading
Number of rooms 10 14
Outdoor climate Ambient air temperature [C], solar radiation [W/m2], wind
velocity [m/s], ambient air humidity [%] in 1-min resolution at
local meteorological station
Possible Influential Factors
No dress code
Manual operation of solar shading
Manual operation of windows
Minimum 1 window per 2 occupants
No influence on setpoints of Setpoint control in
operative room temperature 2-Kelvin steps
due to night-ventilation
concept
4.1 Methodology and Analysis of the Field Survey 37
The users’ assessment of the indoor temperature conditions was rated on a 7-

point scale, while air movement and humidity were rated on a 5-point scale. For
both scales, only the endpoints are named explicitly, not the intermediate grada-
tions. The scale for the question of user satisfaction was evenly numbered in order
to avoid neutral responses, and thus to obtain a clear distinction between ‘‘satis-
fied’’ and ‘‘dissatisfied.’’
Survey of User Behavior. In addition to the daily questioning, occupants of the SIC
building were asked on four summer days, with high ambient air temperatures
which measures they had taken each morning and afternoon respectively to
improve their (perceived) thermal comfort. The questioning was conducted by
means of a detailed, written questionnaire. Besides, the occupants were asked to
self-assess their productivity at the time of questioning under the prevailing
environmental indoor conditions.
Monitoring of Indoor and Outdoor Conditions. Parallel to the questioning, the
following parameters to quantify thermal comfort were monitored in high temporal
resolution (time step: 12 min) in the rooms or at the workplaces respectively:
• Measurements at the workplace of the occupants: operative room temperature
and relative air humidity.
• Measurements in the offices: opening of windows and status of the solar-shading
devices.
• Ambient conditions at local meteorological station: ambient air temperature, solar
radiation, relative air humidity, wind velocity, and wind direction (Fig. 4.2)
Analysis. The computer-based data from the questionnaires and the workplace-
related measurements at the time of questioning were combined to a total dataset
and analyzed with SPSS (SPSS 20.0 2008). Regression analyses were used to
model, first the relationship between outdoor and indoor air temperature as well as
satisfaction, and second to determine the comfort room temperature.
4.2 Building and Energy Concepts of Demonstration

Buildings
The demonstration buildings used for the field study strive for a significantly
reduced cooling energy demand (around 25 kWhtherm/m2a) with carefully coor-
dinated measures for passive cooling and the use of environmental heat sinks
(ambient air and groundwater). Following a stringent load-reduction strategy,
limited use of primary and final energy was set as a target for the complete service
technology of the building (HVAC and lighting). The measures included a high-
quality building envelope, reduced solar heat gains (through solar shading), suf-
ficient thermal storage capacity (through nonsuspended concrete ceilings), air-tight
building envelope in conjunction with a hygienically compulsory air-ventilation
Fig. 4.1 Office buildings: SIC (left) with mechanical night-ventilation concept and SCF (right)
with water-based cooling concept. (Research for Energy Optimized Buildings (EnOB), www.
enob.info/eng/ and UNMÜSSIG GmbH)
2009 2010
ambient air temperature [°C]
ambient air temperature [°C]
mean
max
min
Jun Jul Aug Jun Jul Aug
Fig. 4.2 Monthly ambient air temperature [C] in summer, 2009 and 2010, location Freiburg:
daily mean, maximum, and minimum. The rectangles present the data between the first and third
quartiles. The maximum and minimum values are also plotted
system, and low-energy office equipment (reduced internal heat gains, daylight
concepts) (see Table 4.2). Both buildings allow the user to influence the indoor
environment with devices such as operable windows and sun-shading controls. In
the SCF building, the user can control the setpoints for the operative room tem-
perature in 2-Kelvin steps. Most of the office buildings consist of 2- and 4-person
as well as group offices. The energy concept of both buildings for heating, cooling,
and ventilation is illustrated in Fig. 4.3.
Ventilation concept: During the time of occupancy, the SIC building is manually
ventilated via windows. The SCF building employs a supply-and-exhaust venti-
lation system, which enables the supply air to be cooled down slightly by a water-
to-air heat exchanger that is coupled to a groundwater system.
Cooling concept: In summer, the SIC building is cooled down with a night-
ventilation concept by using an exhaust ventilation system (1.5 air changes per
hour). Night-ventilation is controlled through comparison between the average
room and the outside temperature, and is activated only during summer. Outside
4.2 Building and Energy Concepts of Demonstration Buildings 39
Table 4.2 Information on the SIC and SCF buildings

SCF SIC
Building and usage
Usage, number of users Office, - Office, 400
Time of occupancy 8:00–20:00 6:00–20:00
Mon–Fri Mon–Fri
Year of completion 2010 2003
Number of storeys 5 5
Heated net floor area [m2] 4,500 13,833
Area-to-volume ratio [m-1] 0.33 0.29
Building envelope
Solar-shading system Exterior venetian blinds, Exterior venetian blinds,
central control, shading central control, shading
factor 0.2 factor 0.2
U value [W/(m2K)] No information Exterior walls 0.19
Windows 1.3
Roof 0.19
Windows Double-glazed, low-e windows Double-glazed, low-e windows
g-value 0.60
window-to-wall ratio 33–49 %
Cooling concept
Environmental heat sink Ambient air, groundwater Ambient air
Input energy form Electricity Electricity
Cooling system Direct cooling via groundwater Mechanical night-ventilation
system and wet cooling
tower, additional
compression chiller and
cooling tower
Capacity [kWtherm] 227 –
Distribution system in the Thermo-active building Air
room systems
Ventilation concept
Operable windows Yes Yes
Night-ventilation No Yes
Mechanical ventilation Yes Yes
Dehumidification of air No No
Pre-cooling Yes No
air flows into the room through the air inlets that are integrated into the upper
window frame and is exhausted through an aperture in the duct system.
The SCF building is cooled down actively by thermo-active building systems
(here: concrete-core conditioning system, CCT), where pipes are integrated into
the core of the concrete ceiling of the office rooms (20 mm pipe diameter, 150 mm
spacing between pipes). The system is designed for a supply temperature of 16 C
and a temperature difference of 3 K. Each office has an individual room temper-
ature control (setpoint controller in 2-Kelvin increments), resulting in 263
F I N A L ENERGY SIC
DISTRICT HEAT ELECTRICITY
E N V I R O N M E N T A L ENERGY
PV
SOLAR
HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
COOLING
NV
AMBIENT
MV VENTILATION
AIR
F I N A L ENERGY SCF
GAS ELECTRICITY
B HEATING
GROUND
WATER
U S E F U L ENERGY
well
HX COOLING
CT
AMBIENT AIR
CH
MV VENTILATION
HR HX
Fig. 4.3 Energy scheme of the SIC and SCF buildings. Abbreviations mechanical ventilation
(MV), night-ventilation (NV), photovoltaics (PV), gas boiler (B), heat recovery (HR), heat
exchanger (HX), cooling tower (CT), chiller (CH)
hydronic circuits in the entire building, which are controlled by electronic

actuators.
Cooling energy is generated either through direct use of a groundwater system
(temperature level in summer between 14 and 19 C, capacity about 200 kWtherm)
or by a wet cooling tower (200 kWtherm). If demand is higher, cooling energy can
also be provided by two compression chillers.
4.3 Results of Survey and User Satisfaction
In the daily survey, users rated their perception of and their satisfaction with the
room temperature at the time of questioning (7-point scale for perceptions from
‘‘cold’’ to ‘‘hot’’ and 4-point scale for satisfaction from ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ to
4.3 Results of Survey and User Satisfaction 41
PERCEPTION OF ROOM TEMPERATURE

air-based cooling, SIC water-based cooling, SCF
32 32
operative room temperature [°C]
2009 2010
30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
22 cold 22 cold
cool cool
20 slightly cool 20 slightly cool
18 neutral 18 neutral
slightly warm slightly warm
16 warm 16 warm
hot hot
14 14
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]
Fig. 4.4 Perception of room temperature by the users: hourly operative room temperature [C] at
all workplaces of the users interviewed plotted against the running mean of the daily ambient air
temperature [C]. Also given is user perception of the room temperature, following a 7-point
scale from ‘‘cold’’ to ‘‘hot.’’ Note: colored markers present the measurements at the time of
questioning; gray markers present all measurements during occupancy
‘‘very satisfied’’). Results for perceived and actually measured room temperature
are shown in Figs. 4.4 and 4.5. Figure 4.4 shows the hourly measured room
temperature during summer period (gray markers) as well as the its perception at
the time of questioning (colored markers). The surveys in both buildings indicate
that room temperatures above 26 C are usually perceived as ‘‘slightly warm’’ to
‘‘warm.’’ Room temperatures above 28 C were rated as ‘‘warm’’ to ‘‘hot.’’
Measured room temperatures down to 20 C were never perceived as ‘‘cold.’’
Figure 4.5 relates the perception of the room temperatures to user satisfaction:
• Room temperatures below 22 C were perceived as ‘‘slightly cool.’’
• Considering both cooling concepts, satisfied users generally rate room temper-
atures up to 25 C as ‘‘neutral,’’ from 26 to 28 C as ‘‘slightly warm’’ and
beyond that as ‘‘warm.’’
• Unexpectedly, there were quite a few dissatisfied users for room temperatures
up to 26 C: 11 % in the SIC building and 8 % in the SCF building. Thereby,
temperature perception is scattered across a wide range from ‘‘cool’’ to ‘‘warm.’’
• For both cooling concepts, dissatisfied users rated temperatures above 26 C as
‘‘warm.’’
4.4 Satisfaction with Room Temperature
Figure 4.6 shows the degree of user satisfaction with the room temperature. The
ratings ‘‘very satisfied’’ and ‘‘satisfied’’ are combined, as are ‘‘very dissatisfied’’
and ‘‘dissatisfied.’’ Considering the overall satisfaction with the room
USER-PERCEIVED TEMPERATURE AND SATISFACTION VERSUS MEASUREMENTS

3 hot
hot
perception of room temperature
neutral
neutral
-1
satisfied
-2
dissatisfied
cold
cold
-3
ORT [°C]21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
sat[%] 100 89 87 89 90 78 68 46 51 100 93 94 93 90 89 78 - -
Fig. 4.5 Users’ perception of room temperature compared to measurements of and satisfaction
with room temperature: perception of room temperature by users on a 7-point scale (from ‘‘cold’’
to ‘‘hot’’) at a given operative room temperature (x-axis) at the time of questioning. Results are
color-coded according to the degree of satisfaction, i.e., users are ‘‘very satisfied’’/‘‘satisfied’’
(dark gray) and ‘‘dissatisfied’’/‘‘very dissatisfied’’ (light gray) with prevailing room temperature.
Note: measured operative room temperature (ORT) is categorized into \ 21, 21–22, 22–23,
23–24, 24–25, 26–27, 28, 29, [ 29 C. Additionally, percentage of users satisfied (sat) with the
room temperature [%] in the temperature classes is shown
temperatures, there are evident differences between the cooling concepts. Fig-
ure 4.6 illustrates the hourly room temperatures plotted against the running mean
ambient air temperature, with an indication of user satisfaction:
• In the SIC building (night-ventilation), 77 % of the users were satisfied with the
room temperature over the entire period of the survey. By contrast, in the SCF
building (water-based cooling), 91 % of the interviewed occupants were satis-
fied with the room temperature.
• The number of occupants dissatisfied with the room temperature in the SIC
building correlated with the room temperature, i.e., the number of dissatisfied
occupants increased with rising room temperatures. Obviously, a room tem-
perature of 26 C is a pronounced threshold for dissatisfaction with thermal
indoor comfort. Regardless of the prevailing outdoor temperatures, 89 % of the
users were satisfied with room temperatures below 26 C. Even 74 % of them
were still satisfied with room temperatures ranging between 26 and 28 C. Still,
higher room temperatures lead to a significant proportion of dissatisfied users,
namely 52 %.
• In the SCF building, room temperatures with a maximum of 28 C were
recorded for only relatively few hours. This does not allow for a direct com-
parison with the SIC building; here, the maximum room temperatures exceeded
29 C. However, the dissatisfaction of the users in the SCF building seems to
have increased significantly at room temperatures above 26 C.
4.5 Determination of the Comfort Temperature 43
SATISFACTION WITH ROOM TEMPERATURE

32 32
2009 2010
30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
22 22
20 20
18 18
satisfied satisfied
16 16
dissatisfied dissatisfied
14 14
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
running mean ambient air temperature [°C]
Fig. 4.6 Occupant satisfaction with room temperature: Hourly measured operative room
temperature [C] plotted against the running mean ambient air temperature [C] during time of
occupancy: room temperature measurements (light gray), user is ‘‘very satisfied’’ or ‘‘satisfied’’
with the room temperature (dark gray) and user is ‘‘dissatisfied’’ or ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ with the
room temperature (white)
4.5 Determination of the Comfort Temperature
Based on the data compiled during the survey, a model for predicting the comfort
temperature was developed by means of a regression analysis. After several test
runs, the combination of running mean ambient temperature (calculation in
accordance with EN 15251:2007–08 (2007)), actual room temperature at the time
of questioning, and the question’’How satisfied are you with the room tempera-
ture?’’ delivered the most reliable correlation.
The objective was to determine the model that best predicts when the number of
occupants satisfied with a given room temperature is highest as a function of the
ambient air temperature. Therefore, a function for the room temperature in depen-
dence of the running mean ambient air temperature was first calculated by regression
only for the case of users being satisfied with the prevailing thermal room conditions.
This means that the indoor conditions were determined under which the users were
satisfied. The calculated regression equation was set off against a regression equation
relating the room temperature to the running mean ambient air temperature for the
case that users were dissatisfied with the room temperature.
This resulted in a Pareto-optimal prediction model which predicts the condi-
tions, where the number of satisfied users is at its maximum and the number of
dissatisfied users at its minimum. Results are given in Fig. 4.7.
Central results for the SIC building with air-based cooling are:
• The indoor comfort temperature is determined to be RTc = 17.78 C ? 0.34he,rm.
Based on the available data, the comfort model could be developed for a daily
mean ambient air temperature of 16 C and above.
COMFORT TEMPERATURE: COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM FIELD STUDY versus DIN EN 15251
32 32
30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
22 22
20 20
18 18
field study RTc =17.78°C+0.34·θe,rm field study RTc =22.21°C+0.11·θ e,rm
16 DIN 15251 RTc =18.80°C+0.33·θe,rm 16 DIN 15251 RTc =24.5°C
14 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
running mean ambient air temperature [°C]
Fig. 4.7 Comparison of comfort temperature (RTc) derived from occupancy evaluation and
guideline EN 15251
• The comfort boundaries I to III of 2, 3 and 4 K, defined by the EN 15251

standard, result in fractions of satisfied users of 85, 81, and 77 % respectively.
• A significant linear impact of the running mean ambient air temperature can be
observed in the derived equation for the comfort temperature. The warmer the
outside temperature, the higher is the room temperature at which the users are
still satisfied.
• Consequently, the running mean ambient air temperature provides a reasonable
reference value for assessing interior thermal comfort.
• The analysis of the survey and the resulting determined comfort temperature,
both confirm the adaptive comfort model of EN 15251:2007–08 (2007). The
equations for the comfort temperature are almost identical: user survey
RTc = 17.78 C ? 0.34he,rm and standard EN 15251
RTc = 18.8 C ? 0.33he,rm. For the equation derived from the user survey,
there is only a minor correction of 0.8 K toward lower room temperatures.
• Based on the results of the field study, the application of an adaptive comfort
model for the evaluation of thermal comfort in nonresidential buildings with a
night-ventilation concept appears to be suitable. According to this model,
occupants tolerate higher room temperatures if the outside temperature is higher.
However, user satisfaction is expected to decline significantly for room tem-
peratures exceeding 27 C. Therefore, the definition of an upper limit for the
maximum permissible room temperature appears to be relevant.
• The violation of the defined lower comfort boundaries (21–24 C) appears to be
noncritical. Room temperatures of 21–24 C are perceived to be’’slightly cool’’
to ‘‘neutral.’’ User satisfaction is at around 89 %. However, temperatures below
the lower comfort boundaries can be avoided through a system control based on
outside and room temperatures. In addition, the required thermal cooling energy
is reduced.
• The study shows that occupants adapt to the interior and exterior conditions by
taking measures, if possible, to counteract increasing temperatures during the
day and thus positively influence their temperature perception. Measures taken
by the users interviewed were documented on four hot summer days by means
of a detailed questionnaire every morning and afternoon. Obviously, users tried
to regulate the indoor climate mainly by opening windows or lowering the solar-
shading devices. Individual pieces of clothing were not often taken off or put on.
Overall, the users took action slightly more often in the morning than in the
afternoon, although the room temperatures were higher in the afternoon.
Central results for the SCF building with water-based cooling:

• The indoor comfort temperature is determined to be RTc = 22.21 C ? 0.11he,rm.
Based on the available data, the comfort model could be developed for a daily
mean ambient air temperature of 16 C and above.
• In comparison to the first field study, the outside temperature has little impact on
determining the comfort temperature. Therefore, the ambient air temperature
plays a minor role as a reference value. Based on the user survey, the comfort
temperature can be calculated by using the same equation regardless of whether
the current, the mean daily, or the running mean outdoor temperature is used as
the reference.
• The calculated comfort temperature is almost equivalent to the PMV comfort
model of EN 15251:2007–08 (2007). The comfort boundaries I to III of 1, 1.5
and 2 K, as defined by the standard, result in a fraction of satisfied users of 92,
91 and 90 % respectively.
• Temperatures lower than the defined lower comfort boundaries (22–24 C) do
not seem to be critical for water-based cooling concepts either. Room temper-
atures in this range are perceived to be ‘‘slightly cool’’ to ‘‘neutral,’’ but user
satisfaction is very high at about 92 %. However, temperatures below the lower
comfort boundaries can be avoided through system controls based on outside
and room temperatures. In addition, the required thermal cooling energy is
reduced as well.
• The range of the ambient air temperature between 16 and 26 C corresponds to a
derived comfort temperature range of 24–25 C. Hence, user acceptance of
higher room temperatures at increasing ambient air temperatures does not seem
to be applicable to buildings with water-based cooling concepts. The determi-
nation of room temperatures with more dissatisfied users, given the data
obtained, is difficult, since the active water-based cooling of the offices prevents
the increase of room temperatures above 27 C. In addition, user satisfaction is
above 90 %, even if the comfort temperature is not being considered at all.
The significant differences in user satisfaction with the room and the comfort
temperature, depending on the cooling concept, are particularly noteworthy,
considering that half of the users interviewed participated in both surveys, i.e., 12
out of 26 respondents. The same users rated their perception and satisfaction with
the room temperature differently—according to the cooling concept employed in

the building—, although the two buildings—are equipped almost identically—
except for the cooling system. Various studies based on occupant surveys docu-
ment that user satisfaction with room comfort is affected substantially by possi-
bilities to exert influence on the room conditions and their effectiveness (e.g.,
Wagner et al. 2007). The present results, however, also imply that the expectation
of users with room and comfort conditions has a decisive influence on their per-
ception and satisfaction: users expect higher room temperatures in a building
without cooling or with limited cooling capacities (such as in a night-ventilation
concept) and even accept these temperatures, if they can adapt to the prevailing
conditions. Correspondingly, users have higher expectations on the interior com-
fort in nonresidential buildings with water-based cooling concepts, and, therefore,
are less satisfied with higher room temperatures.
Main results:
(1) The indoor climate in buildings with limited cooling capacities is rated pos-
itively by their users: 77 % of them were satisfied with the room temperatures
in the building with the night-ventilation concept over the entire period of the
study; in the building with the water-based cooling concept, there were 91 %
satisfied users.
(2) The number of users dissatisfied with the room temperatures correlated with
the room temperatures themselves, meaning that the number of dissatisfied
users grows with rising room temperatures. Evidently, a room temperature of
26–27 C is a distinct limit for satisfaction with thermal indoor comfort.
(3) The application of an adaptive comfort model for the evaluation of thermal
comfort in nonresidential buildings with free or mechanical night-ventilation
appears to be suitable. According to this model, occupants tolerate higher room
temperatures at higher ambient air temperatures. However, user satisfaction is
expected to decline significantly for room temperatures above 27 C. The
analysis of the survey and the resulting comfort temperature confirm the adaptive
comfort model of EN 15251:2007–08 for buildings with night-ventilation.
(4) The determined comfort range for water-based cooling concepts with a higher
cooling capacity is between 24 and 25 C, which is very similar to the PMV
comfort model of EN 15251:2007–08 (2007). Hence, the acceptance of users
with higher room temperatures in correlation with higher ambient air tem-
peratures can be applied only with restrictions to buildings with water-based
cooling concepts.
(5) User satisfaction with thermal interior comfort is proven to be enhanced by the
option to effectively influence room conditions. The present results also sug-
gest that the expectations on room and comfort conditions have a considerable
impact on perception and satisfaction: in buildings with night-ventilation,
users expected higher room temperatures and thus accepted them. On the
contrary, users had higher expectations on indoor comfort in buildings with
water-based cooling concepts, and, therefore, were less satisfied with higher
room temperatures.
The present study confirms that the standard for thermal interior comfort should
provide two models. However, the strict allocation of building categories (building
with/without mechanical cooling) in EN 15251 could not be verified. Similarly,
the model of expectations, as used in the ISSO 74 standard, cannot be confirmed.
Instead, it seems reasonable to classify buildings into air-based and water-based
systems or to do so with respect to the degree of coupling between indoor and
outdoor climate conditions.
In the first case, the classification is defined by the capacity and limits of the
cooling power of the technical system, in the second case by building physics and
the development of the room temperature. In both cases, the relevant evaluation
parameters are available from the design and planning processes.
As a result of the field study, the authors recommend a revision of the comfort
standard. This does not primarily concern the adjustment of the comfort temper-
ature or the comfort boundaries, but the allocation of cooling concepts to the
particular comfort model. We recommend evaluating buildings with free and
mechanical night-ventilation as well as with passive cooling measures (e.g., solar-
shading devices, daytime ventilation) in accordance with the adaptive comfort
model. By contrast, the indoor comfort in buildings should be evaluated in
accordance with the PMV model, if air-conditioning systems, fan-coil cooling, or
water-based radiant cooling systems are employed. Even in these buildings, users
seem to adapt to the prevailing outdoor climate conditions. However, the users
have especially high expectations on the interior thermal comfort and, therefore,
tolerate only slightly higher room temperatures compared to the defined temper-
ature setpoints in EN 15251.
References
de Dear R, Schiller Brager G (1998) Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference, ASHRAE Trans., V.104(1a), pp145–167. Reprinted in Schiller Brager G (ed)
(1998) Field studies of thermal comfort and adaptation. ASHRAE Tech Data Bull
V.14(1):27–49
de Dear R, Brager G (2002) Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings—revisions to
ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy Build 34(6):549–561
EN 15251:2007–08 (2007) Criteria for the indoor environment. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
Humphreys M, Nicol F (2000) Outdoor temperature and indoor thermal comfort: raising the
precision of the relationship for the 1998 ASHRAE database of field studies. ASHRAE Trans
206:485–492
ISSO Publicatie 74 (2004) Thermische Behaaglijkeid, ISSO, Rotterdam
Kalz DE, Hölzenbein F, Pfafferott J, Vogt G (2013) Nutzerzufriedenheit mit dem thermischen
Komfort in Bürogebäuden mit Umweltenergiekonzepten. Bauphysik 35(6):377–391
Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences, Version 20.0 (SPSS) (2008) IBM Social Media
Analytics, Armonk (NY)
van der Linden AC, Boersta AC, Raue AK, Kuvers SR, de Dear RJ (2006) Adaptive temperature
limits: a new guideline in The Netherlands—a new approach for the assessment of building
performance with respect to thermal indoor climate. Energy Build 38(1):8–17
Wagner A, Gossauer E, Moosmann C, Gropp Th, Leonhart R (2007) Thermal comfort and
workplace occupant satisfaction—results of field studies in German low-energy office
Chapter 5
Methodology for the Evaluation
of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings
Abstract The comfort standards define a methodology for the evaluation of

thermal comfort for design purposes. Compared to this, a standardized evaluation
of measurement campaigns should apply some constraints: The applied comfort
approach need to be adapted for the cooling concept. Monitored room tempera-
tures are evaluated on an hourly basis for both the upper and lower limits during
occupancy only. The evaluation is carried out for 84 % of the building area. The
deviation from the comfort temperature and its tolerance band is limited to 5 %
and is determined for the entire summer period. A summer day is a day with a
mean running temperature higher than 15 C. Results should be illustrated in a
comfort figure and as a thermal-comfort footprint.
Thermal comfort in office buildings is evaluated in accordance with two models

defined in the European standard EN 15251:2007–08 (2007): the PMV and the
adaptive-comfort model. In accordance with the defined comfort standard, a stan-
dardized evaluation for measurement campaigns is presented in order to evaluate
thermal comfort in summer in office buildings under real operation.
In the context of a holistic design of a building and its energy concept, different
parameters of the building physics and the HVAC systems are already considered
and evaluated in detail during the planning phase. The design process considers the
specific use of the building and technical equipment of offices and meeting rooms.
Besides the climate conditions, interior heating and cooling loads are influenced
notably by the behavior of users. As the loads vary in space and time, the designed
HVAC system may not be able to fulfill the defined comfort requirements in all
rooms during any time of occupancy. During the design of a building, users’
behavior in terms of attendance and the operation of windows, sun shading and
artificial lighting has to be anticipated carefully. In practice, nevertheless, the
question often arises whether under real operation, the building will actually
comply with the requirements defined in the planning phase with regard to thermal
interior comfort in summer. Under certain circumstances, the perceived indoor
environment may not meet user’s expectations (See Chap. 4).
A metrological investigation offers the possibility to provide objective data and,
therefore, to assess thermal comfort in buildings under operating conditions. Then

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_5, The Author(s) 2014
50 5 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort
the effectiveness of the cooling and ventilation concept can be evaluated. Standard
DIN EN 15251 (2007) presents indicators for an evaluation of interior thermal
comfort by using office rooms representative for different zones in the building.
Furthermore, building occupants are a valuable source of information on
building performance as well as indoor environmental quality and their effects on
comfort and productivity. A large number of different studies have been conducted
over recent decades, which focused on various aspects of the broad field of
comfort, well-being, and health at workplace.
Some studies of individual buildings try to combine long-term monitoring of
thermal comfort with post-occupancy evaluation and correlate these findings with
the energy consumption for heating, cooling, and ventilation. Three important field
studies on certain aspects of thermal comfort are:
• HOPE study: Questionnaire surveys were conducted with occupants of 96
apartment and 64 office buildings in Europe, providing information on how they
felt and perceived their internal environment. Delivered energy use was assessed
from records and energy bills, preferably collected over several years and
averaged in order to assess an average annual consumption. However, no
detailed breakdown of energy used for the HVAC system is available. Results
just cover the building’s total final and primary energy use. Perceived produc-
tivity was found to be better and absenteeism smaller in low-energy buildings.
Too high temperatures in summer were reported to decrease perceived pro-
ductivity. This correlation is less obvious in winter, but the productivity tends to
decrease if the temperature is not perceived to be satisfactory. The occupants’
perceived opportunity to control the environment correlates with the corre-
sponding perceived comfort (Roulet 2001; Leaman and Bordass 2007).
• PROBE study: This study has undertaken post-occupancy surveys of 16 new
commercial and public buildings, typically 2–3 years after completion. The
purpose was to provide feedback on factors for success in the design, con-
struction, operation, and use of buildings. The ventilation technologies in the
buildings encompass air condition, night-ventilation, as well as natural and
hybrid ventilation concepts. Energy data had been collected from monthly or
quarterly invoices as well as manual and site meter readings without compre-
hensive monitoring, i.e., available records encompass the building’s total fossil-
fuel consumption and electrical energy use. However, findings of the occupant
survey are not correlated to energy use or building operation (Cohen et al. 2001;
Derbyshire 2001; Bordass et al. 2001a, b; and Leaman and Bordass 2001).
• EnOB study: Seventeen office buildings in Germany were assessed with a
questionnaire in terms of thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort as well as indoor
air quality and office layout (Gossauer 2008; Gossauer and Wagner 2008). Spot
measurements of room temperature and relative humidity were conducted.
Results of the post-occupancy evaluation were related to the energy concept of
the buildings; however, values of energy use and efficiency were not gathered.
The research shows that there are distinctive differences between the thermal-
comfort voting in the summer and winter periods. Besides, it confirms that the
5 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort 51
occupants’ opportunity to influence their surrounding conditions and the per-

ceived effectiveness of these interventions are crucial for perceived comfort and
satisfaction.
5.1 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort
This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the various boundary conditions that
need to be considered for the evaluation of interior thermal comfort in office
buildings. The methodology is explained by using monitored nonresidential
buildings in Europe as examples (building descriptions and analyses in Chap. 6).
Building category. Previous investigations revealed that the variety of heating
and cooling concepts for the building stock and new constructions cannot be
covered by just two categories in the current EN 15251:2007–08 standard, i.e.,
mechanically and non-mechanically cooled buildings (Chap. 4). Consequently, it
is proposed to define five buildings standards, listed in Table 5.1:
(1) Buildings without cooling,
(2) Low-energy buildings with passive cooling,
(3) Low-energy buildings with air-based mechanical cooling,
(4) Low-energy buildings with water-based mechanical cooling,
(5) Buildings with mixed-mode cooling (combination of air-conditioning and air-
or water-based mechanical cooling), and
(6) Buildings with air-conditioning.
Unfortunately, the national and international denotation of energy concepts for
buildings is ambiguous. In the U.S., mixed-mode buildings are conceived as
buildings that are mainly air-conditioned but use free ventilation of the office area
during periods with favorable ambient conditions. The European perspective dif-
fers from that definition insofar as mixed-mode buildings employ cooling tech-
nologies with limited power (e.g., use of environmental heat sinks), but abstain
from full air-conditioning.
Thermal-Comfort standards. The following categories are proposed for the
evaluation of thermal comfort in summer:
• Adaptive-comfort approach for low-energy buildings with passive or without
cooling: Again, the development of interior thermal comfort depends strongly
on the behavior of the occupants and their use of the rooms, e.g., operation of
windows, doors, and solar-shading system, the technical equipment of the
rooms, the presence of occupants, use of the rooms as open plan or single office.
Thermal comfort is evaluated in accordance with the adaptive approach of EN
15251:2007–08 (2007).
• Adaptive-comfort approach for low-energy buildings with air-based mechanical
cooling: In these buildings, the level of adaptation and expectation is strongly
related to outdoor climatic conditions. The application of an adaptive-comfort
Table 5.1 Categorization of building types for the evaluation of thermal comfort. See also Table 1.1 for system characteristics and requirements on the
52
operation. Green: ventilation, blue: cooling, and gray: heat sink, compression chiller (CCH)
No Cooling Passive Cooling Air-Based Cooling Water-Based Cooling Mixed-Mode Cooling Air-Conditioning
CCH CCH
CCH
optional
Ventilation Free ventilation over Free ventilation over Hybrid ventilation (over Hybrid ventilation (over windows, Free ventilation over Hybrid ventilation (over
windows windows windows, exhaust or exhaust or supply-/exhaust- windows air- windows and air-
supply-/exhaust- ventilation system) precooling conditioning conditioning
ventilation system) of supply air system)
Cooling None Free night-ventilation Mechanical night- Thermo-active building systems Cooling and Cooling and
passive cooling ventilation cooling of suspended cooling panels dehumidification of dehumidification of
technologies (e.g., supply air by earth- cooling of supply air supply air supply air
solar shading, higher to-air heat exchanger
thermal mass of
building, daylight
concept)
(continued)
5 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort
No Cooling Passive Cooling Air-Based Cooling Water-Based Cooling Mixed-Mode Cooling Air-Conditioning
Heat sink __ Ambient air Ambient air Surface near geothermal system, Ambient air Ambient air
e.g., use of groundwater from
well or surface near
groundwater from borehole
heat exchangers or use of air
with cooling towers
Cooling __ __ __ Direct cooling with cooling tower, Compression chiller Compression chiller
generation groundwater well or borehole
heat exchangers active cooling
with compression chiller or
reversible heat pump
Occupant No adjustment of No adjustment of No adjustment of Moderate influence of occupants to Strong influence of Strong influence of
temperature set point temperature set point temperature set point adjust temperature setpoints occupants on occupants on
for cooling, no dress for cooling, for cooling, for cooling, usually adjustment of adjustment of
code no dress code no dress code no dress code temperature setpoint temperature setpoint
for cooling, for cooling,
usually dress code usually dress code
Comfort Adaptive approach in Adaptive approach in Adaptive approach in PMV approach with constant PMV approach with PMV approach with
approach accordance with accordance with accordance with setpoints independent from constant setpoints constant setpoints
EN 15251:2007–08 EN 15251:2007–08 EN 15251:2007–08 outdoor conditions in independent from independent from
5.1 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort
in dependence of the in dependence of the in dependence of the accordance with outdoor conditions outdoor conditions
running mean running mean running mean EN 15251:2007–08 in accordance with in accordance with
ambient air ambient air ambient air EN 15251:2007–08 EN 15251:2007–08
temperature temperature temperature
53
model for the evaluation of thermal comfort in office buildings with free or
mechanical night-ventilation is suitable. Occupants tolerate higher room tem-
peratures at higher ambient air temperatures. The analysis of a field survey (see
Chap. 4) and the resulting comfort temperature confirm the adaptive-comfort
model of EN 15251:2007–08 (2007) for buildings with night-ventilation.
• PMV-PPD comfort approach for low-energy buildings with water-based
mechanical cooling: Although users seem to adapt to the prevailing outdoor
climate conditions, they expect a cooled interior environment and, therefore,
have higher expectations on the interior thermal comfort. A field study revealed
that users in these buildings tolerate only slightly higher room temperatures than
the defined temperature setpoints in EN 15251 (2007) (see Chap. 4). Therefore,
thermal comfort should be evaluated in accordance with the PMV model.
• PMV-PPD comfort approach for buildings with air-conditioning: Air-condi-
tioned buildings provide a stable indoor environment. Therefore, user’s
expectations concerning indoor climate and, especially, room temperature are
high. The user hardly influences the indoor climate.
Monitoring Campaigns. The measurement instrumentation used for evaluating

thermal comfort and its location within the rooms should comply with the rec-
ommendations given in EN ISO 7726:2002–04 (2002). Measurements are to be
made where occupants are known to spend most of their time and under repre-
sentative weather conditions of warm seasons, advantageously at or above average
outside temperatures during three warm months. The monitoring period for all
measured parameters should be long enough to be representative. This depends on
the time constant of the building and the prevailing weather conditions.
Nowadays, the building management system usually provides data for operative
room temperature, relative air humidity, ambient air temperature, and plant-spe-
cific parameters (temperatures of supply system, operation time, ventilation rates,
etc.). In new buildings, wall-mounted temperature sensors encapsulated in a
ventilated enclosure are often available in all office rooms. Usually, these mea-
surements can be taken as operative temperatures with adequate accuracy, as
comparative measurements in the field have shown. Special care has only to be
taken of large warm and cold surfaces. If no data are available, short-term mon-
itoring with mobile measuring devices can be carried out for several weeks in
summer. In addition to the indoor comfort parameters, the user behavior (operation
of windows and solar protection) and physical characteristics of the space (surface
temperatures, thermal efficiency of ventilation, velocity of supply air, etc.) can be
recorded as well (Figs. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3).
Thermal-Comfort Assessment. Thermal-comfort assessments are determined
separately for the summer and winter seasons in accordance with the comfort
approaches of the European EN 15251:2007–08 standard. Evaluated are the
numbers of hours during occupancy whenever the operative room temperatures
exceed the defined upper and lower comfort limits of classes I, II, and III. Comfort
ratings are analyzed in hours of exceedance during the time of occupancy.
5.1 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort 55
Fig. 5.1 Mobile measurement devices for data acquisition, storage, and transmission of weather
data (left) and microclimate at the façade. Left weather; middle and right microclimate at the
façade (Fraunhofer ISE)
Fig. 5.2 Portable monitoring equipment for measuring thermal interior comfort: operative room
temperature, air temperature, relative humidity, CO2 concentration, and air velocity. Right logger
for opening/closing of a window (Fraunhofer ISE)
Fig. 5.3 Installed monitoring equipment for operative room temperature and relative humidity
(Fraunhofer ISE)
User Behavior. The allocation of the buildings to comfort classes is based

entirely on long-term measurements. For that reason, user behavior (in terms of
opening windows and using solar shading as well as their working activity and
clothing level) is not being recorded.
Time of Occupancy. Thermal comfort is evaluated only during the time of
occupancy, e.g., on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Statutory holidays (e.g.,
Christmas, Easter) are considered, but not summer/winter vacation periods.
Temperature Drifts during Occupancy and Spatial Variations. For either
comfort model, the operative temperature should be within the permissible ranges
at all locations within the occupied zone of a space at all times. This means that the
permissible range should cover both spatial and temporary variations, including
fluctuations caused by the control system.
EN ISO 7730 (2005) and ASHRAE 55 (2004) restrict temperature drifts for
different time periods, i.e., from 1.1 K per 15 min to 3.3 K per 4 h (on the basis of
the PMV model). For these drifts, the thermal sensation can be estimated by using
the PMV model. Even temperature drifts and ramps of ± 4 K per hour have no
systematically significant effect on the objectively measured performance of
subjects (Kolarik et al. 2007). However, experiments with fixed clothing insulation
showed that continuous exposures to the increasing operative temperature for more
than 4 h seemed to enhance the intensity of SBS symptoms. It is therefore rec-
ommended to avoid temperature drifts with rates of ± 4.4 K/h. Besides short-term
(hourly) drifts, mid-(daily) and long-term (weekly) temperature drifts during the
occupied hours of a space have to be taken into consideration. It is assumed that a
day-to-day change in mean indoor temperatures of not more than 1 K with a
cumulative change over a week of less than 3 K does not affect thermal comfort
(Kolarik et al. 2008).
Spatial variations of the operative temperature can occur due to different sur-
face temperatures (effective mean radiant temperature) and sources of heat and
cold in a room (e.g., air inlets of air-conditioning systems). High quality insulation
and low-e glazing—which are fundamental for energy-efficient office buildings—
decrease the temperature differences between the façade(s) and the other surfaces
of a space during winter and summer. This results in low-temperature heating and
ventilation systems as well as in small necessary temperature differences for
cooling. It can therefore be concluded that energy-efficient buildings provide—at
first hand—low spatial temperature variations.
However, draft caused by big windows (even with U-values below 1 W/m2 K)
or air outlets as well as solar radiation have to be kept in mind. The latter can affect
the local operative temperature in two ways: first through a high radiant temper-
ature of the window or the shading system surface if radiation is absorbed to a
significant extent; second, direct (single-sided) solar radiation on the human body
has to be taken into account.
In naturally ventilated and passively cooled buildings, larger temporary varia-
tions of the operative temperature (temperature drifts) may, however, occur due to
the fact that these buildings take advantage of their own thermal mass for heat
accumulation. In the summer (cooling) season, heat (solar and internal loads) can
be absorbed by the mass during the day, which is associated with a moderate
temperature increase (up-drift). The thermal mass of the building is then cooled
down at night either by ventilation (when outdoor temperatures are low) or by
using the ground (water) as a direct heat sink. On the opposite, temperature down
drifts can occur during winter time (which is not considered here). Allowing
indoor temperatures to drift rather than maintaining them constant (which is
common in most air-conditioned buildings) may be a feasible means of reducing
the building’s energy demand.
Figure 5.4 presents results on temperature drift during occupancy in European
buildings, considering it during the morning and afternoon hours as well as
throughout the entire day. Mostly, temperature drifts over the entire time of
occupancy (8 a.m–6 p.m.) range between 0.5 and 3 K. This indicates that they are
usually smaller than 1 K per hour. However, there are some exposed office rooms
in the buildings where the temperature drifts exceed the limits due to occupant
behavior and the use of the rooms. In conclusion, it can be stated that temperature
drifts in European and German low-energy office buildings are mostly found to be
around 1 K per hour and mainly between 1 and 3 K per day.
Acceptable Deviation in Location. Operative room temperatures and, finally,
thermal-comfort ratings are evaluated separately for each room monitored in the
building for the summer season. Obviously, the recorded temperatures vary sig-
nificantly throughout the day within a building due to differing user behavior,
room orientation, and presence of occupants (Kalz et al. 2009). EN
15251:2007–08 requires that the building meets the criteria of a specific (thermal-
comfort) category if ‘‘the rooms representing 95 % of the building volume meet
the criteria of the selected category’’. The authors do not believe that considering
95 % of the building for the evaluation of monitored data is a promising approach,
since outliers dominate the evaluation procedure. These data do not characterize
the entire building. There are exposed rooms in a building due to a wide range of
reasons: occupants prefer higher operative room temperatures, no use of solar
shading since the occupants prefer having a view outside, occupants are not
present, rooms contain a lot of office equipment, a room has two external walls,
rooms are occupied more densely than assumed during the design stage, etc.
(Kalz et al. 2009).
An example: for a German office building, thermal comfort was evaluated for
each single office room. Results are presented for the German building that
employs mechanical night-ventilation in summer in order to cool down the
building space (Fig. 5.5). All 15 monitored office rooms have the same size, the
same use (office equipment) and the same geographical orientation. However,
comfort results differ considerably between individual rooms, respecting thermal
comfort requirements in accordance with class II for 100 % (room 1) or 90 %
(room 13) of the time. Consequently, the differing development of the operative
room temperature and the differing comfort ratings are attributed to occupant
behavior only, i.e., presence of the occupants, opening of windows, use of solar
shading, manual use of ventilation slats for night-ventilation. Therefore, the
thermal-comfort condition of a building should be evaluated with reference to its
SUMMER
day morning afternoon
WINTER
day morning afternoon
Fig. 5.4 Measured temperature drifts in summer and winter during occupancy (K). Considered
are the daily drifts (left) as well as the ones during morning hours from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. (middle)
and during the afternoon hours from 1 to 6 p.m. (right). Results are given as boxplots, with 50 %
of the values represented by the square, as well as minimum and maximum occurrences
typical thermal conditions, considering that there will be exposed rooms with
temperatures above or below the average due to user behavior, user attendance,
and room orientation.
Provided that the exceedance of the upper and lower comfort limits is a
Gaussian variable, the standard deviation r might be an appropriate scale unit. For
design purposes, the recommendation is to use the established 95 % criterion as
required by the current EN 15251:2007–08 standard. In order to preclude an
overestimation of extremely high or low temperatures in monitoring campaigns,
however, the recommendation is to use the (floor-area weighted) temperatures for
84 % of the building spaces according to the standard deviation r. If there are less
than five measurement points within the building, all rooms are considered for the
comfort rating and not for the standard deviation.
Acceptable Deviation in Time. As recommended by EN 15251:2007–08,
measured values of the operative room temperature are allowed to be outside the
defined comfort boundaries during 5 % of working hours. This standard deter-
mines acceptable deviations on an annual, monthly, weekly, and even daily basis.
However, findings suggest that a specification based on a monthly and weekly
maximum of exceedance is not a promising approach, since it is too sensitive to a
malfunction of the plant, improper operation, and user behavior. The exceedance
of thermal comfort limits during moderate ambient conditions, e.g., periods during
spring and autumn, is exclusively attributable to occupant behavior. The user has
AIR-BASED COOLING
summer 2003
I
II
III
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415 IV
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
Fig. 5.5 Evaluation of room temperatures (C) (left) and thermal comfort according to the
adaptive-comfort approach of EN 15251:2007–08 (right) for an office building in Germany with
air-based mechanical cooling (night-ventilation) during the relatively hot summer of 2003.
Results are presented for 15 office rooms in one wing of the building (2 floors) with a southern
orientation. Comfort classes I to IV in the right figure are from bottom to top
the opportunity to counteract the increasing operative room temperatures effec-

tively by operating sun-shading devices or by opening windows. With respect to
these results, it is proposed to determine thermal-comfort ratings on the basis of
the entire summer season, and that the comfort class be allocated accordingly. For
example, considering 1,358 working hours during summer, the number of tolerated
working hours exceeding the comfort limits would be about 67 h per season.
Seasonal Exceedance of Comfort Boundaries. As postulated in EN
15251:2007–08, the defined comfort range has to be considered with regard to
annual, monthly, weekly, and even daily exceedances. This includes a tolerance
range of 5 %, which amounts to 13 h per month and 3 h per week, respectively.
Within the framework of this study, comfort ratings were analyzed separately for
the months of April to September and, additionally, for the 52 weeks of the year.
An example for the monthly evaluation of thermal comfort is given in Fig. 5.6 for
office buildings in Germany and Denmark.
The classification of the buildings to comfort classes differs considerably when
the analysis is made on a monthly basis in comparison to a weekly or annual
evaluation. Many buildings exceed the temperature limits for more than the tol-
erated number of hours per week—sometimes notably. However, this violation
cannot be observed in every month. Interestingly, significant exceedances of the
tolerance range mostly occur in the spring and autumn periods (April, May and
September) when the running mean of the ambient air temperature varies between
13 and 18 C, which therefore requires a setting of 23 C in accordance with EN
15251:2007–08. It is questionable whether a week or month is representative for
allocating the building to any thermal comfort class I to III. With respect to these
results, it is proposed to determine thermal comfort ratings on the basis of the
entire summer season and that the comfort class be allocated accordingly.
GERMANY DENMARK
monthly evaluation (exceedance of upper limit, only) monthly evaluation (exceedance of upper limit, only)
month month
seasonal evaluation seasonal evaluation

season season
class I class II class III class IV
Fig. 5.6 Monthly and seasonal thermal-comfort evaluation of the German and Danish buildings,
presented as thermal comfort footprints. Note only the exceedance of the upper comfort limit is
considered. Squares for comfort classes I to IV from left to right
Summer and Winter Evaluation. The comfort standard EN 15251:2007–08 is

not consistent with its definition of the summer and winter periods, i.e., the dis-
tinction of the upper comfort boundaries according to the seasons differs between
the adaptive and the PMV-comfort approach. Fanger’s thermal-comfort model
(PMV-comfort approach) requires the input variables ‘‘metabolic rate’’ and
‘‘insulation level of clothing’’ (winter period 1.0 clo and summer period 0.5 clo).
The prevailing ambient conditions are not considered in the model. Therefore, it is
not explicit when Fanger’s model refers to summer or winter conditions. The
adaptive-comfort approach defines upper comfort boundaries for a running mean
ambient air temperature of 10–30 C and lower comfort boundaries for a tem-
perature range of 15–30 C.
Haldi and Robinson (2008) conclude from field studies that the clothing level
can be reliably modeled by outdoor conditions, for example by using regressions
on running mean ambient air temperature. As a result, clothing adaptation tends to
be a more predictive strategy—the level being set at the beginning of the day,
based on prior experience of outdoor thermal conditions. This relationship is
expressed by a linear regression with good agreement (R2 0.97) (Haldi and
Robinson 2008). Therefore, a running mean ambient air temperature of 15 C
would result in a clo factor of 0.7 and at 22 C in a clo factor of 0.5, which is the
criterion for the summer period in accordance with ISO 7730:2005 (2005).
Though different studies on people’s clothing behavior come to slightly dif-
ferent conclusions on the dependency between clo value and outdoor temperature,
all studies show that the clo value converges to 1 for low (1–2 C) and to 0.5 for
high (22–27 C) daily or running mean temperatures, respectively. These studies
show that the clo value is 0.7 at approximately 15 C outdoor temperature.
Consequently, a reasonable ‘‘switching temperature’’ from winter to summer is an
outdoor running mean temperature of 15 C, since a clo value of 0.7 is typical
office clothing with long-sleeved shirt but without jacket.
CZECH REPUBLIC
GREECE
I
II
III
IV
Fig. 5.7 Thermal comfort footprint for buildings in Greece and the Czech Republic: occupancy
during summer season (%) if thermal comfort complies with classes I to IV; here for the adaptive-
comfort approach of EN 15251. Exceedance of upper comfort limits only (up), of lower comfort
limits only (low), upper and lower comfort limits are considered (total). Squares for comfort
classes I to IV from left to right
The recommendation is to use a clear temperature reference for both the PMV
and the adaptive-comfort approach. Heating mode and winter season are below an
outdoor running mean temperature of 15 C, while cooling mode and summer
season are above 15 C. The real cooling or heating time (energy [kWh]) may
differ from the perceived summer or winter season (adaptation [clo]).
Building Classification. In accordance with the comfort criteria, the buildings
are assigned to a comfort class I, II, or III, indicating the percentage of satisfied
occupants. The requirement for a certain comfort class is fulfilled if at least 84 %
of the recorded hourly temperature measurements remain within the defined
comfort limit and its equivalent tolerance range. Comfort class II represents a
‘‘normal level of expectation and should be used for new buildings and renova-
tions’’ (EN 15251).
Thermal Comfort Footprint. Comfort results for a building with its energy
concept for heating, cooling, and ventilation are presented as thermal comfort
footprint (Fig. 5.7), indicating the time of occupancy when thermal interior
comfort complies with classes I to III. The period is given as a percentage of the
total occupancy during summer. This fosters the comparison of the annual energy
demand/consumption for heating and cooling with the simulated/monitored ther-
mal comfort.
Presentation of Thermal-Comfort Results. As the ‘‘footprint’’ characterizes the
building in a general matter, clients and building operators may not be able to
understand the conclusion, especially the relevance of room temperatures
exceeding the upper comfort limit in winter and the lower limit in summer.
Therefore, we recommend to clearly state that the comfort diagram should be
shown in addition to the footprint. Despite the building’s categorization, the results
of the thermal-comfort assessment should be presented for both the adaptive and
the PMV-comfort approach. This will provide the client with data for the expected
performance of the entire building concept Fig. (5.8)
GREECE CZECH REPUBLIC
I II III IV
Fig. 5.8 Presentation of thermal comfort results for buildings in Greece and the Czech Republic:
thermal comfort figure and thermal comfort footprint; here for the adaptive-comfort approach of
EN 15251
5.2 Summary: Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Office

Buildings
Thermal room comfort is evaluated in accordance with two models of the Euro-
pean EN 15251:2007–08 standard: the PMV- and the adaptive-comfort model. In
accordance with the defined comfort standard, a standardized evaluation of the
measurement campaigns applies the following constraints (Kalz 2011):
• Building category: buildings with passive and air-based mechanical cooling are
evaluated according to the adaptive-comfort approach of the EN 15251:2007–08
guideline. Buildings that condition the rooms and offices by means of water-
based mechanical cooling and full air-conditioning are evaluated with respect to
the PMV-comfort approach of EN 15251:2007–08. Evaluated are the numbers
of hours during occupancy when the operative room temperatures exceed the
defined upper and lower comfort limits of class II.
• Occupancy: Thermal comfort is evaluated only during the time of occupancy,
e.g., on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The periods of public holidays and
vacations are not taken into account.
• Building area: Thermal comfort evaluation of a building under operation is
carried out for at least 84 % (standard deviation) of the building area. However,
during the design stage of the building and the technical plant, 95 % of the
building area are required to meet the comfort class, based on the assumption of
standardized occupant behavior.
• Seasonal evaluation: Thermal comfort, i.e., compliance with the defined com-
fort boundaries I to III, is determined for the entire summer period and not on a
daily or weekly basis.
5.2 Summary: Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings 63
• Definition of summer period: Summer season should be defined as the period

with a running mean ambient air temperature above 15 C. Accordingly, the
winter season is defined as the period with a value below 15 C. The running
mean ambient air temperature considers the history of the ambient conditions
and therefore as well the development of the interior thermal conditions. Low-
energy buildings usually employ considerable thermal storage capacities due to
their exposed concrete ceilings.
• Range of tolerance for comfort evaluation: As recommended by EN
15251:2007–08, measured values of the operative room temperature during
occupancy are allowed to be outside the defined comfort boundaries I to III
during a maximum of 5 % of the working time in summer season. In other
words, during 95–97 % of the occupancy time, the required thermal conditions
are met.
• Comfort class for thermal comfort: Thermal comfort is evaluated in accordance
with the defined comfort classes I to III (class I—high level of expectation, class
II—normal level of expectation, class III—acceptable, moderate level of
expectation, and class IV—values outside the criteria for the above categories).
• Comfort class for humidity comfort: Relative humidity is also evaluated for
comfort classes I to III in accordance with EN 15251:2007–08. It should be
noted that these limits are defined for the design of air-conditioning systems
with dehumidification devices.
• Presentation of thermal-comfort results: Results of the monitoring campaigns
are illustrated in a comfort figure and as a thermal-comfort ‘‘footprint’’.
According to the required comfort model, hourly operative room temperature
values (average) of the building during the time of occupancy are plotted against
the running mean ambient air temperature.
References
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (2004) Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy.
Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M and Leaman A (2001a) Assessing building performance in use
2: Technical performance of the Probe buildings. Build Res Inf 29(2):103–113
Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M, Leaman A (2001b) Assessing building performance in use 3:
energy performance of the probe buildings. Build Res Inf 29(2):114–128
Cohen R, Standeven M, Bordass B, Leaman A (2001) Assessing building performance in use 1:
the probe process. Build Res Inf 29(2):85–102
Derbyshire A (2001) Editorial probe in the UK context. Build Res Inf 29(2):79–84
DIN EN ISO 7726:2002–04 (2002) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Instruments for
measuring physical quantities. Beuth, Berlin
DIN EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Analytical determi-
nation and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices
and local thermal comfort criteria. Beuth, Berlin
DIN EN 15251:2007–08 (2007) Criteria for the indoor environment. Beuth, Berlin
Gossauer E (2008) Nutzerzufriedenheit in Bürogebäuden—eine Feldstudie. Dissertation,

Gossauer E, Wagner A (2008) Occupant satisfaction at workplaces—a Field study in office
buildings. In: Proceedings of Windsor conference on air-conditioning and the low carbon
Haldi F, Robinson D (2008) On the behavior and adaptation of office occupants. Build Environ
43(12):2163–2177
Kalz DE, Pfafferott J, Herkel S, Wagner A (2009) Building signatures correlating thermal
comfort and low-energy cooling: in-use performance. Build Res Inf 37(4):413–432
Kalz DE (2011) Heating and Cooling Concepts Employing Environmental Energy and Thermo-
Active Building Systems, System Analysis and Optimization. Dissertation, University of
Karlsruhe. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart
Kolarik J, Olesen BW, Toftum J and Mattarolo L (2007) Thermal Comfort, Perceived Air Quality
and Intensity of SBS Symptoms During Exposure to Moderate Operative Temperature
Ramps. In: proceedings of WellBeing Indoors-Clima conference, CD-ROM, Helsinki,
Finland, 2007
Kolarik J, Toftum J, Olesen BW and Shitzer A (2008) Human subjects’ perception of indoor
environment and their office work performance during exposures to moderate operative
temperature ramps. In: 11th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Copenhagen, Denmark
Leaman A, Bordass B (2001) Assessing building performance in use 4: the probe occupant
surveys and their implications. Build Res Inf 29(2):129–143
Leaman A, Bordass B (2007) Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Build Res Inf
35(6):662–673
Roulet CA (2001) Indoor environment quality in buildings and its impact on outdoor
environment. Energy Build 33(3):183–191
Chapter 6
Thermal-Comfort Evaluation of Office
Buildings in Europe
Abstract This chapter presents a comparative evaluation of thermal comfort

according to the European standard EN 15251 standard in 8 European and another
34 German nonresidential buildings with different cooling concepts. Evidently, the
comfort performance is not strongly affected by the type of environmental heat
sink employed, provided that the heat sink is adequately dimensioned and well-
operated. As expected, the room temperature in buildings with passive cooling or
air-based lowenergy cooling is slightly higher at 25 C and the occurring range of
room temperatures is wider than in buildings with water-based low-energy cooling
or air-conditioning at 23.5 C. Monitoring results indicate that the buildings with
radiant cooling and environmental-energy systems with lower cooling capacities
are sensitive towards the applied control and operation algorithms as well as
occupant behavior. An unexpected result is the wide range of comfort ratings
within a given building. Obviously, both the building concept and the user
behavior strongly affect the individual indoor environment. Convincing building
build on passive cooling concepts in order to reduce cooling loads and to stabilize
the room temperature and are characterized by the fact that users are enabled to
influence their interior surroundings effectively.
This chapter presents a comparative evaluation of thermal comfort according to

the European EN 15251:2007–08 standard in 8 European and another 34 German
nonresidential buildings. The allocation of the buildings to comfort classes is
based entirely on long-term monitoring campaigns. The European buildings are
located in Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania,
Italia, and Greece, and therefore cover all main climate regions of Europe.
6.1 Description of the Investigated Buildings
Building Concept. In spite of different approaches for architecture and design, all
of the office buildings in this study strive for a significantly reduced primary-
energy use with carefully coordinated measures: high-quality building envelopes,

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_6, The Author(s) 2014
Table 6.1 Information on European and German buildings studied
66
Building + Building physics Measurement

Building Location Established Retrofit Net floor U value ex. U value g value A/V Glass to Shading Reference Measurement
(r) area [m2] wall [W/(m2 window [W/ window ratio façade ratio rooms
K)] (m2 K)] [m-1] [%]
No cooling (7)
AA GER n/k r n/k 0.8 1.4 0.6 n/k 60 i 1 2W
AB GER n/k r 11,915 0.26 1.4 0.58 n/k 32 n/k 1 2W
AC GER 1996 1,000 0.47 1.8 0.6 0.55 70 e 5 4Y
AD GER 1975 r 290 0.16 1.5 0.6 n/k n/k e 2 7W
AE GER 1970 4,032 0.6 2.8 0.77 0.3 40 e 2 4W
AF GER n/k r n/k 0.5 1.2 0.78 n/k 50 i 6 2W
AG GER 1960 4,243 0.53 2.9 0.7 0.29 40 n/k 2 2W
Passive cooling (5)
AH CZE 2005 230 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 20-80 i 1 1Y
AI FRA 2003 3,900 0.43 2.2 n/k 0.1 40 i 9 1Y
AJ GER 2001 13,150 0.23 1.4 0.58 0.31 25-55 e 5 2Y
AK GER n/k n/k 0.45 1.2 0.34 n/k 54 b 1 1W
AL GER 1953 r 30,570 0.61 3.0 0.7 0.23 70 i+e 14 3Y
Air-based cooling (10)
AM GER 1999 5,974 0.3 1.6 0.6 0.27 31 e 9 3Y
AN GER 1950 r 986 0.14 0.8 0.52 0.49 20 i 1 3Y
AO GER 2001 13,150 0.23 1.4 0.58 0.31 25 e 16 2Y
AP GER 2002 8,762 0.35 1.4 0.4-0.7 0.25 31 e 20 6Y
AQ GER 1999 1,000 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.40 44 e 2 3Y
AR GER 2001 3,510 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.32 51 e 1 2Y
AS GER 1968 2,544 0.46 1.4 0.64 0.32 n/k e 2 4Y
(continued)
6 Thermal-Comfort Evaluation
Building Location Established Retrofit Net floor U value ex. U value g value A/V Glass to Shading Reference Measurement
(r) area [m2] wall [W/(m2 window [W/ window ratio façade ratio rooms
K)] (m2 K)] [m-1] [%]
AT GER 2003 13,833 0.19 1.3 0.6 0.29 49 e 42 5Y
AU GER 2002 8,120 0.2 1.4 0.5-0.6 0.36 n/k e 7 2Y
AV GER 2000 4,113 0.22 0.85 0.58 0.25 13-55 e 6 1Y
Water-based cooling (16)
AW GER 2002 2,151 0.17 0.80 0.5 0.37 37-49 i 9 3Y
AX DEN 2002 21,199 0.20 1.12 0.58 0.3 31-60 i 3 1Y
AY GER 2008 2,500 0.21 1.0 n/k n/k n/k e 22 3Y
AZ GER 2007 4,878 0.20 1-1.4 0.58 0.3 48 e 11 2Y
BA GER 1976 r 7,640 0.46 1.6 n/k 0.36 30 e 3 2Y
BB GER 1978 r 1,100 0.30 1.4 0.55 0.27 40-80 e 3 3Y
BC GER 2002 6,911 0.13 0.84 0.5 0.22 48 e 20 2Y
BD FIN 2005 6,900 0.22 1.1 0.38 n/k n/k i+e 12 1Y

BE GER 2004 10,650 0.20 1.3 0.55 0.3 48-53 e 2 2Y
BF GER 2008 4,527 0.21 1.5 0.5 0.29 30-95 e 22 3Y
BG ITA 2007 752 0.34 1.4 0.6 0.6 20 e 3 1Y
BH GER 2011 6,352 0.32 n/k n/k n/k n/k i 21 1Y
BI GER 2009 19,500 n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k e 100 1Y
BJ GER 2009 4,500 0.33 1.1 0.5 n/k n/k e 14 1Y
BK GER 2007 2,264 n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k e 25 3Y
BL GER 2001 1,347 0.11 0.8 0.6 0.34 35-85 e 22 2Y
Mixed-mode cooling (2)
BM GRE 1995 600 0.28 2.7 0.7 0.24 20-80 i+e 9 1Y
BN ROU 1940 292 0.82 2.5 0.42 0.8 30-40 e 4 1Y
Air-conditioning (2)
BO GER 2000 6,880 0.2 1.3 0.6 n/k 64 e 87 2Y
BP GER 86/92 10,984 n/k n/k n/k 0.39 n/k e 9 2Y
67
(continued)
68
Building Cooling delivery Cooling generation Ventilation

Convector TABS CP Air Chiller District cooling Split unit Ground Ambient air Free Mechanical Night-ventilation Heat recovery
[%]
No cooling (7)
AA x x no
AB x x no
AC x x no
AD x x no
AE x x no
AF x x no
AG x x no
Passive cooling (5)
AH x x x f no
AI x x x x f 55
AJ x x x f no
AK x x x f no
AL x x x f no
Air-based cooling (10)
AM x x x x m 65
AN x x x x m 80
AO x x x x m 46
AP x x x x m no
AQ x x x x m 80
AR x x x x m no
AS x x x x m 56
AT x x x x m no
(continued)
[%]
AU x x x x m 80
AV x x x x m 68
Water-based cooling (16)
AW x 54 x x 75
AX x x 955 CT x 70
AY x x x m 73
AZ x x 155 88 CT x x 75
BA x x x x no
BB x 10 x x 60
BC x x 140 x x 65
BD x x 345 x x 80
BE x x 250 x x 70
BF x x 75 x x n/k
BG x x 64 x x x f+m 52
BH x x x CT x x n/k
BI x x 197 x x n/k
BJ x x 227 k CT x x n/k
BK x x x n/k
BL x 7 x x 73
Mixed-mode cooling (2)
BM x 40 x x x k
BN x x x x f k
(continued)
69
70

[%]
Air-conditioning (2)
BO x x 110 x 90
BP x 400 CT x x -
Area-to-volume ratio of the building (A/V), cooling tower (CT), water-based, ceiling-suspended cooling panel (CP), shading between the glass panes (b),
exterior (e), interior (i), retrofit (r), weeks (W), years (Y). Numbers in the section ‘‘cooling generation’’ indicate the thermal cooling power [kWtherm] of the
compression chiller and the environmental heat sinks
6.1 Description of the Investigated Buildings 71
Fig. 6.1 Most of the German buildings studied belong to the EnOB research program (Research
for energy-optimized construction (www.enob.info)). The research projects sponsored by the
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy involve buildings with minimal primary-e-
nergy requirements and high occupant comfort, with moderate investment costs and significantly
reduced operating costs
reduced solar heat gains (solar shading), sufficient thermal storage capacities, air-
tight building envelopes in conjunction with hygienically necessary air-ventilation
systems, and low-energy office equipment (reduced internal heat gains, daylight
concepts). All buildings allow the user to influence the indoor environment with
devices such as operable windows and sun-shading controls. Most of the office
buildings consist of single or group offices, some also have open-plan offices. The
buildings are described in Table 6.1 for each category of the cooling concepts, two
demonstration buildings are described in detail (see building profiles in Sect. 6.2)
(Fig. 6.1).
Energy Concept. The buildings studied are supposed to demonstrate the
rational use of energy by means of innovative and soundly integrated technologies
for the technical building services. The type of environmental and primary-energy
use for heating, cooling, and ventilation is given in a schematic in the following
building profiles. According to the main cooling system employed, the buildings
are distinguished as proposed in Table 5.1 and Fig. 6.2.
Low-energy building with passive cooling (PC): A passive cooling concept covers
all natural techniques of heat dissipation, overheating protection and related build-
ing-design techniques, providing thermal comfort without the use of mechanical
72 6 Thermal-Comfort Evaluation
PASSIVE COOLING
AIR-BASED COOLING
WATER-BASED COOLING
AIR CONDITIONING
Fig. 6.2 Technologies for cooling of nonresidential buildings. Passive cooling free night-
ventilation, daylighting concept solar shading (Fraunhofer ISE). Air-based cooling earth-to-air
heat exchanger, mechanical night-ventilation (Fraunhofer ISE). Water-based cooling bore-hole
heat exchangers, concrete core-conditioning (Fraunhofer ISE). Air-conditioning compression
chiller, cooling distribution system, air-conditioning system (Fraunhofer ISE)
equipment and therefore auxiliary energy use. Passive cooling refers to preventing
and modulating heat gains, including the use of natural heat sinks. For example,
techniques are a well-designed building envelope and layout in high quality, solar
control, internal gain control, and free night-ventilation. The design shall take the
local microclimate and the building site into consideration. ‘‘Free night-ventilation’’
is simply a nonmechanical or passive means of providing ventilation through natu-
rally occurring effects such as wind pressure on a building façade or stack effects
6.1 Description of the Investigated Buildings 73
within a building. During daytime, heat is stored in the structural elements of the
building and is then rejected to the outdoor environment. However, only a certain
amount of heat can be dissipated by night-ventilation due to the available nocturnal
temperature level, the limited time, the practically feasible air-change rate, and the
effectively usable heat-storage capacity of the building.
Low-energy building with air-based mechanical cooling (AMC): Besides the
use of passive cooling techniques, night-ventilation is realized with a mechanical
ventilation system. Is an exhaust-air ventilation system employed, indoor air is
continuously exhausted to the outdoor environment. Fresh air is supplied through
open windows or ventilation slats. Often the buildings employ a supply-and-
exhaust air ventilation-system in order to make use of heat recovery in winter.
Then indoor air is centrally exhausted to the outdoors and supply air is centrally
sucked in and distributed to the individual rooms.
Low-energy building with water-based mechanical cooling (WMC): Hydronic
radiant cooling systems encompass both integrated thermo-active building systems
(TABS) and additive systems such as ceiling-suspended cooling panels. Due to a
suitable construction method, TABS actively incorporate the structure (ceiling,
wall, floor) and thermal storage into the energy management of the building. The
broad range of TABS differs in dimension and spacing of the pipes, layer of
thermal activation (surface-near or core), activated building component (ceiling,
floor, wall), and implementation. The thermal properties of the constructions are
predetermined by the vertical distance of the pipes to the surface, pipe spacing,
floor and ceiling cover, pipe layout, volume flow and supply-water temperatures.
Due to the large area for heat transfer, cooling is realized with relatively high
supply-water temperatures between 16 and 22 C. Under steady-state conditions,
cooling capacities of 30–40 W/m2 can be achieved. Near-surface systems can
reach cooling rates of up to 70 W/m2 under appropriate operating conditions.
Higher cooling capacities are limited by the dew point of the room air temperature,
as condensation would otherwise occur under the ceiling. The dew point is 15 C
at a room air temperature of 26 C and a relative humidity of 50 %. TABS favor
the use of environmental heat sinks in the close proximity of the building site, such
as surface-near geothermal energy of the ground and groundwater, the use of
rainwater and ambient air. Borehole heat exchangers, ground collectors, energy
piles, earth-to-air heat exchangers and groundwater wells are technologies to
harvest surface-near geothermal energy up to a depth of 120 m. Outdoor air can be
used as heat sink by means of dry or wet cooling towers.
Building with mixed-mode cooling (MMC): Mixed-mode cooling refers to a
hybrid approach to space conditioning that uses a combination of natural venti-
lation from operable windows (either manually or automatically controlled) or
other passive inlet vents, and mechanical systems that provide air distribution and
some form of cooling (Brager et al. 2007). Usually, it is a combination of natural
or mechanical ventilation during permissible outdoor air conditions and full air-
conditioning with dehumidification of the office space. Mixed-mode buildings may
incorporate control strategies between mechanical and passive systems which may
either be fully automated, manually controlled, or operated as some combination.
However, stringent classification and understanding of mixed-mode cooling is not

consistent and agreed upon.
Building with full air-conditioning (AC): Air-conditioning of spaces refers to
any form of cooling, heating, ventilation, or disinfection that modifies the con-
dition of air. By considering the summer period, an air-conditioning system cools
and dehumidifies the indoor air at almost constant setpoints throughout the time of
occupancy, typically using a refrigeration cycle or sometimes evaporation.
Monitoring Campaigns. Various scientific teams carried out extensive long-
term monitoring in fine time resolution of the building and plant performances for
1–5 years. The monitoring data consist of minute-by-minute and hourly mea-
surements of temperature sensors and energy meters or manual heat-meter read-
ings, if not stated otherwise. Thermal comfort is quantified by measurements of
operative room temperatures and local meteorological conditions. In addition,
useful cooling energy and electricity consumption were recorded hourly or by
manual, weekly meter readings.
In general, data accumulation is associated with erroneous data due to the
malfunctioning of sensors and outages. Raw data are processed before data
evaluation, using a sophisticated method to remove erroneous values and outliers
from the database. Data were recorded by building automation systems or by a
stand-alone acquisition system. Thermal comfort is quantified by measurements of
operative room temperatures and local meteorological conditions.
Usually, temperature sensors of class A or class B (PT100 or PT1000) were
installed. The accuracy of temperature measurements is defined in
DIN EN 60751:2009–05 (2009).
• Ambient condition: Although the monitoring equipment was designed and
inspected carefully, there are errors in the ambient air temperature (e.g.,
insufficient protection against solar radiation). The order of measurement errors
is estimated to be ±0.14–0.5 K.
• Room condition: Inaccuracies of the room temperature measurements are due to
the sensor position, e.g., draught effect, height and position of the sensors or the
impact of wall temperature on the measurement of the air temperature. The
order of error is estimated to be ±0.13–0.5 K. The average measuring errors of
temperature sensors is about ±0.2 K. High accuracy is necessary since the
temperature variation of indoor conditions lies within a range of 1–5 K.
6.2 Monitoring Results for European Office Buildings
The building descriptions on the following double pages show:

• weather conditions throughout the year of monitoring: monthly mean ambient
air temperature [C] (markers), maximum and minimum daily temperature [C],
and monthly solar radiation (global horizontal) [kWh/m2]. Data come from
public weather stations or the building site.
6.2 Monitoring Results for European Office Buildings 75
• pictures of the buildings.

• a schematic of the respective energy concepts for heating, cooling, and
ventilation.
• the thermal-comfort evaluation for the monitoring year: mean operative room
temperature of the building [C] during the time of occupancy, plotted against
the running mean ambient air temperature [C] in accordance with the comfort
guideline EN 15251:2007–08. Gray and black lines indicate the upper and lower
comfort boundaries I, II, and III. The thermal-comfort footprint for buildings
indicates the time during occupancy in summer season [%] when thermal
comfort complies with classes I to IV: class I (light green), class II (dark green),
class III (orange), and outside the defined comfort classes (red). Exceedance of
upper comfort limits only (up), of lower comfort limits only (low), upper and
lower comfort limits are considered (total). Squares for comfort classes I to IV
from left to right.
• the humidity comfort evaluation: evaluation of interior comfort in terms of
relative humidity [%] during occupancy (8 a.m.–7 p.m., weekends are not
considered) in accordance with standard DIN ISO 7730:2005. The thermal-
comfort footprint for buildings indicates the time during occupancy in summer
season [%] when thermal comfort complies with classes I to IV: class I (light
green), class II (dark green), class III (orange), and outside the defined comfort
classes (red). Squares for comfort classes I to IV from left to right. Results for
summer season (S): light gray markers, results for winter season (W): dark gray
markers.
• the building signature correlates the useful cooling energy [kWhtherm/m2a], total
primary-energy consumption of the building for heating, cooling, ventilation,
and lighting [kWhprim/m2a], as well as the time of occupancy [%] when comfort
class II is reached in terms of thermal and humidity comfort. The green rect-
angle (dotted line) represents the objective function for these parameters and the
arrows indicate the direction of the optimum. The orange rectangle (solid line)
represents results from the monitoring campaign. The scales are chosen indi-
vidually for each criterion. The primary-energy factor for electricity is
2.3kWhprim/kWhfin for all projects presented. Objective functions for useful
cooling energy are derived from simulation studies (see Chap. 7).
PASSIVE COOLING
La Rochelle France (46°15’, -1°15’, 5m)
CLIMATE
annual avg. temp. [°C] 12.8 250 35

225
air temperature [°C]

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
month. avg. max temp. [°C] 19.6
175 15
month. avg. min temp. [°C] 4.4 150
125 5
heating degree days [Kday] 2,278 100
75 -5
cooling degree days [Kday] n/k 50 -15
25
design indoor temp. H [°C] 19 0 -25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Aug
Mar
Apr
design indoor temp. C [°C] 26
INFORMATION ON BUILDING AND USE
occupancy university
number of occupants 15+1500
utilization 8am-6pm
completion 2003
refurbishment -
number of floors 3
total floor area [m²] 3,900
total conditioned area [m²] 3,900
total volume [m³] 18,600
area -to -volume ratio [m -1 ] 0.1 Source: University of La Rochelle
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system interior blinds, manual operation, shading factor n/k
U-values [W/(m²K)] exterior wall: 0.43 | window: 2.2 | roof: 0.36 | avg. value of building: 0.75
window 2-pane low -e glazing | g -value: 0.44 | area: 880m² | window-façade-ratio: 42%
COOLING CONCEPT
environmental heat sink AA F I N A L ENERGY
energy carrier - GAS ELECTRICITY

cooling system NV-f

boiler HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
power of system [kW therm ] -
distribution system - COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
NV-f
AMBIENT
operable windows yes

AIR
MV VENTILATION
night -ventilation f
mechanical ventilation yes
air -change rate [h -1 ] 1.0 ambient air (AA) | free (f) | mechanical ventilation (MV)
night-ventilation (NV)
dehumidification of air no
pre -cooling of air no

THERMAL COMFORT PERFORMANCE IN SUMMER
year(s) of monitoring 2008-09
year of evaluation 2008-09
number of rooms 9
interval of measurements 60min
ambient air temperature at building
design temperature [°C] 26
adaptive, class II (up) a 96%
adaptive, class II (low) b 38%
avg. room temperature [°C]c 22 –25.5
temp. drift day [K]c 0.5–1.5
POE d yes
humidity comfort, class II 44%
MONITORING RESULTS AND BUILDING SIGNATURE (period 7/08 to 09/09)
COOLING 40
35
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] 0
30
final energy [kWh fin/m²a] 0
25
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] 0
20
HEATING
15
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] 74.3 10
final energy [kWh fin/m²a] 85.3 5
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] 97.6
humidity ratio x [g/kg]
VENTILATION
final energy [kWh fin/m²a] n/k
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] n/k
LIGHTING
APPLIANCES/PLUG LOADS
TOTAL BUILDING
onsite generation of energy no

(a) upper comfort boundaries, (b) lower
comfort boundaries, (c) during occupancy, (d)
post-occupancy evaluation
PASSIVE COOLING
Prague, Czech Republic (50°0', 14°34’, 269m)
CLIMATE
annual avg. temp. [°C] 10 250 35

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
cooling degree days [Kday] 19 50 -15
25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Aug
Apr
occupancy tenement
number of occupants 4
utiliz ation 9am-6pm
completion 2005
refurbishment -
number of floors 2
total floor area [m²] 230
total conditioned area [m²] 230
total volume [m³] 562
area -to -volume ratio [m-1] 0.4 Source: Czech Technical University, Prague
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system interior blinds, manual operation, shading factor n/k
U-values [W/(m²K)] exterior wall: 0.2 | window: 1.4 | roof: 0.15 | avg. value of building: n/k
window 2-pane glazing | g-value: 0.4 | area: 54m² | window-façade-ratio: 20-80%
COOLING CONCEPT
energy carrier E ELECTRICITY

SOLAR
cooling system NV-f, fans

HP HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
power of system [kWtherm] -

GROUND
distribution system air

BHEX COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
NV-f
operable windows
AMBIENT
yes
AIR
VENTILATION
mechanical ventilation no
air -change rate [h -1] 0.5 ambient air (AA) | borehole heat exchanger (BHEX) | electricity (E) | free
(f) | heat pump (HP | night-ventilation (NV)

year(s) of monitoring 2008
year of evaluation 2008
number of rooms 1
adaptive, class II (up) a 97 %
adaptive, class II (low) b 96 %
avg. room temperature [°C] c 23 -26
temp. drift day [K] c 1.0-2.8
POE d no
humidity comfort, class II e n/k
COOLING
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] 0
HEATING
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] 56.0
final energy [kWh fin/m²a] 68.0
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
primary energy kWh prim /m²a] 11.5.
TOTAL BUILDING

post -occupancy evaluation, (e) not measured
AIR-BASED COOLING
Freiburg Germany (47°99’,7°84’, 278m)
CLIMATE

225
radiation [kWh/m²]
month. avg. max temp. [°C] 25.0 200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
cooling degree days [Kday] - 50 -15
25
Jan
Feb
Sep
Jun
Dec
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Apr
Aug
occupancy office
completion 2001
refurbishment -
number of floors 3
area -to -volume ratio [m-1] 0.31 Source: Fraunhofer ISE.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior venetian blinds, automatic operation, shading factor 0.2
U-values [W/(m²K)] exterior wall: 0.23 | window: 1. 4 | roof: 0. 34 | avg. value of building: 0.43
window 2-pane glazing | g-value: 0.58| area:—| window-façade-ratio: 28-50%
COOLING CONCEPT
energy carrier E FOSSIL FUELS ELECTRICITY

cooling system -
boiler HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
power of system [kWtherm ] -

COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
NV-m
operable windows
AMBIENT
yes
AIR
MV VENTILATION
night -ventilation yes
air -change rate [h-1 ] 1 ambient air (AA) | electricity (E) | mechanical (m) | mechanical
ventilation (MV) | night -ventilation (NV)

number of rooms 16
adaptive, class II (up) a 91%
adaptive, class II (low)b 95%
avg. room temperature [°C]c 23.5 -28
temp. drift day [K]c 1.5-2.5
POEd yes
humidity comfort, class IIe n/k
COOLING
final energy [kWh fin /m²a] 4.1
HEATING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING
onsite generation of energy yes

post-occupancy evaluation, (e) not measured
AIR-BASED COOLING
Freiburg Germany (47°99’, 7°84’, 278m)
CLIMATE
250 35
annual avg. temp. [°C] 11.7
225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
month. avg. min temp. [°C] -0.8 150
125 5
75 -5
25
Sep
Feb
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Apr
Aug
occupancy office
completion 2003
refurbishment -
number of floors 6
area -to -volume ratio [m-1] 0.29 Source: Solar Info Center, Freiburg
BUILDING ENVELOPE
U-values [W/(m²K)] exterior wall: 0.19 | window: 1.3 | roof: 0.19 | avg. value of building:
window 2-pane glazing | g-value: 0.60 | area: —| window-façade -ratio: 33-49%
COOLING CONCEPT
energy carrier E DISTRICT HEAT ELECTRICITY

SOLAR
cooling system NV-m PV

HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
power of system [kWtherm ] -

NV-m COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
operable windows
AMBIENT
yes
AIR
MV VENTILATION
night -ventilation m
air -change rate [h-1 ] 1 ambient air (AA) | electricity (E) | mechanical (m) | mechanical
ventilation (MV) | nigh-ventilation (NV) | photovoltaic (PV)

number of rooms 10
adaptive, class II (up) a 93
adaptive, class II (low) b 97
avg. room temperature [°C] c 25 -27.5
POE d yes
humidity comfort, class II 98
COOLING 40
35
30
25
primary energy kWh prim /m²a] 0.0
20
HEATING
15
final energy [kWh fin /m²a] 32.0 5
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] 26.2 humidity ratio x [g/kg]
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
final energy [kWh fin /m²a] n/k
TOTAL BUILDING

WATER-BASED COOLING
Karlsruhe Germany (49°0’, 8°24’, 115m)
CLIMATE

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Aug
Apr
occupancy office
completion 1978
refurbishment 2005
number of floors 2

Source: Patrick Beuchert, Karlsruhe
area -to -volume ratio [m -1] 0.27
BUILDING ENVELOPE
window solar control glazing | g-value: 0.55 | area: 473m² | window-façade-ratio: 20-87%
COOLING CONCEPT
F I N A L ENERGY
environmental heat sink AA, GR
FOSSIL FUELS ELECTRICITY
WASTE
energy carrier E
HEAT
boiler
HEATING
cooling system NV-f, BHEX
U S E F U L ENERGY
GROUND
power of system [kWtherm] 10

BHEX COOLING
distribution system air, CP-w
VENTILATION CONCEPT NV-f

AMBIENT
AIR
MV VENTILATION
HR
ambient air (AA) | borehole heat exchangers (BHEX) | electricity (E)
air -change rate [h -1 ] 1 free (f) | ground (GR) | heat recovery (HR) | mechanical ventilation (MV)
| nigh-ventilation (NV) | water-driven, ceiling suspended cooling panels
dehumidification of air no (CP-w)
pre-cooling of air yes

number of rooms a 10
interval of measurements 5-min
ambient air temperature public WSb
adaptive, class II (up)c 88 %
adaptive, class II (low)d 97 %
avg. room temperature [°C]e 23 -27
temp. drift day [K]e 1.5-4.0
POEf yes
humidity comfort, class II 94 %
COOLING 40
35
30
25
primary energy kWh prim /m²a] 14.6
20
HEATING
15
useful energy [kWhtherm /m²a] 79.9 10
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

(a) open -plan office and normal offices, (b)
public weather station in city, (c) upper
comfort boundaries, (d) lower comfort
boundaries, (e) during occupancy, (f) post-
occupancy evaluation
WATER-BASEDCOOLING
Porretta Terme Italy (44°16’ , 10°97’ , 349m)
CLIMATE

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Aug
Mar
Apr
occupancy civic center + office
utiliz ation 8am -12pm
completion 1970
refurbishment 2007
number of floors 2
area -to -volume ratio [m -1 ] 0.6 Source: Politecnico di Milano
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior roller blinds, manual operation, shading factor 0.15
window 2-pane low-e glazing | g-value: 0.6 | area: 54m² | window-façade-ratio: 9-16%
COOLING CONCEPT
F I N A L ENERGY
environmental heat sink AA, GR
ELECTRICITY
PV
SOLAR
energy carrier E
HP HEATING
cooling system NV, HP
U S E F U L ENERGY
GROUND

BHEX COOLING
distribution system coils, CV
NV-f/m
VENTILATION CONCEPT
AMBIENT
AIR
MV VENTILATION
HR
night -ventilation f+m
ambient air (AA) | borehole heat exchanger (BHEX) | convector
air -change rate [h-1] 1 (CV)electricity (E) | free (f) | ground (GR) | heat pump (HP) | heat
recovery (HR) | mechanical (m) | mechanical ventilation (MV) | night-
dehumidification of air no ventilation (NV) | photovoltaic (PV)

year(s) of monitoring 2008 -09
year of evaluation 2008 -09
number of rooms 3
ambient air temperature public WS a
adaptive, class II (up) b 100 %
adaptive, class II (low) c 88 %
avg. room temperature [°C] d 24.5 -27.0
temp. drift day [K]d 0.5-1.5
POE e yes
COOLING 40


25
20
HEATING
15
10
5
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] 160.3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

(a) public weather station, (b) upper comfort
boundaries, (c) lower comfort boundaries, (d)
during occupanc, (e) post-occupancy y
evaluation
WATER-BASED COOLING
Copenhagen Denmark (55°67’, 12°67’, 24m)
CLIMATE

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
month. avg. min temp. [°C] -1 150
125 5
75 -5
25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Aug
Mar
Apr
occupancy office
number of occupants 1.700
utilization 8am-6pm
completion 2002
refurbishment -
number of floors 5

Source: Danish Technical University, Lyngby
area -to -volume ratio [m -1] 0.3
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system interior venetian blinds, manual operation, shading factor n/k
window 2-pane glazing | g-value: n/k| area: 302m² | window-façade-ratio: 30-60%
COOLING CONCEPT
energy carrier E DISTRICT HEAT ELECTRICITY

cooling system chiller

HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
distribution system coils + CP-w CC COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
AMBIENT
operable windows no
AIR
MV VENTILATION
night-ventilation no HR
air -change rate [h -1] 1.4 ambient air (AA) | compression chiller (CC) | water-driven, ceiling
suspended cooling panels (CP-w | electricity (E) | heat recovery (HR)
dehumidification of air no mechanical ventilation (MV)

number of rooms 3
PMV, class II (up) a 92%
PMV, class II (low)b 89%
avg. room temperature [°C]c 23-25.5
POE d yes
humidity comfort, class II 97%
COOLING 40
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] n/k 35

30
25
20
HEATING
15
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] n/k
10
5
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

WATER-BASED COOLING
Turku Finland (55°67’, 12°67’, 24m)
CLIMATE
annual avg. temp. [°C] 5 250 35

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
month. avg. min temp. [°C] -6.6 150
125 5
75 -5
25
May
Mar
Aug
Nov
Dec
Feb
Sep
Apr
Jan
Oct
Jun
Jul
occupancy office
completion 2005
refurbishment -
number of floors 5
area -to -volume ratio [m -1] n/k Source: YIT, Finland

BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior venetian blinds, automatic operation, shading factor n/k
window n/k | g-value: 0.38 | area: n/k | window-façade-ratio: n/k
COOLING CONCEPT
environmental heat sink - F I N A L ENERGY
energy carrier - DISTRICT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY

COOL HEAT
cooling system district cool
AHU HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
distribution system air, CP-w

AHU COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
operable windows
AMBIENT
yes
MV
AIR
VENTILATION
night -ventilation no HR
air -change rate [h -1] 2.2 air handling unit (AHU) | water-driven, ceiling suspended cooling panels
(CP-w) | heat recovery (HR) | mechanical ventilation (MV)
pre -cooling of air yes

number of rooms 12
interval of measurements n/k
ambient air temperature n/k
PMV, class II (up) a 100 %
PMV, class II (low)b 71 %
avg. room temperature [°C] c 21 -22

c
temp. drift day [K] 0.5-1.2
POEd yes
COOLING 40
35
30
25
20
HEATING
15
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

MIXED-MODE COOLING
Athens Greece (38°02’, 23°80’, 70m)
CLIMATE

225

radiation [kWh/m²]
200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
25
Feb
Sep
Jan
Dec
Jun
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Aug
Apr
occupancy office
utilization 8am-6pm
completion 1995
refurbishment -
number of floors 3
area -to -volume ratio [m -1] 0.7 Source: Mat Santamouris, Athens
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior fabric blinds, automatic operation, shading factor 0.5
window 2-pane glazing | g-value: 0.7 | area: 53m² | window-façade-ratio: 15-81%
COOLING CONCEPT
energy carrier E ELECTRICITY

cooling system a-a-HP, SU

HEATING
U S E F U L ENERGY
power of system [kW therm ] 37
distribution system air COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT HP SU NV-f

AMBIENT
operable windows NV-m

yes
AIR
MV VENTILATION
night -ventilation f+m
air -change rate [h -1 ] no info ambient air (AA) | air -to-air heat pump (a-a-HP) | electricity (E) | free
(f)mechanical (m) | mechanical ventilation (MV) | night-ventilation (NV)
dehumidification of air no split units (SU)
pre -cooling of air yes

year(s) of monitoring 2008 – 09
year of evaluation 2008 – 09
number of rooms 6
adaptive, class II (up) a 97
adaptive, class II (low) b 90
avg. room temperature [°C]c 23 -7
POE d yes
humidity comfort, class II 82
COOLING 40
35
30
25
20
HEATING
15
10
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

MIXED - MODE COOLING

Bucharest Romania (44°43’, 26°9’, 55m)
CLIMATE

225

25
radiation [kWh/m²]
month. avg. max temp. [°C] 17.3 200
175 15
125 5
75 -5
25
Feb
Jan
Jun
Jul
Dec
May
Nov
Sep
Mar
Apr
Aug
Oct
occupancy office
utilization 8am -5pm
completion 1940
refurbishment -
number of floors 4
total volume [m³] 1.952
area -to-volume ratio [m -1 ] 0.32 Source: Adrian Ghiaus, Bucharest
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior wood blinds, manual operation, shading factor 0.3
window 2-single pane glazing | g-value: 0.42 | area: 48m² | window-façade -ratio: 30 - 40 %
COOLING CONCEPT
environmental heat sink AA

F I N A L ENERGY
energy carrier E
GAS ELECTRICITY
cooling system NV-f, SU

boiler HEATING
power of system [kWtherm] n/k
U S E F U L ENERGY

SU COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT
operable windows yes NV-f
AMBIENT
AIR
VENTILATION
night -ventilation yes
mechanical ventilation no
air-change rate [h-1] n/k

ambient air (AA) | free (f) | electricity (E) | night-ventilation (NV) |split
unit (SU)

year(s) of monitoring 2008 – 09
year of evaluation 2008 – 09
number of rooms 3
ambient air temperature public WS a
adaptive, class II (up)b 96 %
adaptive, class II (low)c 100 %
avg. room temperature [°C]d 26 -28
temp. drift day [K]d 1.0-2.5
POEe no
COOLING 40


25
20
HEATING
15
useful energy [kWh therm /m²a] n/k
10
5
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING

during occupancy, (e) post-occupancy
evaluation
AIR-CONDITIONING
Freiburg Germany (47°99’,7°84’, 278m)
CLIMATE

225
radiation [kWh/m²]
month. avg. max temp. [°C] 23.1 200 25
175 15
125 5
75 -5
cooling degree days [Kday] 50 -15
25
Jan
Feb
Sep
Jun
Dec
Jul
Nov
May
Oct
Mar
Aug
Apr
occupancy Office
utilization 8am-5pm
completion 2000
refurbishment -
number of floors 4

Source: Fototeam Vollmer, Freiburg
area -to -volume ratio [m-1] n/k
BUILDING ENVELOPE
shading system exterior venetian blinds, automatic and manual operation, shading factor 0.2
U-values [W/(m²K)] exterior wall: 0.25 | window: 1.3
window heat protection glazing | g-value 0.58 | window-façade-ratio: 30–40%
COOLING CONCEPT
F I N A L ENERGY
environmental heat sink AA,GR
DISTRICT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY
energy carrier E, DC
COOL HEAT
cooling system rev. HP HEATING

U S E F U L ENERGY

GROUND
distribution system CP-w BHEX COOLING
VENTILATION CONCEPT HP
AMBIENT
operable windows no
AIR
AC VENTILATION
night -ventilation no HR

ambient air (AA) | air-conditioning (AC) | borehole heat exchanger
air-change rate [h -1] 1.6
(BHEX) |water-driven ceiling-suspended cooling panels (CP-w) | district
cooling (DC) | district heating (DH) | electricity (E) | heat pump (HP)
dehumidification of air yes
heat recovery (HR)
year(s) of monitoring 2008 -2010
number of rooms 87
design temperature [°C] 24.5
PMV, class II (up) b 99 %
PMV, class II (low) c 35 %
avg. room temperature [°C]d 23.5
temp. drift day [K] d 1.0
POEd no
COOLING 40


25
20
HEATING
15
10
5
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
TOTAL BUILDING
primary energy [kWh prim /m²a] 225 .0

during occupancy , (e) post -occupancy
evaluation
98
ROOM TEMPERATURES DURING OCCUPANCY IN SUMMER
NO COOLING PASSIVE AIR-BASED MM WATER-BASED AC
Fig. 6.3 Operative room temperatures during occupancy in summer [C], illustrated as boxplots. Buildings are grouped in accordance with the
building categories introduced. Further given values are the median (solid line), the 75th and the 25th percentiles (grey rectangle). Building
categories: no cooling, passive cooling, air-based mechanical cooling, water-based mechanical cooling, mixed-mode cooling, and air-conditioning
6.3 Cross-Comparison of Thermal-Comfort Performance 99
6.3 Cross-Comparison of Thermal-Comfort Performance

in Summer for 42 Office Buildings in Europe
This chapter presents a cross-comparison of the thermal-comfort performance of

European buildings in summer. Again, a building is allocated to the particular
comfort class if the room temperatures remain within the defined comfort
boundaries, i.e., do not exceed the upper comfort boundaries (for the evaluation
methodology, see Chap. 5).
Figure 6.3 illustrates the range of operative room temperatures during the time
of occupancy in summer for the individual buildings. Monitoring results are
presented as boxplots indicating 50 % of the temperature measurements as well as
maximum and minimum occurrences. Obviously, temperature values are scattered
over a wide range, considering both the individual building as well as all buildings
within one category. This depends on the prevailing ambient air temperature, the
building physics, the use of the buildings, the behavior of the occupant, and the
cooling system.
Figure 6.4 portrays measured operative room temperatures during occupancy
over the running mean ambient air temperature as comfort figures in accordance
with the EN 15251 standard. Results are given for one building chosen from each
category. Furthermore, hourly operative room and ambient air temperatures are
given for a hot summer week.
Finally, thermal-comfort results are presented as a ‘‘thermal-comfort footprint’’
for all buildings (Fig. 6.5). Results on thermal comfort consider the exceedance of
the upper comfort boundaries only for both the PMV and the adaptive comfort
approach.
Buildings without cooling. Thermal comfort in buildings without cooling is
mainly evaluated based on short-term monitoring campaigns over two to four
weeks during hot summer periods (Table 6.1). Obviously, the resulting operative
room temperatures are high; mean values are above 25 C and maximum values
are in the range of 29–34 C. During the monitoring period, only comfort class
III—following the adaptive model—is achieved during 65–95 % of the occu-
pancy. One building reveals a pronouncedly poor performance since it was built
the 1960s and has not been retrofitted. In general, the buildings without any
cooling measures are sensitive to the prevailing ambient conditions. Operative
room temperatures rise considerably during warmer periods, resulting in temper-
ature drifts of up to 5 K per day. Outside the occupancy, i.e., during nighttime
hours, room temperatures fall just slightly by 1–2 K. Interestingly, relatively high
room temperatures are reached even at moderate running mean ambient air tem-
peratures of 18–22 C.
Buildings with passive cooling. Passive cooling includes all measures to
reduce solar and internal heat loads and to store the remaining heat gains in the
building mass in order to dissipate them during nighttime through free ventilation.
Air-exchange rates vary from day to day and can be different in each office room.
The effective exchange rates do often not exceed values of 2 ACH per hour in the
NO COOLING
32

weekend
30
28
26
24
22
ambient air
20
adaptive model 18
16
07.05 08.05 09.05 10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05
PASSIVE COOLING
32

weekend
30
28
26
24
22
20
ambient air
adaptive model 18
16
21.07 22.07 23.07 24.07 25.07 26.07 27.07 28.07
AIR-BASED COOLING
32
weekend
30
28
26
24
22
20
ambient air
adaptive model 18
16
08.08 09.08 10.08 11.08 12.08 13.08 14.08 15.08
Fig. 6.4 Results on thermal comfort are given for one building per category Left Hourly
operative room temperatures [C] during occupancy are portrayed above the running mean
ambient air temperature [C]. Results are given for up to two operation years. Adaptive-comfort
approach for buildings without, with passive, air-based and mixed-mode cooling. PMV-comfort
approach for buildings with water-based cooling and air-conditioning Right Hourly room
temperatures for two reference rooms and the prevailing ambient air temperature is given for one
hot summer week. Time of daily occupancy is indicated by markers
northern summer climate zones and rarely reach values above 1.8 ACH per hour in
the southern ones. However, these relatively straightforward measures for pro-
tection against summer overheating improve the comfort performance of the
buildings significantly as compared to buildings without cooling measures.
MIXED MODE COOLING

32

weekend
30
28
26
24
22
20
ambient air
adaptive model 18
16
09.06 10.06 11.06 12.06 13.06 14.06 15.06 16.06
WATER-BASED COOLING
32

weekend
30
28
26
24
22
20
ambient air
PMV model 18
16
25.07 26.07 27.07 28.07 29.07 30.07 31.07 01.08
AIR-CONDITIONING
32
weekend
30
28
26
24
22
20
ambient air
PMV model 18
16
12.07 13.07 14.07 15.07 16.07 17.07 18.07 19.07
Fig. 6.4 continued
• Relatively high operative room temperatures can be expected during the sum-
mer season due to high interior heat gains and often densely occupied buildings.
Most of the buildings show an exceedance of comfort class II in accordance with
the adaptive-comfort model during 2–10 % of the time of occupancy. During
summer heat waves, the indoor temperatures rise significantly above 28 C.
However, comfort requirements of class III are violated only during few hours
in summer when maximum temperatures reach values of 28–30 C. The middle
50 % of recorded temperature values during summer occupancy are within a
range of 23–26 C.
EVALUATION ACCORDING TO DIN EN 15251: ADAPTIVE COMFORT MODEL
NO PASSIVE AIR-BASED MM
EVALUATION ACCORDING TO DIN EN 15251: PMV COMFORT MODEL

WATER-BASED AC
Fig. 6.5 Thermal-comfort footprint for all demonstration buildings. This figure shows the time
of occupancy [%] during summer season when the comfort requirements of classes I, II, and III
are achieved in accordance with the adaptive- or PMV-comfort approach of the EN 15251
standard. Only exceedance of upper comfort limits is considered. Dashed line indicates 95 % of
time of occupancy. Legend: comfort class I (light green), II (dark green), III (orange), and
outside the defined comfort classes (red). Squares for classes I to IV from bottom to top
• Compared to buildings with air- or water-based cooling, operative room tem-

peratures fluctuate more strongly during the time of occupancy, up to 3 K per
day on average.
• Operative room temperatures increase quickly during hot periods with higher
ambient air temperatures. However, cooling by night-ventilation reduces tem-
peratures by 2 to 3 K during the night.
• Passive cooling is applicable in northern Europe because relatively high solar
heat gains—due to long sunshine hours with the sun at a lower angle—can be
dissipated efficiently by cool outdoor air during nighttime, provided that the
building is planned explicitly for this concept under consideration of the par-
ticular local conditions. Nevertheless, mechanical night-ventilation improves the
controllability and heat dissipation during midsummer periods.
• Surprisingly, room-temperature measurements clearly violate the lower comfort
boundaries, in particular during summer periods with moderate ambient air
temperatures at a running outdoor mean of 15–20 C. Most of the buildings
employ free night-ventilation by means of open windows and ventilation slats,
which does not enable influencing the room temperature. However, room
temperatures rarely fall below 21 and 20 C.
Buildings with air-based mechanical cooling

• A ventilation system ensures a good indoor air quality during daytime and can
be used for mechanical night-ventilation. The ventilation unit is usually operated
when the room temperature exceeds 21 C and the outdoor temperature is at
least 2 K below room temperature.
• Experience with buildings cooled by mechanical night-ventilation shows that
pleasant room temperatures are reached in summer and that in general, occu-
pants rate the indoor climate positively. During 95 % of the occupancy, the
buildings with air-based mechanical cooling comply with comfort class II,
considering the adaptive approach. Just two of the buildings studied only
achieved comfort class III.
• Buildings that employ mechanical night-ventilation by means of an exhaust or
supply-and-exhaust system allow for a fixed air-change rate of between 2 and
4 ACH. Therefore, the cooling capacity is higher and less dependent on the
prevailing wind situation and differences between indoor and outdoor
temperatures.
• Rising ambient air temperatures decrease the cooling potential of night-venti-
lation and demand elevated air-change rates for a mechanical ventilation system.
Besides, persistent heat waves in central and southern climates with elevated
outdoor temperatures at night prevent effective cooling of the thermal mass of
the building. Then, structural measures and mechanically assisted night-venti-
lation is often not sufficient to limit room temperatures to 28 C during daytime.
For example: although the building AO in south-west Germany—which uses
night-ventilation by means of an exhaust ventilation system only—performed
surprisingly well in 2002 (class I), a persistent heat wave in 2003 resulted in an
extensive violation of comfort class II, considering the adaptive-comfort
approach. On the contrary, the building AW, using water-based cooling by
TABS in combination with the ground as a heat sink, could be assigned to
comfort class II in summer 2003, corresponding to the PMV-comfort approach.
The night-ventilated buildings AQ and AR in Germany provided good thermal
comfort during the hot summer of 2003. This reduced cooling demand attributes
to the high quality of the building envelope and the stringent load-reduction
strategy (day-lighting concept, solar-shading system, energy-efficient office
equipment). Nevertheless, resulting operative room temperatures in the build-
ings studied are significantly below the prevailing ambient air temperature.
• Evidently, air-based building systems are not as effective as water-based
thermo-active ones, in particular during prolonged periods with high ambient air
temperatures. Taking the extreme summer conditions of 2003 as an indicator for
a global warming scenario, thermal comfort in compliance with class II of
EN 15251:2007-08 cannot be ensured in buildings that employ night-ventilation
only.
• TABS are essentially unaffected by these disadvantages and thus present an
effective concept for conditioning buildings in Central European climates, even
in very hot summers, given a building with a high-quality envelope, solar-

shading devices, and reduced internal loads.
Buildings with mechanical water-based cooling

• Compared to buildings with air-based cooling, operative room temperatures are
lower. The middle 50 % of the measurements recorded are within a range of
22.5 and 25.5 C. Furthermore, temperatures fluctuate less during the day, and
maximum temperature values are above 27 C in five buildings only.
• Except for two buildings, water-based mechanical cooling by means of TABS
and environmental energy provides good thermal comfort during summer. By
applying the adaptive comfort approach, most buildings meet the upper comfort
requirements of class II.
• Considering the PMV-comfort approach of EN 15251, only eight out of 16
buildings meet the strict requirements for comfort class II over the course of the
summer. The reason for an insufficient thermal comfort according to the PMV
approach in those buildings can often be attributed to an improperly sized
cooling system (e.g., cooling capacity of heat sink not sufficient at buildings BA
and BK) or to inadequate control and operation algorithms (e.g., building BE
during the first year of operation). In some cases, the plant system was designed
to provide limited cooling only without claiming to guarantee the stringent
temperature setpoints of the PMV approach.
• The restricted cooling capacity of concrete-core conditioning systems requires a
consequent reduction of interior and solar-heat gains through a holistic design
process considering the building physics, architecture, HVAC systems, and the
use of the buildings. The combination of concrete-core conditioning with a
controllable and thermally fast-responding auxiliary cooling system (TABS near
surface or suspended systems) is reasonable—in case of a higher cooling
demand—for office spaces with changing conditions of use or in areas with
higher comfort requirements, e.g., meeting rooms. The additional cooling sys-
tem should also be operated at the same temperature level as the concrete-core
conditioning system. This allows for the use of the same distribution system and
therefore for saving investment costs.
• Obvious is the frequent violation of the lower comfort boundaries in summer,
even during periods with higher ambient air temperatures. This can be observed
in many buildings studied. Although users rate these temperatures as slightly
cool, their satisfaction is high in general (see Chap. 4). Temperatures below the
lower comfort boundaries can be avoided through system controls based on
outside and room temperatures. In addition, the required thermal cooling energy
is reduced as well.
• In northern European buildings, thermal-comfort requirements of class II
according to the PMV approach are met at more than 95 % of the occupancy.
That means that room temperatures are usually below 26 C and are subject to
only small daily fluctuations (of between 0.8 and 1.5 K).
• In northern European climates, water-based cooling by means of environmental

heat sinks or even active cooling with compression chillers is only required for
buildings with very high comfort requirements (class I) or limited user influence
(dress codes, sealed windows). As against, in southern European summer cli-
mates, a relatively high cooling capacity must be provided to dissipate strongly
fluctuating cooling loads. Since the temperature difference between the ambient
air and the indoor comfort temperature is low, an active cooling system is often
required to meet the comfort requirements. Water-based cooling concepts are
generally suitable in all climate zones of Europe. However, thermally slow
responding systems such as concrete-core conditioning systems reach the
cooling capacity limits during periods of high and fluctuating head loads under
southern European climate conditions.
Buildings with mixed-mode cooling

• The two buildings with mixed-mode cooling in Greece and Romania are pri-
marily and—as far as possible—cooled with night-ventilation. In periods of an
increased cooling demand, office rooms are additionally air-conditioned via
decentralized split units. The monitoring in the buildings does not allow for
distinguishing the comfort analysis in accordance with operating modes, i.e.,
night-ventilation and/or active cooling. Even during periods of high outdoor
temperatures (running mean ambient air temperature between 26 and 32 C), the
measured room temperatures stay within the required limits of comfort class II,
following the adaptive approach.
Buildings with air-conditioning

• Air-conditioning systems operate reliably in all climate zones, providing a
sufficiently high cooling capacity to meet the high standards of comfort, even at
times of high outdoor temperatures. The two German buildings as examples for
full air-conditioning provided excellent thermal comfort during summer, con-
sidering the upper boundaries of the PMV-comfort approach. Room tempera-
tures are usually between 24 and 26 C and are subject only to very small daily
fluctuations. An air-conditioning system allows for well-defined and narrow
temperature ranges during the time of occupancy and the dehumidification of
the supplied air. However, monitoring results show a tremendous violation of
the lower comfort boundaries as well, which might result in dissatisfied occu-
pants feeling too cold.
• While northern and central European buildings can provide satisfactory thermal
comfort without air-conditioning and meet requirements for indoor humidity,
the room temperature and the relative humidity of moist, warm days are higher
in southern climates, i.e., the relative humidity is in the range of the upper limit
of the standard. Then, dehumidification of the supply air appears—at least
temporarily—necessary. In the case of using an air-conditioning system, the
dissipation of sensible cooling loads should be realized with a water-based
cooling system in order to provide cooling energy with a higher efficiency by
using—if possible—environmental heat sinks such as ambient air or the surface-

near ground. Latent cooling loads are dissipated by the air-conditioning units.
6.4 Humidity Performance in Summer
In accordance with EN 15251:2007-08, a humidification of indoor air is usually

not needed. Humidity has only a small effect on thermal sensation and perceived
air quality in the rooms of sedentary occupancy; however, long-term high
humidity indoors will cause microbial growth, and very low humidity (\15–20 %)
causes dryness and irritation of eyes and airways. Requirements for humidity
influence the design of dehumidifying (cooling load) and humidifying systems and
therefore energy consumption. The criteria depend partly on the requirements for
thermal comfort and indoor air quality and partly on the physical requirements of
the building (condensation, mold, etc.) Design-limit values for relative humidity
concerning dehumidification are 50 % for class I, 60 % for class II, and 70 % for
class III in accordance with the DIN ISO 7730:2005 (ISO 7730) standard. Design-
limit values for relative humidity concerning humidification are 30 % for class I,
25 % for class II, and 20 % for class III. The values apply to the summer and
winter periods, i.e., there is no dependency of them on the prevailing relative
humidity of the outdoor air.
The building profiles given in this chapter present the monitoring results of
indoor humidity conditions in the buildings in accordance with EN 15251:2007-
08. Main results are:
• The northern and mid-European buildings provided good humidity comfort with
respect to the guideline. Class II was achieved in the German, Danish, Finish,
and Romanian buildings.
• The buildings in southern and south-western Europe (France, Greece, Italy)
showed higher values for relative humidity and, therefore, violated classes I and
II. Class III was achieved only during 75–80 % of the time of occupancy.
6.5 Conclusion: Cross-Comparison of Thermal Comfort
• The mean room temperature during the time of occupancy in summer is 25 C

for the buildings with passive and air-based mechanical cooling. Considering
the water-based mechanical and air-conditioned buildings, the mean room
temperature is slightly lower at 23.5 C.
• Maximum temperature occurrences are about 1–2 K higher in the buildings with
air-based mechanical cooling than in those with water-based and air-conditioned
cooling.
6.5 Conclusion: Cross-Comparison of Thermal Comfort 107
• Each category contains buildings that exceed significantly the mean operative
temperature levels of the category by up to 3 K.
• Obviously, the occurring range of operative room temperatures in the buildings
with passive and air-based mechanical cooling is markedly wider than in the
other buildings.
• Considering the three buildings in southern and south-eastern Europe (Italy,
Greece, and Romania), room temperatures are elevated significantly in com-
parison to the northern European and German buildings. (Cooling concepts for
different European climates will be further studied in Chap. 7).
• The German building with full air-conditioning (cooling and dehumidification)
has the narrowest temperature band during occupancy, that is 22.5–23.5 C.
• Surprisingly, the room temperatures of the buildings with water-based cooling
are scattered noticeably around the mean temperature of 23.5 C. Some build-
ings have relatively elevated temperature ranges. On the contrary, some build-
ings are mainly below the average temperature range of their respective
category. Low-energy buildings with heavy-weight constructions reduce and
cover the energy demand mainly with passive technologies and environmental
heat sources and sinks. Due to their thermal mass, they behave indulgently
towards exterior and interior changes, e.g., higher ambient air temperatures or
higher internal loads due to open solar shading or open windows. This means
that the heavy-weight building construction buffers the rise of the operative
room temperature for a certain period, avoiding overheated offices and rooms.
• Monitoring results indicate that the buildings with radiant cooling and environ-
mental-energy systems with lower cooling capacities are nevertheless sensitive
towards the applied control and operation algorithms as well as occupant behavior.
Therefore, room temperature cannot always be kept within a narrow range.
• Evidently, the comfort performance is not strongly affected by the type of
environmental heat sink employed (i.e., using the ground, groundwater, ambient
air), provided that the heat sink is adequately dimensioned and well-operated.
• An unexpected result is the wide range of comfort ratings within a given
building, e.g., some monitored rooms do not violate the comfort boundaries at
all, whereas others reveal a significant exceedance. This discrepancy within a
building is mainly affected by the orientation of the rooms (Fig. 6.4), the
presence of the occupants and their behavior in terms of opening windows and
using solar shading, which is not monitored in this investigation.
• The use of the building, that is, the user profile and the equipment of office
space, as well as the requirements for thermal comfort must be clearly defined in
the planning phase of a building and have to be considered in the building’s
operation. Its use and user behavior have a significant impact on room comfort
and energy consumption for cooling the built environment. Users should be
informed about the building and energy concept and should receive compre-
hensible instructions on how to behave in order to ensure a high level of interior
comfort with low energy consumption and costs.
• Convincing building concepts are characterized by the fact that users are
enabled to influence their interior surroundings because research studies reveal
that user satisfaction with the interior comfort is affected and increased effec-
tively by the possibility to exert influence on room conditions.
• The present results also suggest that the expectations of users on room and
comfort conditions have a considerable impact on their perception and satis-
faction: in buildings with night-ventilation, users expect higher room tempera-
tures and thus accept these. On the contrary, users have higher expectations on
indoor comfort in buildings with water-based cooling concepts and, therefore,
are less satisfied with higher room temperatures.
References
Brager G, Borgeson S, Lee Y (2007) Summary report: control strategies for mixed-mode
buildings. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley
DIN EN 60751:2009–05 Industrial platinum resistance thermometers and platinum temperature
sensors (IEC 60751:2008). Beuth, Berlin
Chapter 7
Application of Cooling Concepts
to European Office Buildings
Abstract A simulation study investigates the potential of different ventilation and

cooling strategies with regard to energy efficiency and thermal comfort in different
European climates. The results demonstrate a high potential for night-ventilation
strategies in the northern European climate with its low ambient air temperatures.
In the mid-European climate, water-based low-energy cooling technologies based
on radiant cooling make use of the cool ground in summer. Active cooling pro-
vides good thermal comfort in the southern European climate, with high and
fluctuating cooling loads.
A simulation study investigates the potential of different ventilation and cooling

strategies with regard to energy efficiency and thermal comfort in different
European climates. The results demonstrate a high potential for night-ventilation
strategies in the northern European climate with its low ambient air temperatures.
In the mid-European climate, water-based low-energy cooling technologies based
on radiant cooling make use of the cool ground in summer. Active cooling pro-
vides good thermal comfort in the southern European climate, with high and
fluctuating cooling loads.
7.1 Simulation Study of Cooling Concepts
Building Model. The simulation model is a new three-floor, two-wing office

building and contains two office rows with a dimension of 5.2 m in length, 3.9 m
in width, and 3.0 m in height for each office, which are separated by a corridor
(width: 2.6 m). The building is simulated in North–South and East–West
orientation.
The simulation model represents a typical European office building with an
area-to-volume ratio of 0.4 m2ext.surface/m3int.volume and a window ratio of
0.32 m2window/m2ext.wall (Fig 7.1). The building’s physical properties meet the EPBD
requirements:

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_7, The Author(s) 2014
110 7 Application of Cooling Concepts
Fig. 7.1 Building simulation model: typical European office building for northern, mid- and
southern European countries
internal heat gains

16
lighting
14 equipment
persons
12
specific cooling load [W/m²]
10
0
00:30 02:30 04:30 06:30 08:30 10:30 12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30 20:30 22:30
Fig. 7.2 Internal heat gains during working days in summer period: the internal heat gains from
artificial lighting differs from month to month and with latitude
• External walls, baseplate, and ceiling: Umean = 0.24 W/m2K incl. thermal heat
bridges.
• Windows: Uw = 1.0 W/m2K and g = 0.58.
• Solar shading: external Venetian blinds (Fc = 0.06, Fc = 0.2, considering
nonoptimal closing) are closed semiautomatically once the solar radiation on the
façade exceeds 200 W/m2.
The offices are occupied from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (UTC) during workdays. The
daily internal heat gains are 156 Wh/m2d, with a standardized load profile as
shown in Fig. 7.2.
Plant Model and Cooling Concepts. Five different cooling concepts are applied in
order to cool the office building (Fig. 7.3). All of them allow for free ventilation by
opening windows. Four concepts employ exhaust fans in order to provide a
7.1 Simulation Study of Cooling Concepts 111
CCH CCH CCH

optional optional
vent. free day vent. hybrid day vent. hybrid day vent. hybrid day vent. hybrid day vent.
cooling free night mechanical active cooling radiant cooling radiant cooling
concept ventilation night ventilation w/ fan coil w/ ceil. panel w/ TABS
heat sink ambient air ambient air cooling tower BHEx [8-18] BHEx [22-6]
Fig. 7.3 Five different cooling concepts: passive cooling, night-ventilation, active cooling with
compression chiller, and water-based low-energy cooling (with compression chiller if needed to
meet the cooling load). Green ventilation, blue cooling, and gray heat sink
minimum air-change rate of 40 m3/h per person. Although in actual projects, an

exhaust-and-supply air system may be applied in order to pre-heat the air in winter
by means of a heat-recovery system and/or to dehumidify the supply air in sum-
mer, the simulation study considers only an exhaust-air system for better com-
parison to the sensible cooling capacities of low-energy cooling concepts.
• Passive cooling refers to techniques used to prevent and modulate heat gains.
The reduced cooling loads can be dissipated with free ventilation only. The
building has external shading in order to avoid overheating. A bare concrete
ceiling modulates the internal and solar heat gains. Open windows during the
night enable an increased single-side- and cross-ventilation.
• In the investigated office building, the air-change rates differ from day-to-day
and from location to location. It often exceeds 2 h-1 in the cooler summer
climates, while warmer summer nights in southern Europe allow for maximum
air-change rates of 1.8 h-1.
• An exhaust-ventilation system can also be used for mechanical night-ventilation
and provides an air-change rate whenever the room temperature exceeds 21 C,
with a minimum temperature difference of 2 K between inside and outside.
• A fan-coil unit is simulated as a reference system. It provides sensible cooling to
meet the comfort requirements during the time of occupancy. A compression
chiller provides cold water with a supply temperature of 13 C. The design
return-temperature is 18 C. A cooling tower is used for recooling. The maxi-
mum cooling capacity is limited to 1.8 kW or 90 W/m2, respectively.
• The coefficient of performance (COP) decreases from North to South due to
increasing ambient air temperatures during the time of operation. The mean
COPmean for this timeframe decreases from 3.1 kWcooling/kWel in Stockholm to
2.4 kWcooling/kWel in Palermo.
• A radiant cooling ceiling panel is operated during the time of occupancy. Its
cooling capacity is a function of the difference between mean cold water and
room temperature. For a typical temperature difference of 8 K, the specific
cooling capacity is approx. 100 W/m2. The panel covers 70 % of the office area,
which results in a cooling capacity of 70 W/m2 for a temperature difference of
8 K. The actual maximum cooling capacity in Milano is 77 W/m2 for a tem-
perature difference of 9 K. The supply temperature is controlled by the equation
Tsupply [C] = 18 C ? 0.35 (18 C—Tambient [C]), with a minimum supply
temperature of 16 C to avoid condensation.
• A borehole heat exchanger is used as heat sink. The undisturbed ground tem-
perature in summer is calculated for each climate zone and increases from
6.3 C in the North to 19.6 C in the South.
• If the return temperature from the borehole heat exchanger exceeds the set
temperature, an optional compression chiller will provide additional cooling. As
the borehole heat exchanger in Stuttgart provides cool water during the whole
summer, the seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) is 14 kWhtherm/kWhel. In
Rome, active cooling is needed and, hence, the SEER is 3.4 kWhtherm/kWhel
only.
• A concrete-core conditioning cools the whole ceiling during the night. Due to
high thermal inertia, the mean cooling capacity of approx. 40 W/m2 is provided
throughout the day. This results in a considerable fluctuation of room temper-
atures during the time of occupancy.
• The control strategy is similar to the operation of the radiant panel, but with night
time operation. The seasonal energy efficiency ratio SEER is 14 kWhtherm/kWhel
in Stuttgart. In Rome, the SEER is 3.8 kWhtherm/kWhel, due to higher supply
temperatures than for the operation of the radiant cooling ceiling panels.
Investment Costs. The investment costs are calculated for the typical office
building shown in Fig. 7.1. These cost estimations are based on an analysis of
realized HVAC concepts in Germany (Voss et al. 2006; Voss and Pfafferott 2007):
• Passive cooling: 20 €/m2. Ventilation slats and enlarged openings for a lower
pressure drop.
• Mechanical night-ventilation: 32 €/m2. Ventilation slats, exhaust ventilator, and
ducting. Control system.
• Fan coil: 85 €/m2. Ventilation slats, exhaust ventilator, and ducting. Compres-
sion chiller with cooling tower, fan-coil units, and cold-water piping. Control
system.
• Radiant cooling ceiling panel: 138 €/m2. Ventilation slats, exhaust ventilator,
and ducting. Compression chiller with borehole heat exchanger, suspended
radiant cooling and heating panel, and piping. Control system.
• Thermo-active building system: 117 €/m2. Ventilation slats, exhaust ventilator,
and ducting. Compression chiller with borehole heat exchanger, concrete-core
conditioning, and piping. Control system.
7.1 Simulation Study of Cooling Concepts 113
60 30
cooling load calculation
useful cooling energy demand [kWh/m²a] based on comfort class B
50 according to 27
ISO 7730 ambient
mean temperature in August [°C]

air temp.
EN15251
40 24
30 21
20 18
10 15
0 12
Stockholm Hamburg Stuttgart Milano Rome Palermo
Fig. 7.4 Useful cooling-energy demand: the cooling-energy demand increases from North to
South. The static-comfort model (ISO 7730) results in a higher cooling-energy demand than the
adaptive comfort model (EN 15251)
Climate. The simulation study was carried out for six different European climate
zones. Each climate zone is defined by the mean ambient air temperature in August
and characterized by a meteorological reference station. The summer temperatures
stay below 16 C in Stockholm, between 16 and 18 C in Hamburg, 18 and 20 C
in Stuttgart, 20 and 22 C in Milano, 22 and 24 C in Rome, and exceed 24 C in
Palermo. Note: these summer climate zones correspond reasonably with the USDA
Hardiness Zones from 5 (in the North) to 10 (in the South).
Building and Plant Simulation. The coupled building and plant simulation is run
for the summer period from May to September. The cooling load is calculated for
both the static-comfort model in accordance with ISO 7730 (2005) and the
adaptive model in accordance with EN 15251 (2007). The cooling capacity and
the final energy use for cooling are calculated only for the operative room tem-
perature in accordance with the adaptive comfort model.
7.2 Simulation Results and Conclusions
The cooling load [W/m2] increases from North to South, mainly due to higher
temperatures and to a lesser extent due to higher solar heat gains. Beyond that,
Fig. 7.4 shows that the useful cooling-energy demand [kWh/m2a] is also a function
of the comfort criteria to be met. If the daily mean temperature in summer is
considerably lower than the room temperature, the comfort temperature does not
differ significantly. Hence, the useful cooling-energy demand is similar for both
comfort models in northern European climates but differs in southern Europe. In
EN 15241 and EN 15243 : cooling and ventilation

25
passive cooling
electrical end energy demand [kWh/m²a]
night ventilation
20 fan coil
ceiling panel
TABS
15
10
5
day
vent.
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Stockholm Hamburg Stuttgart Milano Rome Palermo
Fig. 7.5 Final energy demand for five cooling concepts in six locations: the cooling concepts do
not necessarily meet the comfort requirements
EN 15251 : comfort class B
Palermo
Rome
Milano passive cooling

night ventilation
Stuttgart fan coil
ceiling panel
TABS
Hamburg
Stockholm
0 20 40 60 80 100
occupancy during summer season 1.5. -30.9. [%]
Fig. 7.6 Thermal comfort for five cooling concepts in six locations: passive cooling, air- and
water-based low-energy cooling (if needed with compression chiller to meet the cooling load),
and active cooling with compression chiller
Hamburg, the useful cooling-energy demand is 27.6 and 26.3 kWh/m2a, respec-
tively. Compared to this, it is higher in Rome and differs considerably from 34.1 to
49.4 kWh/m2a for the two comfort models. These findings correspond to the
results of the COMMONCENSE research project (Santamouris and Sfakianaki
2009).
7.2 Simulation Results and Conclusions 115
Table 7.1 Application of cooling concepts to European climates: results of a simulation study
with a typical office building in different European climates
Passive Air-based Water-based mechanical cooling
coolinga mechanical cooling
Ventilation during occupancy
free 1.3 ACH 1.3 ACH 1.3 ACH 1.3 ACH
Ventilation at nighttime
free 4 ACH no no no
Active cooling
b c c,d
no no fan coil ceiling panel TABS
Investment costs (€/m2)
20 32 85 138 117
Application in European climates
Stockholm (hr) ++ + - + +
Hamburg (hr) + ++ - + +
Stuttgart (hr ? dh) - + - ++ ++
Milano (hr ? dh) x - - ++ ++
Rome (dh) x x + ++ +
Palermo (dh) x x ++ + -
Cooling concepts are rated in accordance with the thermal comfort achieved during occupancy,
the cooling energy used, and the energy efficiency of the system. The specific investment costs
are considered as an additional criterion
Legend: (++) preferential concept, (+) good concept, (+/++) good but comparatively expensive
concept, (-) unfavorable concept, (x) concept not applicable to the respective climate, (ACH)
air-change rate per hour
a
if applicable with consideration to noise, security, etc.,
b
can also be used for heating in winter
c
should be used with ground-coupled heat pump for heating in winter
d
for new buildings only Ventilation concept in real building design: hr supply-and-exhaust air
ventilation with heat recovery in winter, dh supply-and-exhaust air ventilation with dehumidi-
fication in summer
The final energy use for cooling and ventilation is calculated in accordance with
EN 15241 and EN 15243 for the comfort temperature, in accordance with the
adaptive model in EN 15251. There is no energy demand for passive cooling, and
for the mechanical ventilation during the time of occupancy, it is 2.9 kWh/m2a for
all locations.
Figure 7.5 shows that the energy demand for different cooling concepts does
not differ considerably in northern climates (Stockholm and Hamburg). For
mechanical night-ventilation, it increases slightly from Mid-European climates
(Stuttgart and Milano) to southern European ones (Rome and Palermo), since this
concept reaches its capacity limit and cannot provide thermal comfort in hot
summer climates. The energy demand for water-based cooling increases signifi-
cantly from Mid- to southern European climates since the compression chiller has
to provide additional cooling. In hot summer climates, the energy demand for
active cooling through fan coils is insignificantly higher than for water-based
radiant ceiling panel

or fan coil
w/ compression chiller
and cooling tower
radiant ceiling panel

and bore-hole hx
radiant cooling
(TABS or ceiling panel)
and bore-hole hx
radiant cooling
(TABS or ceiling panel)
w/ ground cooling
night ventilation,
or radiant cooling
w/ ground cooling
passive
cooling
Fraunhofer ISE
Fig. 7.7 Cooling concepts at six locations: passive cooling, mechanical night-ventilation, water-
based low-energy cooling with borehole heat exchanger as heat sink (and optional compression
chiller—if needed—in order to meet the cooling load), and active cooling with compression
chiller and cooling tower as heat sink
radiant cooling; however, these quick-responding cooling concepts do not allow

for peak-load shifting.
Figure 7.6 clearly indicates the limits of each concept with regard to thermal
comfort:
• Passive cooling and night-ventilation concepts cannot provide thermal comfort
for typical office buildings in all European climates.
• Water-based low-energy cooling can be successfully applied to office buildings
in all climate zones and may be operated with additional active cooling.
• A fan coil provides thermal comfort more or less independently from prevailing
weather conditions. Therefore, fan coils might be an acceptable solution for
buildings in hot summer regions. In contrast to a VRF system or individual room
air conditioners, the central compression chiller for cold-water supply allows for
some load management.
Figure 7.5 does not consider whether or not a specific cooling concept can
provide thermal comfort. Furthermore, Fig. 7.6 does not consider the energy
demand needed to provide thermal comfort. Table 7.1 combines these results and
classifies the cooling concepts with regard to both aspects. As some concepts are
7.2 Simulation Results and Conclusions 117
comparable in terms of energy efficiency and achievement of thermal comfort, the

investment costs for these cooling concepts are used as third decision parameter.
Figure 7.7 gives an overview of preferential cooling concepts in different
European regions.
• In northern European climates, high solar heat gains due to long-standing
sunshine can efficiently be dissipated by cool ambient air. In some situations,
mechanical night-ventilation is recommended.
• In Mid-European climates, water-based low-energy cooling makes use of the
cool ground in summer. If additional active cooling is needed, thermo-active
building systems (TABS) with high thermal inertia allow for peak-load shifting.
• In southern European climates, high cooling loads demand concepts with high
cooling capacities. Since the temperature differences between ambient heat
sinks and comfort temperature are too low, active cooling is needed in order to
provide thermal comfort.
References
DIN EN ISO 7730:2005 (2005) Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Analytical determi-

nation and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices
and local thermal comfort criteria. Beuth, Berlin
DIN EN 15251:2007–08 (2007) Criteria for the indoor environment. Beuth, Berlin
Santamouris M, Sfakianaki K (2009) Predicted energy consumption of major types of buildings
in European climates based on the application of EN 15251. Report for EIE/07/190/
SI2.467619, COMMONCENSE, Comfort monitoring for CEN standard EN 15251 linked to
EPBD. www.commoncense.info. Accessed Dec 2013
Voss K, Löhnert G, Herkel S, Wagner A, Wambsganß M (2006) Bürogebäude mit Zukunft.
SOLARPRAXIS Verlag, Köln
Voss K, Pfafferott J (2007) Energieeinsparung contra Behaglichkeit?. Bundesamt für Bauwesen
und Raumordnung, Bonn
Chapter 8
Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient
Cooling
Abstract This chapter summarizes key findings and clarifies success factors for
low-energy cooling. Furthermore, a holistic approach is proposed for the evalua-
tion of heating and cooling concepts, seeking to achieve a global optimum of
interior thermal and humidity comfort, useful cooling-energy use, and the build-
ing’s total primary-energy use for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting. Under
this premise, ambitious planning concepts stand at the crossroads of economic
sustainability, legislative restrictions, rising energy costs, the shortage of primary
energy sources, and the demand for a high comfort of use. An integral step-by-step
approach towards low-energy cooling concepts supports the planner in order to
find the best solutions for a specific project. With careful system matching in the
first project phase, individual solutions can be relatively easily implemented and
the overall concept remains technically manageable.
Sustainable and environmentally responsible nonresidential building concepts:

• Guarantee enhanced visual, acoustic, and thermal comfort and therefore provide
a high-quality workplace environment, which improves the occupant’s pro-
ductivity and reduces the impact of the built environment on his/her health.
• Harness the building’s architecture and physics, in order to considerably reduce
the annual heating and cooling demand (building envelope, day-lighting con-
cept, natural ventilation, passive heating, and cooling technologies).
• Put emphasis on a highly energy-efficient heating and cooling plant with a
significantly reduced auxiliary energy use for the generation, distribution, and
delivery of heating and cooling energy. The applied components and technol-
ogies are soundly orchestrated by optimized operation and control strategies.
• Use less valuable primary energy, e.g., more renewable energy from environ-
mental heat sources and sinks, solar power, biomass, etc.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5_8, The Author(s) 2014
120 8 Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling
Fig. 8.1 Building signature. This building signature shows results from the Finnish monitoring
campaign and its evaluation in accordance with the guidelines given in this guidebook. The
thermal indoor environment meets the requirements of class II. The useful cooling energy meets
the building-physical requirements on summer heat protection. Only the primary-energy demand
of the building is higher than the target value and does not meet the requirements. Measurements
(solid line), objective (dotted line)
8.1 Success Factors for Low-Energy Cooling Concepts
Under this premise, a holistic approach is proposed for the evaluation of heating
and cooling concepts, seeking to achieve a global optimum of (1) interior thermal
comfort, (2) interior humidity comfort, (3) useful cooling-energy use, and (4) the
building’s total primary-energy use for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.
Figure 8.1 illustrates an individual building signature correlating cooling-
energy use (kWhtherm/(m2neta)), the building’s total primary-energy use for heating,
cooling, ventilation, and lighting (kWhprim/m2a), and thermal and humidity com-
fort classifications in accordance with EN 15251:2007-08. The green triangle
represents the target objective for these three parameters and the arrows indicate
the direction of the optimum.
Occupant Thermal and Humidity Comfort. Occupant thermal comfort assessments
of the buildings in summer are evaluated in accordance with the European
EN 15251:2007-08 guideline. The building signatures present the time at the
required comfort class during occupancy. Thermal comfort is evaluated with the
proposed methodology in accordance with the
8.1 Success Factors for Low-Energy Cooling Concepts 121
• Adaptive-comfort approach for building concepts with passive cooling and the
• PMV-comfort approach for building concepts with water-based mechanical and
mixed-mode cooling.
The target objective for the comfort class is defined during the design stage of
the building, i.e., class III for the building in Greece; class II for the buildings in
Germany, France, the Czech Republic, Romania; and class I for the buildings in
Italy, Finland, and Denmark. Then, thermal comfort measurements are evaluated
correspondingly. The comfort class is guaranteed if recorded temperature values
remain within the required comfort class during 95 % of the occupancy time.
Cooling-Energy Use. Measurements of useful cooling energy are derived from the
long-term monitoring campaigns—carried out by the particular ThermCo partners.
If measurements are not available, simulation results or calculations are presented.
Cooling-energy use depends on the building’s architecture, user behavior, climate,
and the potential of the heat sink employed. Therefore, the cooling load (W/m2)
increases from north to south mainly due to higher temperatures and—to a lesser
extent—due to higher solar heat gains. Consequently, the target objectives for the
cooling-energy use vary due to climate and building concepts. For the building
assessment, objective cooling-energy values are taken from the simulation study in
Chap. 7, representing a typical low-energy nonresidential building.
Primary-Energy Use. The primary-energy consumption of the buildings considers
the heating and cooling plant as well
as ventilation and lighting—and was limited
to a value of 100 kWhprim m2net a . If not stated otherwise, plug loads are not
included. The primary-energy approach allows for comparing concepts that use
different energy sources such as fossil fuels, electricity, environmental energy,
district heat, waste heat, and biomass. The primary-energy factors are
2.5 MWhprim/MWhfinal for electricity and 1.0 MWhprim/MWhfinal for fossil fuels.
Energy Efficiency. Almost all buildings investigated proved to be energy efficient.
The total primary-energy consumption forheating, cooling, ventilation, and
lighting ranges between 32 and 240 kWhprim m2net a . The night-ventilation con-

cept provides useful cooling energy in the range of 5–18 kWhtherm m2net a . If an
earth-to-air heat exchanger is employed, the cooling energy is supplied with an
energy efficiency of SPF 20 kWhtherm/kWhprim (related to primary energy). The
mechanical ventilation systems provide cooling energy with an efficiency of SPF
0.5–15 kWhtherm/kWhfin (again related to primary energy). The environmental
cooling systems provide
useful cooling energy in the range of
5–44 kWhtherm m2net a , with an efficiency of SPF 1.3–8.0 kWhtherm/kWhfin of the
entire cooling system (related to final energy use).
Conclusion. In conclusion, a well-designed and well-operated building provides
thermal and humidity comfort in compliance with the required comfort class of
EN 15251:2007-08, with a reduced cooling-energy demand (below values derived
from the simulation study) as well as an overall efficient HVAC and lighting
concept, which results in a limited primary-energy use of 100 kWhprim/m2a.
8.2 Integral Design of Low-Energy Cooling Concepts
Ambitious planning concepts stand at the crossroads of political conditions, rising

energy costs, the shortage of primary energy sources, and the demand for a high
comfort of use. At the same time, the new or renovation project shall be eco-
nomically sustainable. The flood of information, a wide range of planning concepts
and available technical building solutions, as well as personal preferences of
stakeholders and varied expectations on the particular project make it difficult to
decide for an optimal combination.
In Article 9 of the Directive 2010/31/EU on the ‘‘energy performance of
buildings directive,’’ the European Union calls on its member states to ‘‘ensure that
by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings.’’ Fol-
lowing this requirement on new buildings, retrofit buildings are also getting
increasingly energy efficient. This development is accompanied by low-energy
cooling systems, which have been developed for more than 20 years.
Retrofit Projects. Processes, concepts, and technologies were evaluated in the
study ‘‘Advances in Housing Retrofit’’ (Herkel and Kagerer 2011). Many technical
solutions inform about the need for the careful planning and implementation of
structural reorganization, in particular with regard to airtightness and thermal
bridging. Successful examples for subsequent installations of ventilation systems
show a great variety technical solutions with free ventilation, exhaust air only, and
supply-and-exhaust ventilation with heat recovery. Based on a reduced heating and
cooling load, innovative system concepts can be used very efficiently in order to
meet energy demand. The applied air- and water-distribution systems are driven
either by conventional plant technology or by small CHP units, heat pumps,
biomass boilers, or combi-systems. Furthermore, all projects use solar-thermal or
photovoltaic energy in combination. The energy-economic analysis of 60 inter-
national projects shows the high potential of a sophisticated building renovation
with modified plant technology.
New Buildings. The study ‘‘Towards Zero-Energy Solar Buildings’’ (Voss and
Musall 2011) presents international projects for carbon-neutral living and working.
In principle, a building can be run energy-self-sufficient. The Monte Rosa Hut
(2009) in the Valais Alps (Switzerland) and the Self-Sufficient Solar House (1992)
in Freiburg (Germany) are prominent examples of this extreme form. However, in
order to minimize the need for energy saving and, on the other hand, the risk of a
supply disruption, zero-energy buildings (Sartori et al. 2012) are usually designed
with net coupling.
The Role of Costs in Planning. A major obstacle in the implementation of energy-
demanding projects are the costs. However, the positive experiences of many
documented retrofit (EnOB 2013b) and new (EnOB 2013a) projects clearly indi-
cate that they can be implemented economically. Unfortunately, the planning of
projects in day-to-day practice is too often based on individual decisions without a
vision for the entire project. Thus, it is often difficult to harmonize building and
equipment and to find a cost-effective solution in an optimal way.
8.2 Integral Design of Low-Energy Cooling Concepts 123
system integration
use the façade for installation? and optimization
1 2 3 4
building ventilation heat-and-cold- heat-and-cold-
physics concept transfer concept supply system
thermal inertia façade only-exhaust water- low heat-transfer density use of ambient heat
HT'<0,5W/m²K ventila- or mechanical ventilation or low temperature sources and sinks
solar shading tion: with heat recovery air- difference (reversible) heat pump,
free ventilation overflow air-conditioning? based heating and cooling? combined heat-and-power-
opening cooling? radiant system solar thermal
Fig. 8.2 Integral step-by-step approach toward low-energy concepts
A comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of individual measures in

retrofit projects shows that many of them can be implemented beneficially, if
measures for building renovation are pending anyway (BBR 2008). Accordingly,
an insulation thickness between 12 and 36 cm is economically meaningful,
depending on the use of the basement wall, exterior wall, or roof. Today, a ren-
ovation with triple glazing—wherever possible in construction—is state of the art
and good business sense in any case. The use of ventilation systems for a good
energy performance of buildings is becoming the standard. Whether or not a
simple exhaust-air system or a supply-and-exhaust-air system with heat recovery is
used is often a question of feasibility rather than costs.
A profitability calculation is part of the planning of new buildings, analyzing
the overall costs for complete heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning concepts,
and including the applied heat transfer systems. Often, the differences in annual
costs are minimal in alternative concepts. This is finally reflected in the fact that
differing concepts are applied to structures with similar demands. In addition to
(subjective) preferences, investment costs—and not the annual energy costs—
often turn the balances for a specific variant. Therefore, building and energy
concepts do not perfectly match in many projects, and the energy efficiency of the
overall solution might not correspond to the economic energy optimum either. The
study ‘‘Costs and Potentials of Greenhouse Gas Abatement in Germany’’
(McKinsey 2009) clearly indicates that most innovative, energy-efficient building
technologies are economically feasible today.
Hence, a comprehensive analysis of the total costs often leads to an econom-
ically energy-efficient solution. Therefore, the costs of individual measures should
not be overestimated at the beginning of a project. In the preliminary design,
energy-optimized scenarios are often developed, which later proves to be the most
economical solution.
Integral Design Approach. As we have seen in Chaps. 6 and 7, a joint assessment of
building physics and systems engineering can be achieved with a common repre-
sentation of comfort (users), net-energy (building standard), and primary-energy
demand (efficiency), separately for the heating and cooling cases.
How can building physics and innovative plant technology be matched in an
optimal manner under this legal framework by using established standards and
guidelines? Practical considerations often determine the energy concept in

advance. A step-by-step approach may get to an optimal system integration. Based
on the individual aspects and key questions of energy concepts, Fig. 8.2 defines a
critical path.
The major decisions in relation to energy and costs can be made only in the
initial planning stages, since the costs of changes are always higher with pro-
gressive provisions in the course of the project:
• The basic evaluation establishes the basis for objective decisions.
• The preliminary draft should present various system designs. The system can be
selected by means of a decision matrix that considers its objectives.
• The principal components can be specified in the design phase.
• In the following planning, approval, construction, and commissioning phases,
we look at the system tuning.
It is of crucial importance for the project’s success that technical aspects are
considered both individually and collectively: Significant interfaces arise between
the issues of building envelope, ventilation design, delivery system, and energy
provision. Though an optimal solution can be achieved across the trades, the first
planning steps follow trade-by-trade.
The decision is to be made in the individual planning steps. The following
indications can assist in developing a low-energy cooling concept:
• For practical construction considerations, HT’ values (mean heat-transfer value
of building envelope) between 0.4 and 0.5 W/m2 K can be achieved in a
technically and economically easy manner.
• Often, effective sun-protection concepts can be integrated as part of the façade.
• Appropriate sun protection in connection with the construction standard
described above and a (hybrid) ventilation concept may provide a comfortable
indoor environment without additional cooling in residential buildings. In office
buildings, the reduction of the (specific) cooling load is a key condition for the
energy-efficient use of environmental energy for cooling.
• A mechanically assisted ventilation concept is a basic requirement for energy-
efficient buildings in winter and can favorably be used for low-energy cooling in
summer, too.
• Reduced heating and cooling loads enable the use of low-temperature radiant or
ventilation systems very efficiently.
• If the ventilation (as adjunct) is also used for heating, cooling, or dehumidifi-
cation, the interaction of water- and air-based handover systems must be taken
into account. On the other hand, it is essential to ensure that the temperature
level of the respective heating or cooling registers corresponds to the one in the
water-based system.
• Mainly in retrofit but also in new buildings, it should be examined whether
heating, cooling, and air distribution can be realized on the façade.
8.2 Integral Design of Low-Energy Cooling Concepts 125
Under these conditions, many combinations that can be addressed only as

examples are available for the provision of energy. Systems for low-energy
cooling and heating are of particular interest:
• If night-ventilation for low-energy cooling is exclusively used, volume flow,
pressure drops, and operation time have to be defined accurately in order to
minimize the use of electrical fan power. These systems may be supplemented
with evaporative cooling during daytime.
• Ground-source reversible heat pumps mainly use environmental energy for
heating and cooling. They can therefore be operated economically, but are a
relatively expensive investment. With the correct design of the overall system,
the heating and cooling primary-energy production is much cheaper than con-
ventional systems with boilers and simple compression chillers.
• A combined heat, cooling, and power generation is only economically viable if
the energy-demand structure harmonizes very well with the system design.
Whenever heat and cold have to be provided simultaneously, a suitable heat-
pump system with the ability to shift the heat is often the better solution.
In the interests of sustainable energy concepts, focusing exclusively on the
building standard is as unpromising as the exclusive focus on the most efficient
energy supply. We may apply the 80/20 rule for both sets of measures: ‘‘building
physics’’ and ‘‘plant engineering’’—according to which 80 % of success is
achieved with 20 % of expenses, while with the remaining 20 % can only be
achieved with 80 % of the possible effort.
With careful system matching in the first project phase, individual solutions can
be relatively easily implemented and the overall concept remains technically
manageable. Hence, low-energy cooling concepts can be favorably implemented
in low-energy buildings under market conditions.
References
BBR (2008) Bewertung energetischer anforderungen im lichte steigender energiepreise für die
EnEV und die KfW-förderung. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn
EnOB (2013a) Energieoptimiertes Bauen im Neubau. www.enob.info/de/neubau. Accessed Dec
2013
EnOB (2013b) Energieoptimiertes Bauen in der Sanierung. www.enob.info/de/sanierung.
Accessed Dec 2013
Herkel S, Kagerer F (eds) (2011) Advances in housing retrofit. Report on IEA task 37 advanced
housing renovation with solar and conservation, Fraunhofer ISE, Freiburg
McKinsey & Company (2009) Kosten und Potenziale der Vermeidung von Treibhausgasemis-
sionen in Deutschland. Aktualisierte Energieszenarien und -sensitivitäten, McKinsey &
Company
Sartori I, Napolitano A, Voss K (2012) Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition
framework. Energ Buidlings 48:220–232
Voss K, Musall E (eds) (2011) NULLENERGIEGEBÄUDE. Report on IEA task 40 toward zero-
energy solar buildings, DETAIL Green Books, München
Glossary
Auxiliary Energy Auxiliary energy is necessary to harvest the heating/cooling

energy from the environmental heat source/sink (primary hydraulic circuit), as
well as to distribute the energy through the building and, finally, to deliver the
heating/cooling energy to the offices and rooms via thermo-active building
systems. In the primary hydraulic circuit, auxiliary energy uses accounts for the
submerged pump (groundwater well), for the brine pump (borehole heat
exchangers and energy piles), as well as for the circulation pump, and for the
fan of the wet-cooling tower. In the secondary hydraulic circuit, auxiliary
energy is used to operate the distributor, the thermal storage loading, and the
circulation pumps.
COP The ratio of the power output to the power input of a system. Also, see
‘‘SPF.’’
Energy Consumption The actually measured quantity of energy needed for
heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water heating, lighting, appliances, etc.
Energy Demand Calculated quantity of energy for all applications and given end
use. Energy to be delivered by an ideal energy system (no system losses are
taken into account) in order to provide the required service to the end user, e.g.,
to maintain the required internal set-point temperature of a heated or cooled
space.
Exergy Energy consists of exergy and anergy. Exergy is the part of the energy
that can be transformed into any form of energy within defined boundary
conditions. Anergy is the part of energy that cannot be transformed into exergy.
Final Energy Energy that is delivered to the building (fossil fuel, electricity, etc.)
from the last market agent.
Heated Net Floor Area Specific primary and final energy use is related to the
heated net floor area of buildings: the sum of all heated areas within the
building, including heated corridors and internal stairways but not unheated
rooms, in Germany, in accordance with [DIN 277-1:2005-01].

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04582-5, The Author(s) 2014
128 Glossary
Low-Energy Building Buildings with the explicit purpose to use less energy than
standard buildings.
Low-Exergy ‘‘Low-exergy (LowEx) systems’’ are defined as heating or cooling
systems that allow the use of low-valued energy as their energy source. In
practice, this means systems that provide heating or cooling energy close to
room temperature with low heat-flow density.
Operative Room Temperature This is the arithmetic mean of dry-bulb and
surface temperature of a room if air velocity is lower than 0.2 m/s.
Primary Energy Energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or
transformation process. These factors vary for each country. The primary
energy conversion factors for this study were selected to be 2.5 for electricity,
0.2 for biomass, 1.1 for fossil fuels, and 0.7 for district heat from cogeneration,
in accordance with [DIN V 18599-1:2007-02]. The primary energy conversion
factor for electricity is subjected to modifications in accordance with the
development of each national electricity market.
Residential Sector Public and private community accommodation, i.e., private
housing, flats, student accommodation, etc.
Service Sector The service sector, also referred to as the tertiary sector, includes
the public sector as well as the non-industrial/manufacturing (private) sectors
such as public administration, education and health, banking and finance, and
trade. In the context of this book: public buildings (e.g., health care, education,
administration) and commercial buildings (e.g. retail, office, hotel, leisure).
SPF The heating and cooling systems are evaluated in terms of energy efficiency,
according to the defined balance boundaries. Efficiency is described by the
coefficient of performance (COPh) in the heating mode and by the energy-
efficiency ratio (EER) in the cooling mode (in Europe COPc). The COP is the
ratio of the useful energy acquired, divided by the energy applied, such as
auxiliary electricity needed for the pumps or for the compressor of the heat
pump. The approximated COP for the heating and cooling seasons, respec-
tively, is described by the seasonal performance factor (SPF), in accordance
with [ASHRAE Handbook 2000] and [DIN 18599-1:2007-02], taking the sys-
tem operation and part-load impacts into account. See also ‘‘COP.’’
TABS Thermo-active building systems are construction elements thermally
activated by water or airborne systems that operate with small temperature
differences between room air and the thermally activated building component,
allowing the use of low-temperature heat sources and sinks.
Thermal Cooling Energy Thermal energy necessary to cover the load in order to
achieve a certain room temperature.
Useful Energy Portion of final energy that is actually available to the consumer
for respective use after final conversion, e.g., ‘‘thermal cooling energy.’’

2014 Book ThermalComfortAndEnergy-Effici

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Book ThermalComfortAndEnergy-Effici

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Book ThermalComfortAndEnergy-Effici

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN

APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

For further volumes:

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014931763

The Author(s) 2014

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This guidebook on low-energy cooling and thermal comfort supports HVAC

1 Impact of Cooling on Energy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1

2 Thermal Indoor Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Standards on Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 21

4 User Satisfaction with Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings . . . . . 33

5 Methodology for the Evaluation of Thermal Comfort in Office

6 Thermal-Comfort Evaluation of Office Buildings in Europe. ..... 65

7 Application of Cooling Concepts to European Office Buildings . . . 109

8 Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

POE Post-Occupancy Evaluation

This guidebook is based on the evaluation of realized low-energy buildings all

5. Thermal Comfort Evaluation of Office Buildings in Europe

using the same approach. It is clearly demonstrated that it is feasible and

D. E. Kalz and J. Pfafferott, Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling 1

by energy production. Sustainable and energy-optimized buildings attempt to

1.1 Current and Future Cold Market in Europe

cooled and air-conditioned built environment in Europe. A continuous growth is

FINAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN EU-27 AC MARKET SHARE BY TYPE

services split > 12kW;

1.2 Technologies and Concepts for Cooling Nonresidential

At present, there is no unambiguous classification for cooling strategies or ter-

COOLING ENERGY 1 BUILDING AREA 2

building area [million m²]

energy use for AC [TWh]

ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE FOR COOLING5 AREA CONDITIONED / COOLED 6

DEN FIN FRA GER GRE ITA

evaporator, the refrigerant evaporates at a low temperature. The heat extracted

systems depends largely on the ability of the system to obtain high-temperature

The monitored and analyzed nonresidential buildings in the framework of the

1.3 Building Requirements

(I) Passive LowEx cooling (II) Active LowEx cooling

Structural Air-based systems Air-based systems Water-based systems

w/ cooling w/o cooling Direct cooling Indirect

Rev. heat Chiller Chiller Absorber Rotor Water/lithium

(III) Mechanical cooling (IV) Thermally driven cooling

Air-based systems Water-based systems Heat transformation

Decentral Central Central Desiccant (open cycle) Closed cycle

orientation, shading, ventilation, daylighting concept, and micro-climate around

The thermal indoor environment is a composition of many and diverse aspects.

2.1 Human Responses to the Thermal Environment

Responses to our thermal indoor environment have a considerable effect on health,

S ¼ M-W-C-R-Esk -Cres -Eres -K in W=m2 ð2:1Þ

D. E. Kalz and J. Pfafferott, Thermal Comfort and Energy-Efficient Cooling 15

Esk Evaporative heat loss from skin;

2.2 Health and Individual Performance

lower than thermal neutrality. However, a strong relationship between thermal

In the context of this guidebook, we assume that low-energy cooling improves

2.3 Criteria for Thermal Comfort

Different physical parameters affect physiological reactions to the environment.

2.4 Overall Satisfaction with the Thermal Environment

Further environmental parameters, e.g., air quality, visual or aural environment,

Fig. 2.1 Matrix with

ho;c ¼ 22 C þ 0:25 ðhe;d;max 16 CÞ for 16 C\he;d;max 32 C ð3:4Þ

ho;c ¼ 25 C þ 1=3 ðhe 26 CÞ for he [ 26 C ð3:7Þ