Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The origin and development of the adaptive approach to thermal comfort is explained. A number of recent developments in the application
of the theory are considered and the origin of the differences between adaptive thermal comfort and the `rational' indices is explored. The
application of the adaptive approach to thermal comfort standards is considered and recommendations made as to the best comfort
temperature, the range of comfortable environments and the maximum rate of change of indoor temperature. The application of criteria of
sustainability to thermal standards for buildings is also considered. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Comfort standards; Thermal comfort; Sustainability; Adaptive approach
1. Introduction
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jfnicol@brookes.ac.uk (J.F. Nicol).
0378-7788/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 7 8 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 6 - 3
564
Table 1
Descriptors for the ASHRAE and Bedford scales
ASHRAE descriptor
Hot
Warm
Slightly warm
Neutral
Slightly cool
Cool
Cold
Numerical equivalent
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Bedford descriptor
Much too hot
Too hot
Comfortably warm
Comfortable
Comfortably cool
Too cool
Much too cool
565
Fig. 1. The variation of mean comfort vote with mean indoor temperature. Each point is the mean value from a comfort survey (using data presented in [8]).
a period of a year so the comfort temperature was continually changing, as was the indoor temperature [12]. The major
methods these workers had to control their comfort were by
changing their clothing and using air movement, fans being
universally available in Pakistani ofces. The curve shows
the mean probability of comfort calculated using probit
regression. Each point represents the proportion comfortable
in a particular city in a particular month.
2.4. The relationship with outdoor climate
Humphreys [9] took the indoor comfort temperature
determined in a number of surveys conducted world-wide
and plotted them against the outdoor monthly mean temperature at the time of the survey. The results are shown in
Fig. 4. He found a clear division between people in buildings
which were free-running at the time of the survey and those
in buildings that were heated or cooled. The relationship for
the free-running buildings was closely linear. For heated and
cooled buildings the relationship is more complex.
deDear and Brager [11] make a division between buildings which are centrally air-conditioned and those which are
naturally ventilated. They argue that occupants of building
which are air-conditioned have different expectations than
the occupants of naturally ventilated buildings. It seems
unlikely that people using a building should modify their
responses to it on the basis of their expectations of its
building services. Nor is this distinction supported by evidence from the eld [6]. Whilst expectation does have a part
to play in the interaction between people and their environment, it is more in dening the temperature they will expect
in a particular situation than in their attitude to the building
services.
Probably the difference is due to an accumulation of the
small effects caused by a wide variety of adaptive actions
which together amount to a large difference in conditions for
comfort. In a re-analysis of the data of deDear and Brager,
Humphreys and Nicol [14] argue that using Humphreys'
original distinction (between free-running and heated or
566
Fig. 3. Pakistan: the proportion of office workers who were comfortable at different indoor temperatures. It will be noticed that on many occasions the
subjects recorded no discomfort. With a continually changing indoor temperature and comfort temperature, Pakistani buildings were found comfortable at
temperatures ranging between 20 and 30 8C with no cooling apart from fans (from [12]).
climate and these adaptive actions which means that only the
outdoor temperature need be considered in real situations in
real buildings. The relationship is to some extent an empirical `black box' because the inter-relations are not all fully
dened.
2.5. People in buildings
Buildings differ in a number of ways: in addition to their
individual physical form, they differ in their services; in
what sort of heating or cooling system is provided and
whether it is used; in the possibilities they offer for occupants to control their environment and in the policies of
management about whether there is a dress code and so on.
There are other aspects of building services which affect
the comfort of occupants. Leaman and Bordass [20] have
demonstrated that there is more `forgiveness' of buildings
in which occupants have more access to building controls.
Fig. 4. The change in comfort temperature with monthly mean outdoor temperature. Each point represents the mean value for one survey. This graph is from
Humphreys [9]. The buildings are divided between those that are heated or cooled at the time of the survey and those that are free-running. Subsequent
analysis of the ASHRAE database of comfort surveys [14] showed similar results (see Fig. 5).
567
Fig. 5. Comfort temperatures as a function of outdoor temperature for buildings which are free-running (A) and with heating or cooling (B): (a) from the
ASHRAE database [15]; (b) from Humphreys [9] see Fig. 4. These graphs first appeared in [14].
568
afTt
aTt
a2 Tt
. . .g
(1)
Note the scales are different for the two curves which are illustrative.
569
Fig. 6. Showing the changing correlation between the exponentially-weighted running mean temperature and the comfort temperature (Tc). The serial
correlation with the daily mean temperature (Tod) is shown for comparison. The measure of the running mean temperature shown is the constant a (see
Eq. (1)).
(2)
570
another. It should be noted that this does not put the adaptive
standard at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the rational indices.
These also assume a knowledge of clothing behaviour and
working practices if they are to reect changes in comfort
temperatures.
Fig. 7. Showing the seasonal changes in mean comfort temperature Tc in Islamabad, Pakistan and its relation to mean daily maximum, minimum and mean
outdoor temperatures To. The relationship used to calculate comfort temperature from outdoor temperature is from [9] for free-running buildings.
4. Conclusions
This paper explores the use of results from the eld to
inform thermal standards in buildings.
(1) Field studies suggest that rational indices are difficult
to use in real situations and are poor indicators of
comfortable conditions in buildings.
(2) This suggests that relationships based on laboratory
experiments should be tested in the field before
inclusion in standards.
(3) The adaptive approach allows building designers to
estimate the indoor temperature which building occupants are most likely to find comfortable, particularly
in free-running buildings.
571
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper relies on the massive
body of data now available from comfort studies in the eld
from throughout the world. The authors would like to
acknowledge in particular the work and support of their
colleagues Kate McCartney, Iftikhar Raja, Oliver Sykes and
Joanna Saady. Funding for our recent projects has come
from the British Government through the DfID, the DTLR
and the EPSRC and from the European Commission.
References
[1] T. Bedford, The Warmth Factor in Comfort at Work, MRC Industrial
Health Board Report No. 76, HMSO, 1936.
[2] M.R. Sharma, S. Ali, Tropical Summer Indexa study of thermal
comfort in Indian subjects, Building and Environment 21 (1) (1986)
1124.
[3] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, The effects of measurement and
formulation error on thermal comfort indices in the ASHRAE database of field studies, ASHRAE Transactions 206 (2) (2000) 493502.
[4] ISO Standard 7730: Moderate Thermal EnvironmentsDetermination of the PMV and PPD Indices and Specification of the Conditions
for Thermal Comfort, International Organisation for Standardisation,
Geneva, 1994.
[5] ASHRAE Standard 55Thermal Environment Conditions for
Human Occupancy, American Society of Heating Ventilating and
Air-conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, USA, 1992.
572
[6] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting
comfort votes in every-day thermal environments, Energy and
Buildings 34 (6) (2002) 667684.
[7] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Thermal comfort as part of a selfregulating system, Building Research and Practice (Journal of CIB) 6
(3) (1973) 191197.
[8] M.A. Humphreys, Field studies of thermal comfort compared and
applied, Journal of the Institute of Heating and Ventilating Engineers
44 (1976) 527.
[9] M.A. Humphreys, Outdoor temperatures and comfort indoors,
Building Research and Practice (Journal of CIB) 6 (2) (1978) 92105.
[10] A. Auliciems, R. deDear, Air conditioning in Australia. I. Human
thermal factors, Architectural Science Review 29 (1986) 6775.
[11] R. deDear, G. Brager, Developing and adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1) (1998) 145167.
[12] J.F. Nicol, I.A. Raja, A. Allaudin, G.N. Jamy, Climatic variations in
comfort temperatures: the Pakistan projects, Energy and Buildings 30
(1999) 261279.
[13] K.J. McCartney, J.F. Nicol, Developing an adaptive control algorithm
for Europe: results of the SCATS project, Energy and Buildings 34
(6) (2002) 623635.
[14] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Outdoor temperature and indoor
thermal comfort: raising the precision of the relationship for the
1998 ASHRAE database of field studies, ASHRAE Transactions 206
(2) (2000) 485492.
[15] R. deDear, A global database of thermal comfort field experiments,
ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1) (1998) 11411152.
[16] I.A. Raja, J.F. Nicol, K.J. McCartney, The significance of controls for
achieving thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings, Energy
and Buildings 33 (2001) 235244.
[17] I.A. Raja, J.F. Nicol, A technique for postural recording and analysis
for thermal comfort research, Applied Ergonomics 27 (3) (1997)
221225.
[18] N.V. Baker, M.A. Standeven, A behavioural approach to thermal
comfort assessment in naturally ventilated buildings, in: Proceedings
of the CIBSE National Conference, Eastbourne, Chartered Institute
of Building Service Engineers, London, 1995, pp. 7684.
[19] P.O. Fanger, J. Toftum, Extension of the PMV model to non-air
conditioned buildings in warm climates, Energy and Buildings 34 (6)
(2002) 533536.
[20] A.J. Leaman, W.T. Bordass, Productivity in Buildings: the Killer
Variables, Workplace Comfort Forum, London, UK, 1997.
[21] J.F. Nicol, K.J. McCartney, Assessing adaptive opportunities in
buildings, in: Proceedings of the CIBSE National Conference,
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]