Title of article
Are ‘class A’ temperature requirements realistic or desirable?
Author/Authors
Edward Arens، نويسنده , , Michael A. Humphreys، نويسنده , , Richard de Dear، نويسنده , , Hui Zhang، نويسنده ,
Issue Information
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2010
Pages
7
From page
4
To page
10
Abstract
It requires more energy to maintain a narrow indoor temperature range than a broader range, in which the building may be allowed to float with reduced conditioning for longer periods of time. A narrow range should presumably be preferable to the building occupants to justify its increased energy cost. At what widths are temperature ranges detected, preferred, or judged unacceptable? Three databases of occupant satisfaction in buildings are used to examine the acceptability of three classes of temperature range currently employed in the ISO and European standards, and proposed for the ASHRAE standard. These are alternatively identified as class A, B, and C, or category I, II, and III, but their specifications are identical. The A class (I category) is found to confer no relative satisfaction benefit to individuals or to realistic building occupancies. In addition, the differences in B and C class satisfaction are small.
Keywords
Standard , Acceptability , Category , Class A , Setpoint temperature , PMV
Journal title
Building and Environment
Serial Year
2010
Journal title
Building and Environment
Record number
1217767
Link To Document