Vol. 13, Issue 1/2017, 72-76, DOI: 10.

1515/cee-2017-0009

ANALYSIS OF THERMAL COMFORT IN AN

INTELLIGENT BUILDING
Grzegorz MAJEWSKI1,*, Marek TELEJKO1, Łukasz J. ORMAN1
1
Kielce University of Technology, al. 1000-lecia P. P. 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland
*
corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract Keywords:

Analysis of thermal comfort in the ENERGIS Building, an intelligent Thermal comfort;

building in the campus of the Kielce University of Technology, Poland Intelligent building;
is the focus of this paper. For this purpose, air temperature, air Air quality;
relative humidity, air flow rate and carbon dioxide concentration were Thermal sensation indices
measured and the mean radiant temperature was determined. of human response.
Thermal sensations of the students occupying the rooms of the
building were evaluated with the use of a questionnaire. The students
used a seven-point scale of thermal comfort. The microclimate
measurement results were used to determine the Predicted Mean
Vote and the Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied indices.

1. Introduction
Every room occupied by people should have a microclimate that satisfies the thermal comfort of
its occupants. Thermal comfort was first studied in the 20th century, when it was possible to control
microclimate in buildings. This would not have been possible without the development of
thermodynamics in the 19th century, which markedly contributed to the growth of thermal control
technology. One of the first scientists to study thermal comfort was Bedford, who in 1936 proposed a
seven-point scale of thermal sensations [1]. Other researchers of that time were Winslow, Herrington
and Gagge [2]. In the sixties and seventies of the 20th century, L. O. Fanger published the thermal
comfort equation and PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied)
indices [3, 4]. These indices continue to apply as recommended by, for example, PN-EN ISO 7730 [5].
The current standards defining the mean vote (PMV) and the percentage of dissatisfied
occupants (PPD) include the European standard PN-EN 15251 [6] and the American ASHRAE
Standard 55-2013 [7]. Variable parameters of thermal comfort include air temperature and humidity,
relative air flow rate, mean radiant temperature, clothing insulation and physical activity level. The
main source of information on thermal comfort of people staying in different thermal environments are
the assessments provided by them. The microenvironment friendly to humans should be adjustable,
so that a person could describe it as not too warm or too cool, or in other words, comfortably warm or
cool [8].
In rooms, thermal comfort is ensured when [9]:
a) the average temperature of the surrounding internal walls is equal to, or close to, the indoor
room temperature;
b) in winter, air temperature is 20 ÷ 22 °C; in summer, however, indoor temperature should be
closer to the outdoor temperature, that shorter user stays on average in a given room.
Summer indoor temperature should be 23 ÷ 25 °C, in industrial spaces, the permitted
temperature in summer is 28 °C;
c) air relative humidity is in the range 30 ÷ 70 % (with 40 ÷ 60 % being the optimum values),
and the rate of change in relative humidity does not exceed 20 % an hour;
d) air velocity does not exceed the predicted temperature-dependent values.
Compared with traditional buildings, indoor temperature in intelligent buildings can be controlled
with great accuracy thus assuring thermal comfort of their occupants. The BMS of the ENERGIS
building records a number of parameters, including air temperature in the rooms. Changes in this
parameter over time may be used to draw conclusions on the quality of control in the building, and
also increase the comfort of the users [10].

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/5/17 9:32 PM
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 13, Issue 1/2017, 72-76

This paper describes the study of thermal comfort in seminar rooms of the university building.
The real thermal sensation experienced by the occupants at seated positions was compared with the
PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied) indices.

2. Methods
The tests were carried out in the intelligent building, ENERGIS, housing the Faculty
of Environmental, Geomatic, and Energy Engineering at the Kielce University of Technology. The air
temperature and relative humidity, as well as the carbon dioxide concentration were measured with an
air quality monitor. The air movement velocity was measured with an anemometer, and a pyrometer
was used to find the temperature of the internal walls surrounding the rooms. The measurement
results were recorded every five minutes. To assess the thermal comfort of the room’s occupants, an
anonymous survey was performed. The students-respondents assessed their thermal sensations on a
seven-point scale. A total of 114 students occupying three classrooms participated in the survey.
During Test 1 and Test 2, the questionnaires were filled out at the beginning and at the end of the
class. In Test 3, the students recorded their thermal sensations only once, at the end of the class. The
tests were performed in a summer time. Test 1 was carried out in the classroom located on the west
2
side, with a net area of 104.38 m on 2 July 2016 between 10:15 and 12:10. Test 2 was performed
in the same room on 4 July 2016 between 08:05 and 09:45. Test 3 was performed in the classroom
2
with the windows on the east and west side, of 458.86 m net area on 5 July 2016 between 10:30 and
11:15. Mechanical ventilation and air conditioning were on during the tests.

3. Test results in comparison to existing models

Table 1 summarizes the microclimate measurement results. From the questionnaire data, it was
established that directly prior to and during the classes, the metabolic rate of all the respondents was
2
1.2 met (70 W/m²) and their clothing insulation was Icl = 0.50 clo (0.080 m KW). The carbon dioxide
concentration recorded in Test 3 was noticeably higher than in Test 2 and Test 1 due to a larger
number of respondents occupying the room. Indoor air temperatures at the beginning of the tests were
higher than those at the end of the tests due to switching on the AC during the class. The air
temperature at the beginning of the class was recorded prior to switching on the air conditioner.

Table 1: Summary of microclimate parameters in three university classrooms.

At the beginning Outdoor Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor carbon
of class/ temperature temperature relative air flow rate dioxide
At the end of class [ºC] [ºC] humidity [m/s] concentration
[%] [ppm]
TEST NO 1 (Classroom 1 with an area of 104.38 m²)
At the beginning
of class 32.0 27.3 48.5 0.08 586
At the end
of class 32.0 26.8 45.7 0.06 715

TEST NO 2 (Classroom 2 with an area of 104.38 m²)

At the beginning
of class 16.0 28.2 45.7 0.06 517
At the end
of class 16.0 28.0 45.5 0.08 651
TEST NO 3 (Classroom 3 with an area of 458.86 m²)
At the beginning
of class 25.0 27.9 48.4 0.11 1904
At the end
of class 25.0 26.1 48.4 0.13 2198

Fig. 1 shows real mean perception of the students at the beginning and at the end of the
classes. Their assessments vary with the test time. In Test 1 after a minor temperature loss, thermal
sensation increased slightly at the end of classes, whereas in Test 2, after the minor temperature loss,
the average perception decreased.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/5/17 9:32 PM
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 13, Issue 1/2017, 72-76

Fig. 1: Real average thermal sensations of the respondent at the beginning and at the end of class.

Figure 2 shows the change in the percentage of dissatisfied respondents at the end of the class
in relation to their perception at the beginning of the class. In Tests 1 and 2, the indoor temperature
changed only slightly even though air conditioning was on. However, the percentage of dissatisfied
respondents at the end of the class was higher than at the beginning.

Fig. 2: Real percentage of respondents dissatisfied with their thermal sensations at the beginning and
end of class.

Figure 3 compares the predicted mean vote PMV calculated according to ASHRAE-55-2013
and EN-15251 with the average perception recorded during the tests. It follows from Fig. 3 that in most
cases, the real average perception is noticeably lower than that obtained from the calculation of the
predicted values performed to the requirements of the currently binding standards. Only in one test,
the real average perception was similar to that predicted average (PMV).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/5/17 9:32 PM
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 13, Issue 1/2017, 72-76

Fig. 3: The ambient temperature-dependent PMV according to ASHRAE-55-2013 and EN-15251

versus real average assessment of thermal sensations.

Figure 4 compares the PPD index calculated according to ASHRAE-55-2013 and EN-15251
with the real percentage of dissatisfied respondents. In most cases, the real percentage of dissatisfied
respondents was higher than that calculated as the PPD index according to American and European
standards.

Fig. 4: The ambient temperature-dependent PPD according to ASHRAE-55-2013 and EN-15251

versus the actual percentage of dissatisfied respondents.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/5/17 9:32 PM
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 13, Issue 1/2017, 72-76

4. Conclusions
Despite high technology of the intelligent building under analysis, the percentage
of respondents dissatisfied with the thermal performance of the building was high. The data obtained
indicate that the percentage of dissatisfied respondents increased at the end of classes despite the
slightly lower air temperature. Also, noticeable differences were observed between the predicted and
the real values of thermal comfort recorded by the respondents. The temperature change data
combined with the questionnaire survey results and other indoor air parameters can be used to
improve control systems operating in intelligent buildings. It seems therefore appropriate to modify the
thermal perception indices for buildings and develop guidelines on controlling the HVAC systems
operation to ensure optimal thermal conditions.

References
[1] BEDFORD, T.: The warmth factor in comfort at work: a physiological study of heating and
ventilation. Industrial Health Research Board No. 76, HMSO, London, 1936.
[2] WINSLOW, C-E.A – HERRINGTON, L.P – GAGGE, A.P: Physiological reaction of the human
body to various atmospheric humidity. Contribution No.16 from the John B. Pierce Laboratory of
Hygiene, New Haven, 1937, pp. 288 – 299.
[3] FANGER, P.O.: Calculations of thermal comfort: introduction of a basic comfort equation.
ASHRAE Trans 73:1 – 4, 1967.
[4] FANGER, P.O.: Thermal comfort - analysis and applications in environmental engineering. Danish
Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[5] EN ISO 7730, 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 Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2005.
[6] PN-EN 15251, 2007. Indoor Environmental input parameters for design and assessment
of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and
acoustics, International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2007.
[7] ASHRAE Standard 55-2013 Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, 2013.
[8] ŚLIWOWSKI, L.: Interior microclimate and thermal comfort of human beings in rooms, Oficyna
Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław, 1999 (in Polish).
[9] KLINKE, T. – KRYGIER, K. – SEWERYNIAK, J.: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning.
Wydawnictwo Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1991 (in Polish).
[10] MAJEWSKI, G. – TELEJKO, M.: Thermal comfort in intelligent buildings, Structure and
Environment, No. 1/2016, Vol. 8, 2016, p. 27.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/5/17 9:32 PM