September 25, 2020

Thermal Comfort + Satisfaction

Thermal Comfort - Satisfaction Talking Points

Thermal comfort satisfaction can vary due to a variety of factors. Occupant interaction and control provides each occupant with a unique thermal preference that can inherently affect their perceived thermal comfort. The type of ventilation can also influence an acceptable temperature range and extend it beyond what is considered standard.

Keywords

Thermal comfort, satisfaction, personal control, natural ventilation

Perception of Thermal Comfort with Personal Control

• In a review of thermal comfort studies, seven out of nine studies revealed that users rated thermal comfort as the top priority to improving satisfaction in a building (Rupp 2015).
• Providing occupant control over the thermal environment (i.e. operable window, thermostat, personal heater, etc.) can significantly improve overall thermal comfort satisfaction (Huizenga 2006, Park 2018, Tanabe 2015, Wagner 2007).

Perception of Thermal Comfort with Type of Ventilation

• The type of air delivery, natural ventilation or mechanical air delivery, can impact the user’s tolerance of thermal conditions (De Dear 1998, Leonhart 2007). Naturally ventilated spaces have been found to provide a greater tolerance of thermal conditions as they often offer greater agency and personal control than purely mechanical air delivery systems (De Dear 1998, Ring 2000).
• The diversity of demographics in a building should be considered when determining indoor environmental parameters as thermal comfort can be experienced differently due to factors such as gender and age. For example, females tend to have higher sensitivity to cold temperatures in comparison to males and elderly often prefer warmer temperatures than young adults (van Hoof 2008, Rupp 2015, Hall 2010).

Key References

Review Articles

• De Dear, Richard, and Gail Schiller Brager. “Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference.” (1998).
• Park, June Young, and Zoltan Nagy. “Comprehensive analysis of the relationship between thermal comfort and building control research-A data-driven literature review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018): 2664-2679.
• Van Hoof, J. “Forty years of Fanger’s model of thermal comfort: comfort for all?” Indoor Air 2008; 18: 182-201.

Primary Research

• Huizenga, Charlie, Sahar Abbaszadeh, Leah Zagreus, and Edward A. Arens. “Air quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey.” Proceeding of Healthy Buildings 2006 3 (2006): 393-397
• Leonhart, R., A. Wagner, Th. Gropp, E. Gossauer, and C. Moosmann. “Thermal Comfort and Workplace Occupant Satisfaction— Results of Field Studies in German Low Energy Office Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 39, no. 7 (2007): 758–69.
• Ring, E.W., Brager, G.S. “Occupant Comfort, Control, and Satisfaction in Three California Mixed-mode Office Buildings.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Consumer Behavior and Non-Energy Effects 8.317-8.328 (2000).
• Rupp, Ricardo Forgiarini, Natalia Giraldo Vásquez, and Roberto Lamberts. “A review of human thermal comfort in the built environment.” Energy and Buildings 105 (2015): 178-205.
• Tanabe, Shin-ichi, Masaoki Haneda, and Naoe Nishihara. “Workplace productivity and individual thermal satisfaction.” Building and environment 91 (2015): 42-50.
• Wagner, A., E. Gossauer, C. Moosmann, Th Gropp, and R. Leonhart. “Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings.” Energy and Buildings 39, no. 7 (2007):758-769.

Books

• Hall, Matthew R. Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort in Buildings. Woodhead Publishing in Energy. Cambridge, U.K.: Boca Raton, FL: Woodhead Pub.; CRC Press, 2010.