6-531 Zangheri Pre

ECEEE Summer Study 2011
Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon society
How the comfort requirements can be used to

assess and design low energy buildings: testing the
EN 15251 comfort evaluation procedure in 4
buildings
Lorenzo Pagliano, P. Zangheri, R. Armani
end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

EN 15251:2007
Indoor environmental input parameters for design
and assessment of energy performance of
buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
environment, ligh9ng and acous9cs
•  Energy consump/on of buildings depends
significantly on the criteria used for the indoor
environment (temperature, ven/la/on and
ligh/ng) and building (including systems) design
and opera/on.
•  An energy declara/on without a declara/on
related to the indoor environment makes no
sense.
•  The Standard specifies methods for long term
evalua/on of the indoor environment obtained
as a result of calcula/ons or measurements.

EN 15251:2007
The indoor environment in a building may be classified by

a) Criteria used for energy calculations (new buildings)
b) Whole year computer simulations of the indoor
environment and energy performance (new and existing
buildings)
c) Long term measurement of selected parameters for the
indoor environment (existing buildings)
d) Subjective responses from occupants (existing
buildings)

Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of
EN 15251:2007 energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
buildings with mechanical cooling:

BUILDING FANGER MODEL
TYPE: buildings without mechanical cooling:
FANGER AND/OR ADAPTIVE MODEL
ADAPTIVE
FANGER MODEL
MODEL
Category Explanation
PPD
PMV TC [°C]
[%]
High level of
-0,2 < PMV < 0,2 <6 I TC-2 ≤ Top ≤ TC+2
expectation
Normal level of
-0,5 < PMV < 0,5 < 10 II TC-3 ≤ Top ≤ TC+3
expectation
moderate level of
-0,7 < PMV < 0,7 < 15 III TC-4 ≤ Top ≤ TC+4
expectation
PMV < -0,7 and Values outside the Top < TC-4 and
> 15 IV
PMV > 0,7 above criteria Top > TC+4
32.0
Indoor operative temperature (C)
30.0
28.0
26.0 C
B
24.0 A
22.0 A
B
20.0
C
18.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Outdoor running mean temperature (C)

ü  LONG-‐TERM ASSESSMENT OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS:
1) Measurements of indoor clima=c variables
Long-‐term indicators:
Foot-‐print classifica=on: percentage of /me in 4 categories; eg to be in category 2 a building
should be for 97 (or 97)% of the /me in category 2
Percentage x % y % w % z %
Category IV III II I
Degree hours & PPD weighted criteria:
• Cumula/ve Indexes able to weight the discomfort level (as a func/on of the distance from the comfort
range)
• But they do not have a reference threshold, so are not linked to categories
Seasonal sta/s/cs:
2) Occupant interview •  on sensa/on and preference of occupants
through ques=onnaires •  on metabolic ac/vity, clothing resistance
and building control

ü  MEASUREMENTS:
•  The measurement instrumenta/on used for evalua/on of the thermal environment
shall meet the requirements given in EN ISO 7726.
•  Comply with the recommenda/ons given in EN ISO 7726 as far as the loca/on of
measurement instrumenta/on within the spaces is concerned.
•  Measurements shall be made where occupants are known to spend most of their
=me and under representa=ve weather condi=on of cold and warm season. For the
winter measurements at or below mean outside temperatures for the 3 coldest
months of the year, and for the summer measurements at or above sta/s/c average
outside temperatures for the 3 warmest months of the year with clear sky.
•  The measurement period for all measured parameters should be long enough to be
representa/ve, for example 10 days.

ASHRAE RP-884:1997 Developing an Adap9ve Model of Thermal
Comfort and Preference
ü  MEASUREMENTS:
•  Class I: Field experiments in which all sensors and procedures are in 100%
compliance with the specifica/ons set out in ASHRAE Standard 55 (1992) and
ISO 7730 (1984). Three heights of measurement with laboratory-‐grade
instrumenta/on including omnidirec/onal anemometry capable of
turbulence intensity assessments.
•  Class II: Field experiments in which all indoor physical environmental
variables (ta, tr, v, rh, clo, met) necessary for the calcula/on of PMV/PPD
indices are collected at the same /me and place as the thermal
ques/onnaires are administered. Measurements may not have been made at
the three heights above floor level as specified in ASHRAE (1992) and ISO
(1994) standards (0.1, 0.6 and 1.2m). Humidity measurements were taken by
aspirated psychrometer or solid state hygrometer sensors. Air speeds are
measured by hot wire (or sphere) probes with thresholds above 0.1 ms-‐1.
•  Class III: Field studies based on simple measurements of indoor
temperature and possibly humidity. One level of measurement above the
floor. Possibly asynchronous and non-‐con/guous physical (temperature etc.)
and subjec/ve (ques/onnaire) measurements.

Methodology Tes9ng of the Methodology
for compliance of exis9ng buildings to EN15251
About thermal comfort assessment, we selected 4 different approaches:

M1 – Detailed measurement: following the specifica/ons of ISO 7726 and
ASHRAE RP-‐884 (Class I or II), to measure all the physical variables
defining indoor microclimate in a representa/ve room of the building,
con/nuously for 3-‐4 weeks in winter and 3-‐4 weeks in summer. For the
defini/on of the measurement periods we will consider the sta/s/cs of
the building clima/c context and we will choose the most cri/cal days.
M2 – Simplified Measurements: to measure only the principal indoor
parameters (we propose air temperature and rela/ve humidity) in 2-‐3
representa/ve points of the building, con/nuously for larger periods: 2
months in winter (December and January or January and February) and
2 months in summer (June and July).
Q1 – Detailed Ques=onnaire: to present subjec/ve ques/onnaires to the
occupants concerning Temperature, Air movement, Humidity, Ligh/ng,
Noise, Air quality, Overall comfort, Clothing Resistance, Metabolic
Ac/vity and Building Control.
Q2 – Simplified Ques=onnaire: to present subjec/ve ques/onnaires to the
occupants concerning Temperature, Clothing Resistance, Metabolic
Ac/vity and Building Control.

Methodology Tes9ng of the Methodology
Calcula=on /
Code Type Descrip=on Instrument When/Dura=on Where/Who Analysis
During periods probably more Installa/on and
Following the specifica/ons PMV, PPD indicators
cri/cal: 2-‐3 weeks in winter removal days: point
of ISO 7726 and ASHRAE PPD weighted, Percentage
Measurement Mobile and 2-‐3 weeks in summer. measures in large part
RP-‐884 (Class I or II), to outside the range (Fanger)
M1 (ASHRAE Class I
measure all the physical
Measurement Frequency: 10-‐20 min (if of the building. Other
indicators
or Class II) System (MMS) possible max, min, average days: con/nuous
variables defining indoor Foot-‐print (Fanger)
and standard devia/on values measures in a
microclimate. classifica/on
for each /me step). representa/ve room.
To measure the principal con/nuous measures Contextualiza/on of M1
3 months in winter
indoor and outdoor in 2-‐3 representa/ve Degree hours (Adap/ve),
Measurement (December, January, February)
parameters (air temp and Temp-‐RH points of the building, Percentage outside the
M2 (ASHRAE Class
rela/ve humidity). (Plus Dataloggers
and 3 months in summer
in 1-‐2 cri/cal points of range (Adap/ve) indicators
III) (June, July, August).
CO2 concentra/on, if the building and in 1 Foot-‐print (Adap/ve)
Frequency: 10-‐20 min.
possible) outdoor point. classifica/on
Direct interview with To the larger number Clo and met sta/s/cs
During the days of installa/on
Mobile Measurement of occupants: at least Evalua/on of ligh/ng, noise
Ques/onnaire and removal of MMS. 2-‐3
Q1 Interview System. Ques/ons about all
Q1 interviews for each
the 50% of total and IAQ
sensa/ons-‐preferences, clo, occupants, bejer if Correla/on with
measurement point
met and control. more than 20. measurement elabora/ons
Where the MMS is
Indirect interview without
installed and to the
Mobile measurement During the days when the
larger number of Clo and met sta/s/cs
System. Simplified Ques/onnaire MMS is installed. 2-‐4
Q2 Interview
ques/ons about thermal Q2 interviews a day with each
occupants: at least the Correla/on with
50% of total measurement elabora/ons
sensa/ons, preferences, occupant
occupants, bejer if
clo, met and control.
more than 20.

Case Studies Tes9ng of the Methodology
IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4

S W S W S W S W
M1 þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
M2 þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
Q1 þ þ þ þ þ þ ¨ ¨
Q2 þ þ þ þ þ ¨ ¨ ¨

ID: IT1
Loca/on: Lodi, Italy (urban)
Des/na/on: Office (and social housing)
Age: 2006
Size: 600 m2
Hea/ng strategies: Air condi/oning with fan coils.
Cooling strategies: Natural ven/la/on, air condi/oning with fancoils.
Enabled controls: Windows, fancoils.
ID: IT2
Loca/on: Varese, Italy (urban)
Des/na/on: Office and laboratory
Age: 2002
Size: 3 000 m2
Hea/ng strategies: Heterogeneous: HVAC or fan coils or radiators
Cooling strategies: Heterogeneus: HVAC or fan coils or natural ven/la/on
Enabled controls: Windows, internal blind, local fan.

ID: IT3
Loca/on: Imola, Italy (urban)
Des/na/on: School and administra/ve offices
Age: 2008
Size: 4 500 m2
Hea/ng strategies: Heat recovery, district hea/ng with radiant panels.
External solar blinds, natural night ven/la/on, ground
Cooling strategies:
exchanger, solar cooling with radiant panels.
Enabled controls: -‐
ID: IT4
Loca/on: Cherasco (CN), Italy (rural)
Des/na/on: Residen/al with home office
Age: 2005
Size: 200 m2
Hea/ng strategies: Heat recovery, air-‐to-‐air heat pump, biomass stove.
External solar blinds, natural night ven/la/on, ground
Cooling strategies:
exchanger
Enabled controls: Windows, blinds, mechanical air flow

Collected Data Tes9ng of the Methodology
IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4

M1 12370 7457 17005 2281
M2 64 298 71145 79256 32412
Q1 82 140 61 -‐
Q2 502 1309 80 -‐

Results Tes9ng of the Methodology
SUMMARY REPORT OF COMFORT ASSESSMENT

Main calcula=ons /analysis:
ü  Ques/onnaire (Q1 and Q2) à Percentage distribu/on of sensa/on vote,
aggrega/ng -‐1, 0 and 1 votes (not thermally dissa/sfied people, according to
ISO 7730);
ü  Detailed measurements (M1) à Calculate PMV à percentage of /me in the 4
comfort categories (Foot-‐print), with the addi/on of category D
(“Dissa/sfied”) aggrega/ng /me intervals with PMV < -‐1 and PMV > 1,
according to the comfort model of Fanger (PMV-‐PPD);
ü  Simplified measurements (M2) à percentage of /me in the 4 comfort
categories (Foot-‐print), according to the adap/ve comfort model of EN 15251.
Cat. I
Cat. I I
Season
20%
34%
21%
17%
7%
Cat. I II
7%
Cat. I V
Dissatisfied
Results Tes9ng of the Methodology
SUMMARY REPORT OF COMFORT ASSESSMENT

Addi=onal informa=on:
ü  General: qualita/ve notes about the survey experiences; assessment about
the occupant response and the representa/veness of the M1+Q1 period
respect the wider M2+Q2 period;
ü  Ques/onnaire (Q1 and Q2):
ü  number of collected ques/onnaires;
ü  % of votes finding air movement, humidity, ligh/ng, noise and indoor air
quality acceptable;
ü  distribu/on of temperature preference;
ü  ques/onnaire sta/s/cs (clo, met, building controls);
ü  Detailed measurements (M1):
ü  homogeneity of the environment (in case of Class I measurements);
ü  cause of discomfort (informa/on not obtainable from the foot-‐print view);
ü  Simplified measurements (M2):
ü  indoor temperature distribu/on in 2-‐4 zones of building.

Results (IT1) Tes9ng of the Methodology
Percentage distribu=on on sensa=on vote (From Q1, Q2):

0
52%
33%
12% 10%
Summer
Q1 (zone I T101)
5%
2008
-‐1
79%
1 Q2 (al l zones )
5%
3%
-‐2
65%
6% 14%
19%
-‐3 Q1 (zone I T101)
Winter
2008-‐
2009
68%
21%
Q2 (al l zones )
5%
3
Foot-‐print FANGER (From M1):
20%
34%
21%
17%
I Al l meas urements
Summer
7%
2008
II
38%
29%
36% 14%
14%
At ti me o f i ntervi ew
5%
III
55%
Al l meas urements
6%
Winter
2008-‐
IV
2009
42%
28%
12%
11%
At ti me o f i ntervi enw
7%
D
Foot-‐print ADAPTIVE (From M2):

I 77%
15%
zone I T101
5%
Summer
II
2008
III
52%
24%
22%
IV zone I T102

Assessment of responses: Good
Notes Representativeness of the
M1+Q1 period: Dfair
iscrete Dfair
iscrete -‐
Season Summer 2008 Winter 2008-‐2009 Summer 2009
Number of questionnaires 21 (373) 57 (66) -‐ (63)
Temperature acceptable (%) 90% (85%) 98% (95%) -‐ (97%)
Air movement acceptable (%) 100% 98% -‐
Humidity acceptable (%) 86% 88% -‐
Lighting level acceptable (%) 90% 88% -‐
Noise level acceptable (%) 90% 60% -‐
IAQ acceptable (%) 100% 91% -‐
Colder Unch. Warmer Colder Unch. Warmer Colder Unch. Warmer
Distribution of temperature
preference (%) 43% 43% 14% 12% 74% 14% -‐ -‐ -‐
(23%) (73%) (3%) (26%) (68%) (6%) (10%) (67%) (24%)
Q1 Distribution on thermal sensation votes:
(Q2)
0
52%
33%
12% 10%
Summer 2008-‐ Summer
Q1 (zone I T101)
5%
2008
-‐1
79%
5%
3%
Q2 (al l zones )
1
65%
6% 14%
19%
-‐2 Q1 (zone I T101)
Winter
2009 2009
-‐3
68%
21%
Q2 (al l zones )
5%
2
70%
19%
Q2 (al l zones )
8%
3

Statistics Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Clo 0.56 (0.32) 0.14 (0.07) 0.88 (0.54) 0.12 (0.13) -‐ (0.44) -‐ (0.13)
Met 1.21 (1.21) 0.13 (0.17) 1.26 (1.14) 0.15 (0.09) -‐ (1.06) -‐ (0.09)
Typical controls door-‐windows, AC, blind Heating, door door-‐windows, AC, blind
Homogeneity of environment: Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous
end-use Discomfort
Efficiency source
Research Group Warm side
www.eerg.it Could and Warm side -‐
Foot-‐print (FANGER) classification of Zone IT101:
M1+Q1 period: Discrete Discrete -‐
Temperature acceptable (%) 90% (85%) 98% (95%) -‐ (97%)
Air movement acceptable (%) 100% 98% -‐
IAQ acceptable (%) 100% 91% -‐
preference (%) 43% 43% 14% 12% 74% 14% -‐ -‐ -‐
(23%) (73%) (3%) (26%) (68%) (6%) (10%) (67%) (24%)
Q1 Distribution on thermal sensation votes:
(Q2)
0
52%
33%
12% 10%
Q1 (zone I T101)
5%
2008
-‐1
79%
5%
3%
Q2 (al l zones )
1
65%
6% 14%
19%
-‐2 Q1 (zone I T101)
Winter
2009 2009
-‐3
68%
21%
Q2 (al l zones )
5%
2
70%
19%
Q2 (al l zones )
8%
3

Clo 0.56 (0.32) 0.14 (0.07) 0.88 (0.54) 0.12 (0.13) -‐ (0.44) -‐ (0.13)
Met 1.21 (1.21) 0.13 (0.17) 1.26 (1.14) 0.15 (0.09) -‐ (1.06) -‐ (0.09)
end-use Discomfort
Efficiency source
Research Group Warm side
www.eerg.it Could and Warm side -‐
M1+Q1 period: Discrete Discrete -‐
Temperature acceptable (%)
Air movement acceptable (%)
90% (85%)
100%
98% (95%)
98%
-‐ (97%)
-‐
Main collateral information:
IAQ acceptable (%) 100% 91% -‐ Summer 2008 Winter 2008-‐2009
preference (%) 43% 43% 14% 12% 74% 14% -‐ -‐ -‐ Statistics Mean DS Mean DS
(23%) (73%) (3%) (26%) (68%) (6%) (10%) (67%) (24%)
Q1 Distribution on thermal sensation votes: Clo 0.56 0.14 0.88 0.12
(Q2)
0 Met 1.21 0.13 1.26 0.15
52%
33%
12% 10%
Q1 (zone I T101)
5%
2008
-‐1
79%
5%
3%
Q2 (al l zones )
1
65%
6% 14%
19%
-‐2 Q1 (zone I T101)
Winter
2009 2009
-‐3
68%
21%
Q2 (al l zones )
5%
2
70%
19%
Q2 (al l zones )
8%
3

Clo 0.56 (0.32) 0.14 (0.07) 0.88 (0.54) 0.12 (0.13) -‐ (0.44) -‐ (0.13) Discomfort source in summer: warm side
Met 1.21 (1.21) 0.13 (0.17) 1.26 (1.14) 0.15 (0.09) -‐ (1.06) -‐ (0.09)
Discomfort source Warm side Could and Warm side -‐
20%
34%
21%
17%
I Al l meas urements
Summer
7%
2008
M1
II
38%
29%
36% 14%
14%
At ti me o f i ntervi ew
5%
III
35
55%
Temperature [°C]
Al l meas urements
6%
Winter
2008-‐
IV
2009
42%
28%
12%
11%
At ti me o f i ntervi enw
7%
30

Foot-‐print (ADAPTIVE) classification:
Indoor
77%
15%
Summer Summer
5%
3%
I zone I T101
2008
25
52%
24%
22%
2%
II zone I T102
83%
13%
III
3%
zone I T101
2009
20
48%
28%
15%
IV
9%
zone I T102
M2 Temperature distribution in summer 2008 and 2009:

IT101 IT102
35 35
15
Temperature [°C]
Temperature [°C]
30 30
Indoor
Indoor
15 20 25 30
25 25
20 20
IT101 IT102 IT101 IT102
15
15 20 25 30
15
15 20 25 30
Runni ng Mea n Tempera ture [°C]
Runni ng Mea n Tempera ture [°C] Runni ng Mea n Tempera ture [°C]


Lessons Tes9ng of the Methodology
About the coherence of comfort categories and occupant

sensa=on votes
ü  “Is it possible to evaluate the coherence of categories with respect to the responses of
the occupants of a building?” this might be difficult to achieve using present
procedures.
ü  A direct comparison is limited for seman/c reasons – we should be able to formulate
ques/onnaires able to discriminate between categories and occupants should be able
to understand the seman/c differences
ü  A way to conduct these assessments indirectly – as is done in our inves/ga/ons – is to
compare the seasonal distribu/on on thermal sensa/on votes with the rela/ve foot-‐
print classifica/on. This makes it possible to qualita/vely iden/fy the comfort category
that best describes the occupant response:
Summer 2009
Di s s ati s fi ed (Q1 -‐ zone I T203)

Cat. III
(FANGER)
Fanger F oot-‐pri nt (M1 a t ti me o f s urvey)

Procedure issues to be improved
ü  especially in large buildings, it is to be expected that different zones/rooms provide
different comfort levels, but it is complicated to assess it a priori and, for economic
reasons, to inves/gate a building in the 100% of its spaces (especially with detailed
measurements);
ü  the comfort assessments depend on the occupant’s behavior and on the con/ngent
clima/c condi/ons, and as a result it can change as a func/on of them; it would be
advantageous to find a way to normalize these factors;
ü  considering all the uncertain/es related to the data acquisi/on (representa/veness of
the monitored environment, accuracy of instruments , clo and met iden/fica/on, etc.),
we reckon the proposed value of acceptable devia/on (3-‐5%) to be too restric/ve;
ü  most of ac/vi/es concerning the check and the elabora/on of collected data are leu to
the professional ‘common sense’ of the evaluator; on one hand they should be
standardized in order to ensure consistency of results and to allow their comparison, on
the other hand qualifying criteria for building professionals should be proposed (many
competences are needed).
ü  Reducing a comfort assessment to the indica/on of a category can be insufficient and it
can misrepresent the comfort demand of occupants and stakeholders; we propose the
adopted format of our report (with the addi/on of the category “Dissa/sfied”) for
further assessment in order to clarify the results.

About the rela=onship with the energy cer=fica=on

ü  A long-‐term objec/ve of the EN 15251 procedure is to place the founda/ons for
accompanying the energy cer/fica/on of a building with an assessment of its indoor
comfort. But at the moment, while energy cer/fica/on has begun in much of Europe (in
applica/on of the EPBD Direc/ve), comfort evalua/on is in its infancy.
ü  To assess the energy needs or primary consump/on of a building,in the framework of
energy cer/fica/on procedures, standardized calcula/ons (through steady-‐state or semi-‐
dynamic souware) were undertaken for exis/ng buildings and in this context – the
steady state approach standardizes the indoor condi/ons (e.g. indoor temperature equal
to 20°C in winter and 26°C in summer) – the comfort assessment can only be done in a
second phase, by monitoring or interviews.
ü  To equate and integrate them, there are two main possibili/es:
ü  de-‐normalising the energy cer/fica/on (e.g. monitoring the real energy
consump/on of a building or using the energy bills)
ü  normalizing the comfort assessment (e.g. adop/ng dynamic simula/on
approaches for exis/ng buildings as well).

Alterna=ves to be tested

ü  The possibility of evalua/ng the indoor comfort through Dynamic Simula/on should also
be tested in exis/ng buildings. Certainly it would reduce costs and it would evaluate the
en/re building. But this may mean a loss of precision, especially through using
unsuitable souware or unskilled modelling tecniques. The constant improvement of
these tools (for example in dealing with radia/ve aspects and exact opera/ve
temperature calcula/on) can only benefit this approach.
ü  Another possible alterna/ve is the use of Building Energy Management (BEMs) in the
collec/on of data. In recent years a large number of buildings have adopted these
systems which can ensure an extended monitoring (maybe for more seasons), without
extra cost. An improvement of the sensors presently used would be advisable.

Parametric Analysis – Results (1)
Cherasco (CN) (5% category II, asimmetry DH, different optimum)
% Outside Range FANGER % Outside Range ADAPTIVE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
PPD Weighted FANGER

35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Degree Hours ADAPTIVE

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
B B B B B B B pO B B P: pO pO pO pO pO pO pO B pO B pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO pO
NV: n SP: n NV: n HR: - NV: n EA: n SP: - EA: n c EA: n EA: - EA: - EA: - EA: - EA: - EA: - NV: + EA: n HR: + EA: - EA: - EA: - EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: o EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: + EA: +
SP: n EA: n P: c P: c+ P: c P: c P: c P: c+ P: c+ P: c+ P: cx P: cx P: cx P: cx P: c P: c P: c P: c+ P: c+ P: c+ P: cx P: cx P: cx P: c P: c P: c P: c+ P: c+ P: c+ P: cx P: cx P: cx
HR: - By: n By: n By: n By: 2 By: 1 By: n By: 2 By: 1 By: n By: n By: 1 By: 2 By: 2 By: n By: 1 By: 2 By: n By: 1 By: n By: 2 By: 1 By: 2 By: n By: 1 By: 2 By: n By: 1 By: 2 By: n By: 1
EA: n

Design of low/zero-‐energy buildings

ü  The discon/nui/es between the two variants (Fanger and adap/ve) arising in the
op/miza/on procedure with the use of long-‐term indexes may be reduced when
considering the large influence that certain variables such as clothing (and total)
insula/on and air veloci/es have on the calculated values of PMV.
ü  In order to conceive a design process for low/zero-‐energy buildings, based on the
comfort op/miza/on, a suitable long-‐term comfort (or discomfort) index is needed. It
should consider:
ü  the distance in degrees outside a specific comfort range (defined according a specified
comfort model),
ü  the percentage of /me outside the comfort range,
ü  both overhea/ng and overcooling.
ü  At the moment these considera/ons are being discussed within the IEA Task 40-‐Annex
52 (NZEB).

Conclusions Tes9ng of the Methodology
ü As part of the Commoncense project, some exis/ng buildings (4 in
Italy) analysed to assess their level of thermal comfort. The
methodology proposed by the standard EN 15251 was tested to
iden/fy its cri/cal issues and to inves/gate the possibility of its
applica/on on a large scale.
ü The analysis we have performed has allowed us to recognize parts
of the procedures proposed by EN 15251 as premature and
incomplete. For its extension on large-‐scale it is necessary to
bridge basic gaps and confront different cri/cisms.
ü The work done has iden/fied some of them and has allowed us to
propose possible solu/ons.

Thanks for your attention!
www.eerg.it
lorenzo.pagliano@polimi.it
paolo.zangheri@polimi.it

6-531 Zangheri Pre

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

6-531 Zangheri Pre

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ECEEE Summer Study 2011

Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon society

How the comfort requirements can be used to

Lorenzo Pagliano, P. Zangheri, R. Armani

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

The indoor environment in a building may be classified by

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

buildings with mechanical cooling:

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

About thermal comfort assessment, we selected 4 diﬀerent approaches:

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

SUMMARY REPORT OF COMFORT ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY REPORT OF COMFORT ASSESSMENT

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

Percentage distribu=on on sensa=on vote (From Q1, Q2):

Foot-­‐print FANGER (From M1):

Foot-­‐print ADAPTIVE (From M2):

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

M2 Temperature distribution in summer 2008 and 2009:

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

About the coherence of comfort categories and occupant

Di s s ati s fi ed (Q1 -­‐ zone I T203)

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

About the rela=onship with the energy cer=ﬁca=on

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

Alterna=ves to be tested

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

PPD Weighted FANGER

Degree Hours ADAPTIVE

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

Design of low/zero-­‐energy buildings

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

end-use Efficiency Research Group www.eerg.it

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Foot-‐print FANGER (From M1):

Foot-‐print ADAPTIVE (From M2):

Di s s ati s fi ed (Q1 -‐ zone I T203)

Design of low/zero-‐energy buildings