Introduction to thermal comfort standards and to

the proposed new version of EN ISO 7730

B.W. Olesen
a,*
, K.C. Parsons
b
a
Wirsbo-VELTA GmbH, 22851 Norderstedt, Germany
b
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Abstract
This paper describes existing International Standards Organization (ISO) standards and current activity concerned with thermal comfort. It
describes how an ISO standard is produced from a new work item proposal to publication as an International Standard. ISO Standards should
be valid, reliable, useable, and with sufcient scope for practical application. The existing thermal comfort standardEN ISO 7730is
considered in terms of these criteria as well as ISO8996 (metabolic rate) and ISO9920 (clothing). The work of ISO/TC159 SC5, `ergonomics
of the physical environment', is presented in Appendix A. The proposed revision of EN ISO 7730 is presented in detail. The revised standard
will be based on requirements for general thermal comfort (predicted mean vote (PMV), operative temperature) and local thermal discomfort
(radiant temperature asymmetry, draught, vertical air temperature differences, oor surface temperatures). One critical issue is the effect of air
velocity. Increased air velocity has a benecial effect at warm temperatures, but it may result in draught sensation in cooler temperatures.
Another issue is the extent to which requirements of humidity need to be included in a standard for thermal comfort. Several recent research
projects dealing with adaptation, inuence of air velocity and the effect of humidity have been responsible for keeping the standards up to date.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Indoor climate; Thermal comfort; Local discomfort; ISO; CEN; Standards; PMV; Adaptation; Draught
1. Introduction
There are a number of national organizations whose
standards have international inuence and some make a
contribution to the creation of knowledge of thermal comfort
and the application of that knowledge. For a standard to be
truly international however, requires a co-ordination of
countries and a process of common consent. The Interna-
tional Standards Organization (ISO) was set up in 1947 and
has over 130 member countries. Its principles of a single
representative organization from each country and a demo-
cratic system of voting support the notion of a democratic
process of globalization and a fairly-operating world market
in a world economy. It is interesting that one of the major
issues concerning thermal comfort is the apparent conict
between a so called `western' approach, which attempts to
`seal' a building and control the internal environment to
constant levels of air temperature appropriate to western
behavior and clothing, and an adaptive approach where
people can adapt to a wider range of conditions that com-
plement their culture and in hot (or even cold) climates are
less energy demanding. The issue is more complex, however
it demonstrates the advantage of international consensus
over national trends and interests. That is, an international
organization with democratic processes will allow a broad
international perspective to be considered.
The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction to ISO
standards concerned with thermal comfort and to describe
the proposed revision of thermal comfort standard EN ISO
7730. The standards are described in the context of the ISO
system for standards production, existing ISO standards con-
cerned with people in thermal environments, current thinking
about future standards, and decisions that need to be made to
bring thermal comfort standards into the 21st century.
2. How is an ISO standard produced?
ISO standards are produced by experts from participating
countries (P-members) according to agreed rules and a
system of voting. There is a six-stage process from the
initial idea for a standard to its nal publication. This is
shown in Table 1.
A thermal comfort standard is proposed (by a working
group (WG), committee or other) and supported by a
document that explains the requirement, the rationale and
Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
*
Corresponding author.
0378-7788/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0 3 7 8 - 7 7 8 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - X
the scope of the proposed standard. The sub-committee
(ISO/TC 159 SC5) then considers the proposal and submits
it for international voting. On acceptance and an indication
that sufcient (_5) member countries will participate in the
work, the sub-committee allocates the work to a WG (ISO/
TC 159 SC5 WG1). The WG identies a project leader who
develops working documents with advice and comments
from the international experts under the guidance and co-
ordination of the convener. A proposal to revise a standard
would also be considered as a new proposal. All standards
are reviewed every 5 years and, in the case of ISO 7730, it
was considered that signicant developments had taken
place since its adoption and that a revision was required.
The work was allocated by ISO/TC 159 SC5 to its WG
on thermal environments (ISO/TC 159 SC5 WG1) with
Professor Bjarne Olesen as project leader. Working docu-
ments have been produced and discussed at meetings in
Paris, Yokohama, Barcelona, Copenhagen and London. The
document is now proposed as a Committee Draft (ISO CD
7730). It is important at this stage to have full international
discussion about technical content so that the draft standard
can be modied to allow consensus (approval of two thirds
of the P-members voting).
The Committee Draft (ISO CD 7730) is circulated to
member countries who will circulate it within their country
and provide comments and a vote. Three months is allowed
for voting. If accepted, the WG(ISO/TC159 SC5 WG1) will
respond to comments and revise the document accordingly.
A Draft International Standard (ISO DIS 7730) will then be
produced, circulated for voting and comments, and revised
to form a Final Draft International Standard (ISO FDIS
7730). This will be subjected to a Yes/No vote and, if
accepted, published as ISO 7730, probably in 2003. It should
be noted that International Standard ISO 7730 and European
Standard EN 7730 are developed together under the Stan-
dard EN ISO 7730.
3. ISO standards: ergonomics of the physical
environment
The following describes the current ISO ergonomics
standards and activity concerned with thermal comfort.
For more detail on ergonomics and standardization the
reader is referred to a special issue of the journal, Applied
Ergonomics 26 (4) 1995.
International Standards in ergonomics have been devel-
oped since 1974 when ISO/TC 159 was established at the
request of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA).
Sub-committee ISO/TC 159 SC5 Ergonomics of the Phy-
sical Environment was established at the same time and is
responsible for over 30 work items which are requests, by
international voting, to produce a standard. The sub-com-
mittee has three WGs that develop the standards. These are
concerned with thermal environments, lighting and danger
signals, and communication in noisy environments. Coun-
tries involved are Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Den-
mark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Thailand,
UK, and USA. Some countries are more active than others,
with some taking an observer role. A list of published
standards and current work is provided in Appendix A.
Standards concerned with thermal comfort are produced
by ISO/TC 159 SC5 WG1. The main thermal comfort
standard is ISO 7730 which is based upon the predicted
mean vote (PMV) and predicted percentage of dissatised
(PPD) thermal comfort indices (Fanger, 1970). It also pro-
vides methods for the assessment of local discomfort caused
by draughts, asymmetric radiation and temperature gradients.
Other thermal comfort standards include a technical speci-
cation, thermal comfort for people with special require-
ments (ISOTS 14415), responses on contact with surfaces at
moderate temperature (ISO 13732, Part 2), and thermal
comfort in vehicles (ISO 14505, Parts 14). Standards that
support thermal comfort assessment include ISO 7726 (mea-
suring instruments), ISO 8996 (estimate of metabolic heat
production), ISO 9920 (estimation of clothing properties),
and ISO 10551 (subjective assessment methods).
4. Present position and future options for
ISO thermal comfort standards
ISO thermal comfort standards should provide the best
internationally agreed methods and data available. They can
be judged on a number of criteria as discussed by Delleman
Table 1
Six-stage process to the production of an International Standard (ISO)
Stage Process Document
1 New work item proposal (TC, SC, WG, national, regional, organization, individual) New proposal (NP) (inquiry/voting)
2 Building expert consensus (WG) Working document (WD)
3 Consensus building across countries (TC, SC, WG) Committee draft (CD) (inquiry/voting)
4 Integration of comments and preparation of DIS (WG) DIS (inquiry/voting)
5 Integration of editorial comments and preparation of FDSI (WG) FDIS (inquiry and Yes/No vote)
6 Preparation of International Standard (Secretariat) International Standard (ISO)
KeyWG: working group ISO/TC 159 SC5 WG1 `ergonomics of the thermal environment'; Convener: Professor Bjarne Olesen, Denmark; SC: sub-
committee ISO/TC 159 SC5 `ergonomics of the physical environment'; Chairman: Professor Ken Parsons, UK; Secretariat (BSI): Dr. Sina Talal; TC:
Technical Committee ISO/TC 159 `ergonomics'; Chairman: Wolfgang Schultetus, Germany; Secretariat (DIN): Norbert Breutmann.
538 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
et al. [1]. ISO standards should be valid, reliable and useable
with sufcient scope for practical application.
v Validity: This is concerned with whether the assessment
method or prediction accurately represents the phenom-
enon of interest. For example, does an index that predicts
thermal comfort, accurately predict the thermal comfort
perceived by people?
v Reliability: This is concerned with whether a standard
used to assess thermal comfort would give the same
prediction if repeatedly used to assess exactly the same
conditions. If a procedure is ambiguous or non-specific
(where to measure, what to measure, when to measure,
etc.), it will reduce reliability. Note that reliability does
not imply validity but validity does imply reliability.
v Usability: This is concerned with whether the users of a
standard can use it correctly. A standard may be valid and
reliable but if it is not presented such that the users can use
it, it will be limited in its application.
There are, of course, other criteria for assessing measure-
ment methods (e.g. sensitivitythe standard needs to be
able to distinguish between conditions of interest where a
practical difference exists), however the three criteria above
will be considered in this paper. Thermal comfort standards
can therefore be judged in terms of the above criteria, as can
revisions of standards. Criticisms and future options for
standards can also be considered in terms of these criteria.
5. ISO 7730 moderate thermal environments
determination of the PMV and PPD indices and
specification of the conditions for thermal comfort
This standard describes the PMV and PPD indices and
species acceptable conditions for thermal comfort. The
PMV predicts the mean value of the votes of a large group
of people on the ISO thermal sensation scale (3 = hot;
2 = warm; 1 =slightly warm; 0=neutral; 1 = slightly
cool; 2 = cool; 3 = cold). The PPD predicts the percen-
tage of a large group of people likely to feel `too warm' or
`too cool'. This was dened as those voting 3, 2, 2, or
3 on the scale. The indices are exactly as described by
Fanger [2]. A draft rating index is provided in the standard as
an equation involving air temperature, air velocity and turbu-
lence intensity. It is applicable to mainly sedentary people
wearing light clothing with a whole-body thermal sensation
closetoneutral. Recommendedthermal comfort requirements
are provided in Annex D of the standard (informativenot
a formal part of the standard). This includes optimum opera-
tive temperature; vertical air temperature gradient; mean air
velocity; oor temperature; and relative humidity.
5.1. ISO 7730: validity
The PMV/PPD indices have been extensively investigated
throughout the world and mostly in terms of validity. Does
the PMVaccurately predict the actual mean vote (AMV) of
people? Empirical research has led to mixed results and
discussion of interpretation. Laboratory studies have often
supported the validity of ISO 7730 whereas eld studies
have not. However, the interpretation of results often
involves discussion of the sensitivity of the method to
estimates of variables such as metabolic heat and clothing
insulation which are difcult to estimate and, in practical
situations (along with the other parameters), often vary.
Other issues are concerned with the sensitivity of the
method. How well can the method distinguish between
comfort conditions? How well does it need to? If we achieve
statistical signicance between AMV and PMV of 0.1 of a
scale value, does this have practical signicance? Practical
signicance will depend upon context, but what difference
between AMVand PMV would encourage standards makers
to revise the standard on the grounds of validity?
ISO 7730 has been criticized because of its lack of
theoretical validity. The PMV/PPD indices were established
in 1970. Since then there have been improvements to the
human heat balance equation. There are also dynamic
models of human thermoregulation that offer more accurate
representations of physiological measures such as mean skin
temperature and sweat rate. The prediction of sensation
away from neutrality (towards warm or cool) is based upon
the principle of thermal load. This has been criticized [3]. A
more valid approach may be to predict deviation from
neutrality using predictions of body state, such as skin
temperature, sweat rate, or skin wettedness [4]. The question
for the standards maker is do these limitations have practical
signicance?
Related to the validity of ISO 7730 is the validity of ISO
8996metabolic rate, and ISO 9920clothing. The esti-
mation of metabolic heat production and clothing insulation
(two parameters to which the PMV is particularly sensitive)
and other properties are difcult, especially when consider-
ing practical, dynamic contexts. This raises the question as
to whether a valid rational thermal index or model is
possible. Why continue to improve the heat balance equation
or develop thermal models when the complexity of `reality'
will undermine any improvement? The adaptive model of
thermal comfort has questioned the validity of ISO 7730 and
this is also related to scope. The question of validity is
related to how well the methods in the standard (PMV, etc.)
relate to the actual thermal comfort responses of people.
If people change their thermal comfort response with pre-
vailing outside climatic conditions (for exactly the same
clothing, activity and indoor climate) the standard will not
respond to this and it will have reduced validity. If different
populations and cultures differ in thermal comfort responses
(to identical clothing, activity and indoor climate) then the
standard will have reduced validity for some populations. If
the standard does not include those populations in its scope
(e.g. people fromAfrica, Asia, etc.) then the standard may be
valid but should it be accepted as a universal International
Standard?
B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548 539
5.2. ISO 7730: reliability
Dening the PMV/PPD in an International Standard
provides the major advantage of ensuring that when it is
calculated anywhere in the world the same result will be
obtained. However, if two assessments were made of iden-
tical conditions, by different users, or the same user on a
different occasion, identical outcomes may not be achieved.
Methods for estimating metabolic rate (ISO 8996), clothing
insulation (ISO 9920), and environmental parameters (ISO
7726) will inuence reliability as will ambiguities in the
standard about where and when to assess the environment.
5.3. ISO 7730: usability
It is not clear who the users of ISO 7730 are intended to be
and this clouds a discussion of usability. However it is
probably reasonable to assume that those involved in envir-
onmental design and assessment, building services, engi-
neering and ergonomics, would be users. The PMV/PPD
indices provide clear predictions of likely discomfort and
dissatisfaction. It could be argued, however, that exactly how
to measure or estimate input parameters for the model are
technical and not exact. Examples, in an annex to the
standard, of howit can be used would aid usability. Usability
testing where groups of users were observed using the
standard and feedback provided would also improve the
usability of the standard.
5.4. ISO 7730: scope
The scope of a standard is concerned with to what it does
and does not apply. ISO 7730 can be considered in terms of
to whom it applies and over what range of environmental
conditions. The PMV/PPDindex was developed using North
American and European people. The standard notes that
deviations may occur due to ethnic and national-geographic
deviations and for people who are sick or disabled. It applies
to healthy men and women. Children are not considered. The
standard applies to indoor environments where steady state
thermal comfort or moderate deviations from comfort occur.
This allows for interpretation and judgment. Does the stan-
dard apply to environments where conditions vary? Can the
PMV-index be used as an adaptive model as it can account for
changes in clothing, activity, posture and environmental
conditions? The draught rating model is limited in scope
to a narrow range of conditions and for people in thermal
neutrality. People who are hot or cold may respond differ-
ently from the predictions of the draught rating model.
6. ISO 8996 ergonomicsdetermination of
metabolic heat production
This standard describes six methods for estimating meta-
bolic heat production, an essential requirement in the use of
ISO 7730 and the assessment of thermal comfort. The
methods are divided into three levels according to accuracy.
Level I provides tables of estimates of metabolic rate
(assumed identical to metabolic heat production) for kinds
of activity and occupation. This is 'rough information
where the risk of error is great'. Level II presents tables
of estimated metabolic rate based upon group assessment,
specic activities, andmeasurement of heart rate. This is `high
error risk accuracy 15%'. The most accurate measure
(5%) is a method of estimating metabolic rate by analysis of
expired `air' from the lungs (indirect calorimetry). The prin-
ciple is that energy is produced from burning food in oxygen.
Comparison of the oxygen content of expired air (collected in
a Douglas bagor other methoda typical valuewill be around
1618%) with that of inspired air (20%) provides the rate of
oxygen used by the body. With adjustments for type of
combustion (from CO
2
output), temperature, and pressure
the metabolic rate can be derived from the caloric value of
food. The units are presented as Watts per square metre of the
body surface of a standard person (70 Kg, 1.8 m
2
male;
60 Kg, 1.6 m
2
female). For an activity, such as walking up
hill, the weight of the person will be important and adjust-
ments may need to be made.
The validity of ISO 8996 is, in principle, high as oxygen
consumption clearly relates to energy production. However,
there are limitations. How metabolic rate relates to heat
production for a given activity is not clear. Heart rate is
affected by a number of factors (including psychological) as
well as metabolic rate. The accuracy presented is an estimate
and is not justied. The use and calibration of instrumenta-
tion in indirect calorimetry is important, and the estimation
of metabolic heat production from tables is applicable to the
context and population measured in the production of the
tables. This will reduce reliability. There are also limitations
to scope (e.g. to which populations does the standard apply?)
and usability (who are the intended users and can they use it
as intended?). Despite the limitations, ISO 8996 probably
provides the best available methods and data. The importance
of the estimate of metabolic rate can be demonstrated in
an example calculation of the PMV for conditions: air tem-
perature (t
a
) = mean radiant temperature (t
r
) = 24 8C; par-
tial vapor pressure (P
a
) = 1000 Pa; air velocity (v) =
0:15 m s
1
; clothing insulation 1.0 Clo; and metabolic rate
estimate of 100 W m
2
provides a PMV = 0:9. However with
a 15% accuracy adjustment, a metabolic rate value of
85 W m
2
provides PMV = 0:7 and 115 W m
2
, PMV =
1:1. Further discussion of estimation of metabolic heat pro-
duction is provided in Havenith et al. [5] in this Special Issue.
7. ISO 9920 ergonomics of the thermal
environmentestimation of the thermal insulation
and evaporative resistance of a clothing ensemble
ISO 9920 provides an extensive database of the thermal
properties of clothing and garments. The properties are
540 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
based upon measurements on heated manikins where basic
(or intrinsic) thermal insulation is measured as well as vapor
permeation properties of garments and ensembles. The
major question of validity is therefore whether measure-
ments on manikins represent the `true dynamic' properties
of clothing as worn by people. Although the inuence of air
penetration (and pumping) is discussed, it is not sufciently
quantied in detail. The scope of the standard excludes the
effects of absorption of water, buffering, textile comfort,
rain, snow, and special protective clothing such as heated
clothing. It also `does not deal with the separate insulation
on different parts of the body and discomfort due to the
asymmetry of a clothing ensemble'. The reliability of the
manikin measures is generally considered to be high for
repeated measures on the same manikin. However results
may vary between manikins. How well a clothing ensemble
of interest can be matched with values in the database is
debatable. This is also relevant to usability. Another issue of
usability is whether users have sufcient training in how to
interpret and use the information provided.
It is important to have a view of how accurately the
standard can predict clothing insulation properties. No
guidance is provided on this. If we assume around 15%
accuracy and combine it with metabolic rate (15% accu-
racy) the results in Table 2 show how the PMV/PPD indices
vary for sitting at rest in a business suit and light activity in a
business suit. It can be seen that predictions of discomfort
will vary within the accuracy of metabolic rate and clothing
insulation estimates. Inaccuracies in estimates of environ-
mental variables will increase this uncertainty.
8. Revision of EN ISO 7730: analytical determination
and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation
of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort
As for the current Standard, the criteria for an acceptable
thermal climate are specied in the proposed revision of EN
ISO 7730 as requirements for general thermal comfort
(PMV/PPD or operative temperature (air and mean radiant
temperature), air velocity, humidity) and for local thermal
discomfort (draught (mean air velocity, turbulence intensity,
air temperature) vertical air temperature differences, radiant
temperature asymmetry, surface temperature of the oor).
The proposals have been inuenced by standards in Europe
and the USA [6,7].
For most thermal parameters it has been possible to
establish psychophysical relationships between the intensity
of the parameter and a predicted percentage of people
nding the conditions unacceptable. People may be dissa-
tised due to general thermal comfort and/or dissatised due
to local thermal discomfort parameters. At the present time
there is no method for combining the percentages of dis-
satised people to give an accurate prediction of the total
number of people nding the environment unacceptable. For
example, we do not know if the dissatisfaction resulting
from general thermal discomfort is additive with the per-
centages of those who are dissatised due to local discom-
forts, or whether the total dissatised may be less than the
sum of the individual percentages (i.e. some people com-
plaining about more than one particular problem simulta-
neously). Thus to simplify the situation, in American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 55 the approach has been
to specify criteria corresponding to 10% dissatisfaction with
general thermal comfort, to which a net increase of another
10% dissatised due to local discomforts has been added,
bringing the total level of thermal acceptability down to
80%.
In real buildings, it may be desirable to establish different
target levels of thermal dissatisfaction based on what is
technically possible, what is economically viable, energy
considerations, environmental pollution, or occupant per-
formance. Therefore, it is suggested in the revision of EN
ISO 7730 (and ASHRAE 55) to specify different levels of
acceptability as in CR 1752. Individual countries or con-
tracts between client and designer can then specify which
levels must be used. Table 3 gives recommended levels of
acceptance for three classes of environment [6].
9. General thermal comfort
For general thermal comfort, Table 4 lists the criteria for
operative temperature and air velocity corresponding to the
three classes of comfort, for three typical spaces. The
optimal temperature is the same for all three classes but
the acceptable range will change as the allowed percentage
of dissatised changes. For the design of heating systems
and heat load calculations, the lower value in the range
should be used, and for cooling, the upper value is relevant.
The recommendations in ASHRAE Standard 55-92 are
mainly given for occupants performing light, primarily
sedentary activity (<1.2 Met). The acceptable range of
operative temperature corresponds to class B for people
in typical summer (cooling season) clothing (~0.5 Clo) and
typical winter (heating season) clothing (~1.0 Clo). Sepa-
rate comfort zones for two seasons reect the fact that people
usually change clothing according to outside temperature
Table 2
The influence of accuracy of estimate of metabolic rate and clothing
insulation on PMV and PPD values
M (W m
2
) Clo (m
2
8C W
1
) PMV PPD (%)
50 0.130 1.0 27.7
58 0.155 0.0 5.0
66 0.180 0.4 8.8
85 0.130 0.5 10.5
100 0.155 0.9 22.6
115 0.180 1.2 36.4
t
a
= t
r
= 24 8C; P
a
= 1000 Pa; v = 0:15 m s
1
.
B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548 541
(summerwinter). It, of course, creates some problems in
some work places that have a xed dress code or in geo-
graphical regions that have very small seasonal variations in
outdoor temperature.
In the currently proposed revisions of EN ISO 7730 (and
ASHRAE 55-92) the inuence and use of the following
factors are being considered for inclusion.
9.1. Increased air speed
The proposed revision of EN ISO 7730 (and ASHRAE
55-92) will include a diagram to estimate the air speed
required to offset an increase in temperature (Fig. 1). The
gure is based on a theoretical calculation, but an ASHRAE
sponsored research project (843-TRP: human response to air
Table 3
Three categories of thermal environment: percentage of dissatisfied due to general comfort and local discomfort (CR 1752, 1998)
Category Thermal state of the body as a whole Local thermal discomfort
PPD (%) PMV Draught rate,
DR (%)
Vertical air temperature
difference (%)
Warm or cool
floor (%)
Radiant temperature
asymmetry (%)
A <6 0.2 < PMV < 0.2 <15 <3 <10 <5
B <10 0.5 < PMV < 0.5 <20 <5 <10 <5
C <15 0.7 < PMV < 0.7 <25 <10 <15 <10
Table 4
Example criteria for operative temperature and mean air velocity for typical spaces
a
Type of
building/space
Clothing
cooling season
(summer; Clo)
Clothing heating
season
(winter; Clo)
Activity
(met)
Category Operative
temperature
cooling season
(summer; 8C)
Operative
temperature
heating season
(winter; 8C)
Mean air velocity
cooling season
(summer; m s
1
)
Mean air
velocity
heating season
(winter; m s
1
)
Office 0.5 1.0 1.2 A 24.5 0.5 22.0 1.0 0.18 0.15
B 24.5 1.5 22.0 2.0 0.22 0.18
C 24.5 2.5 22.0 3.0 0.25 0.21
Cafeteria/restaurant 0.5 1.0 1.4 A 23.5 1.0 20.0 1.0 0.16 0.13
B 23.5 2.0 20.0 2.5 0.20 0.16
C 23.5 2.5 20.0 3.5 0.24 0.19
Department/store 0.5 1.0 1.6 A 23.0 1.0 19.0 1.5 0.16 0.13
B 23.0 2.0 19.0 3.0 0.20 0.15
C 23.0 3.0 19.0 4.0 0.23 0.18
a
Relative humidity is assumed to be 60% for `summer' and 40% for `winter'.
Fig. 1. Air speed required to offset increased temperature. The air speed increases in the amount necessary to maintain the same total heat transfer from the
skin. This figure applies to increases in temperature above those allowed in the summer comfort zone with both t
r
, and t
a
increasing equally.
542 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
movements, Part 1preference and draught discomfort) has
recently veried the relation based on experimental tests
with human subjects. This research project also investigated
whether people achieved the same level of environmental
acceptability at higher temperature/velocity combinations
as they do at lower temperature/velocity combinations.
Toftum et al. [8] experimentally veried the diagram in
ASHRAE 55-92 (Fig. 1) for occupants having individual
control (ceiling fans, operable windows). This study also
showed that the requirement of personal control of the
increased air speed is essential for this acceptance. There-
fore, it may not be appropriate to offset a temperature
increase by increasing the air speed within a centrally-
controlled air system.
9.2. Adaptation
Several extensive eld studies summarized by de Dear
and Brager [9] have shown that, in buildings running
with centrally-controlled HVAC systems, the PMV-model
approximates the observed thermal comfort of occupants
quite closely. Fig. 2 shows a comparison between the
optimum comfort temperatures observed in a database of
building eld experiments [9] and the predicted optimum
comfort temperatures in those same buildings based on
building-averages of the six comfort parameters.
As seen in the left-hand panel of Fig. 2, there is very close
agreement between predicted and observed comfort tem-
peratures in the database's centrally-controlled HVACbuild-
ings and this holds true across a broad swathe of external
climatic contexts (represented as mean monthly outdoor
effective temperature).
The right-hand panel of Fig. 2 shows a comparison
between PMV-based predictions of optimum thermal com-
fort and the actual comfort temperatures observed in natu-
rally ventilated (free-running, no mechanical cooling)
buildings. In such buildings the occupants seem capable
of adapting to a broader range of conditions and can accept
higher indoor temperatures than predicted by the PMV-
model. In free-running buildings located in warmer climates
the occupants typically wear lighter clothing, and this in turn
causes the comfort temperature predicted by the PMV-
model in those buildings to be elevated. The PMV-model
can also account for the impact of higher air velocities,
created perhaps by operable windows or fans. The observed
comfort temperature at 30 8C outside temperature is
approximately 1.5 K higher. The reason for this difference
is not yet documented. A building occupant's perception of
the indoor climate in that building at a given point in time
may be inuenced by what he or she expects to nd there.
Some of the difference may also be explained by an average
daily lower activity level (posture, moving slowly) which is
difcult to evaluate in a short time eld study. It is also not
clear how the performance or productivity is inuenced by
the higher temperatures.
In both the EN ISO 7730 and ASHRAE 55-92 revisions it
is discussed how these results can be integrated into the
standards. In EN ISO 7730 it will be recommended to use a
wider PMV-range (class C) for design and/or evaluating of
the thermal environment in such buildings. The proposed
revision of ASHRAE 55-92 will include a diagram for
predicting the comfort range from the outside temperature.
It should be noted that even as far back as 1936, ASHRAE
took into account thermal adaptation when specifying
requirements for the indoor temperature. The following text
can be found in ASHRAE Handbook, 1936, Chapter 3.
It should be kept in mind that southern people, with
their more sluggish heat production and lack of adapt-
ability, will demand a comfort zone several degrees
higher than those given here for the more active people
of northern climates.
9.3. Humidity
Recommended humidity limits have caused a lot of
discussion during revision of standards. The inuence of
humidity on preferred ambient temperature within the com-
fort range is relatively small. In EN ISO 7730, a humidity
range of 3070%RHis recommended, but mainly for indoor
Fig. 2. Comparison of the RP-884 adaptive models' predicted indoor comfort temperatures with those predicted by the PMV-model for both air-conditioned
and naturally ventilated buildings (reproduced from [9]).
B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548 543
air quality reasons. In ASHRAE 55-92 no lower limit, and an
upper limit at 17 8C dew-point temperature (humidity ratio
12 g kg
1
) will be proposed. Requirements for acceptable
indoor air quality [10,11] will, however, specify a more
narrow range for the humidity. But should this be taken into
account in a thermal comfort standard?
9.4. Long term evaluation of the general thermal
comfort conditions
If criteria have to be met 100% of the time of occupancy,
including under extreme weather conditions, the amount of
heating and/or cooling capacity of any HVAC installation
would be prohibitive. Economic and/or environmental con-
siderations lead to a more pragmatic position of allowing the
thermal conditions to exceed the recommended ranges for a
limited time.
By computer simulation, comfort conditions are often
tested over longer periods of time, for different types of
buildings and/or HVAC design. There is a need to quantify
with some index the long term comfort conditions so that we
may compare alternative designs. For these purposes, we
recommend the following method for consideration in future
revisions of the standards.
The time during which the actual PMV exceeds the
comfort boundaries is weighted with a factor that is a
function of the PPD. Starting from a PMV-distribution on
a yearly basis, and the relation between PMVand PPD, the
following is calculated:
weighting factor (wf) =
PPD
actual PMV
PPD
PMVlimit
The weighted time is totalised for a characteristic working
period during 1 year.
warmperiod :
X
wf time; where PMV > PMV
limit
cold period :
X
wf time; where PMV > PMV
limit
The summation of the product `weighting factor time' is
called `weighted time' (in h). The values may be used for the
evaluation of long term comfort conditions. An acceptable
weighting time of, for example, 100150 h may be specied.
9.5. Non-steady state thermal environments
Non-steady state conditions often occur in the form of
temperature cycles, temperature ramps and temperature
transients. Some requirements are listed in ASHRAE Stan-
dard 55-92, but only limited research has been done on this
subject to date. In many buildings there may be large energy
savings if the indoor temperature is permitted to oat (ramp)
during day. But what is still acceptable and what the impact
is on productivity, remain largely unanswered questions in
the thermal comfort literature to date. It is also unclear
whether peoples acceptance of non-steady state conditions is
inuenced by whether they have personal control over those
conditions, such as with a task-ambient control system, or
with operable windows. An ASHRAE research project,
1161-TRP [12] has just begun to examine this very issue
by conducting eld studies of ofce buildings with operable
windows. Perhaps the ndings of this research may even-
tually be incorporated into future revisions of the standards.
10. Local thermal discomfort
The PMV and PPD indices express warm and cold dis-
comfort for the body as a whole. But thermal dissatisfaction
may also be caused by unwanted cooling (or heating) of one
particular part of the body (local discomfort). Local thermal
discomfort may be caused by draught, high vertical tem-
perature difference between head and ankles, too warm or
too cool a oor, or by too high a radiant temperature
asymmetry. Persons engaged in light sedentary activity
are the most sensitive to local discomfort. The diagrams
(Figs. 36) and Table 4 apply to this group of people with a
Fig. 3. Mean air velocity as a function of local air temperature and turbulence intensity for the three categories of the thermal environment.
544 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
thermal sensation for the whole-body close to neutral.
At higher activities, people are less thermally sensitive
and consequently the risk of local discomfort is lower.
The local discomfort criteria based on the three classes in
Table 1 are listed in Table 4 for possible inclusion in the
current round of revisions to the standards.
10.1. Draught
The inuence of air velocity on general thermal comfort
and on local thermal comfort has been studied quite exten-
sively in the USA, Europe and Japan. The effect of air
velocity has not only been studied with sedentary people in
general thermal comfort, but also with people at higher
activity levels and who are on the warm or cold side of
comfort. Air motion within a space can lead to draught
sensation, but may also lead to improved comfort under
warmconditions. The draught model, which is included both
in ASHRAE Standard 55 and EN ISO 7730, is listed as
DR = ((34 t
a
)(v 0:05)
0:62
)(0:37 v (Tu 3:14))
where DR is the draught rating, i.e. the percentage of people
dissatised due to draught; t
a
the local air temperature in 8C;
v the local mean air velocity in m s
1
; and Tu is the local
turbulence intensity in percent.
The model of draught is based on studies comprising 150
subjects exposed to air temperatures of 2026 8C, mean air
velocities of 0.050.4 m s
1
and turbulence intensities of 0
70%. The model applies to people at light, mainly sedentary
activity with a thermal sensation for the whole-body close to
neutral. The sensation of draught is lower at activities higher
than sedentary, and for people feeling warmer than neutral.
Recent studies by Griefhahn [13] indicate that this model
must be modied to take into account length of exposure and
activity level. Studies by Toftum and co-workers [8,1416]
show additional inuence of the velocity directions. The two
studies do not agree completely with the above draught
model. According to Griefhahn the models predict DR
percentages which are too low, while according to Toftum
et al. [8], it predicts values which are too high. Further
studies are needed before the draught model and Fig. 4 from
the proposed standards will be changed.
The above criteria show that some restrictive require-
ments on air velocity are necessary to avoid the sensation of
draught in cool environments. In warm environments it may,
however, be benecial for the total comfort to increase the
air velocity above these levels. This effect is partly included
in the use of the PMV-index. New studies indicate that, if the
occupant is allowed to select their own air speed higher air
temperatures are accepted [8].
10.2. Vertical air temperature difference
A high vertical air temperature difference between head
and ankles may cause discomfort. In Fig. 4, the percentage
of those dissatised as a function of the vertical air tem-
perature difference between head and ankles, is shown (1.1
and 0.1 m above the oor). The gure applies when the
temperature increases upwards. People are less sensitive for
decreasing temperature.
Fig. 4. Local discomfort caused by vertical air temperature difference.
Applies when the temperature increases with height from the floor.
Fig. 5. Local thermal discomfort caused by warm or cold floors.
Fig. 6. Local thermal discomfort caused by radiant temperature asymmetry.
B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548 545
The studies have mainly been made with seated people in
general thermal comfort so there is a need to extend research
to human subjects at other activity levels before revisions of
the indoor thermal environment standards can be proposed.
The criteria in Table 5 and Fig. 4 will be included in the
proposed revision.
10.3. Floor temperature
If the oor is too warm or too cool, the occupants may feel
uncomfortable due to warm or cool feet. For people wearing
light indoor shoes, it is the temperature of the oor rather
than the material of the oor covering which is important for
comfort. In Fig. 5, the percentage of those dissatised as a
function of the oor temperature, is shown for spaces which
people are with bare feetsee ISO/CD13732-2. In this case,
not only the oor temperature but also the oor material is
important for comfort.
The studies on oor temperatures and comfort have been
made for the situation where only the feet are in contact with
the oor. In Asia, it is common to sit or lie on the oor. This
may have an effect on the preferred oor temperature.
Several studies have been made in Japan and Korea, but
often with a very limited number of subjects. It is also very
important to distinguish between electrically heated oors
and water based oor heating systems. This has not been
taken into account in Table 4 proposed for the revision of EN
ISO 7730 and ASHRAE 55.
10.4. Radiant asymmetry
Radiant asymmetry may also cause discomfort. People
are most sensitive to radiant asymmetry caused by warm
ceilings or cool walls (windows). In Fig. 6, the percentage of
those dissatised as a function of the radiant temperature
asymmetry caused by a warm ceiling, a cool wall, a cool
ceiling or by a warm wall, is shown. Radiant asymmetry is
rarely a problem in ventilated/air-conditioned spaces, except
at high illumination levels and at large window areas. Direct
solar radiation should be avoided in the occupied zone, by
means of building design or solar shading devices.
In industrial work places, it is mainly the radiant asym-
metry from overhead radiant heaters or a hot roof, which
cause problems. The values established for sedentary per-
sons are too conservative for the higher activity levels and
higher ceilings in industry. A study by Langkilde et al. [17]
shows that signicantly higher radiant asymmetry is accep-
table. Based on criteria similar to the above requirements
of less than 5% dissatised, the recommended asymmetry
limit is 1014 8C. In these studies there were no differences
between seated and standing persons. Also the inuence of
wearing a helmet was insignicant. In previous studies simu-
lating the conditions in residential and commercial buildings,
the distance between the heated ceiling and the head of the
subjects was only 1 m, while the distance between the infrared
radiant heaters and the head was 4 m in the experiments
reported by Langkilde et al. [17]. For the same asymmetry
level in the two types of experiments, the difference in the
radiant temperature level at feet and head height will be much
larger whenthe distance fromthe persontothe heaters is small
(1 m). In industrial work places where the heaters normally
are mounted more than 4 m from the occupants, a larger
asymmetry can be accepted before the temperature difference
felt between head and feet causes discomfort. That is also the
reason why no difference was found between seated and
standing persons. The change proposed for the standards is
the inclusion of Table 5 with the three levels and Fig. 6.
11. Discussion and conclusion
Some important issues are being discussed in the current
round of standard revisions. Fullling the given criteria does
not guarantee 100% thermal acceptability. Due to individual
differences, it may be very difcult to satisfy everybody in a
space but some forms of individual control of the thermal
environment combined with individual adaptation (clothing,
activity) will increase the level of acceptance.
Field studies have shown that for heated and air-condi-
tioned buildings the use of the PMV/PPD index agrees with
the observations. But for `free-running' buildings in warm
climates, where summertime reliance on natural ventilation
occurs, there seems to be an additional adaptation which
cannot be explained alone by behavioral adaptations, such as
changes to clothing or air velocity. It may be due partly to the
adaptation of the activity (metabolic rates), which is very
difcult to measure in the eld. Most likely, it is primarily
due to psychological adaptation in the form of shifting
expectations which result from having personal control,
and a history of more diverse thermal experiences.
Another issue is whether the thermal environment must be
inside the given range 100% of the time, or whether it is
Table 5
Recommended categories for local thermal discomfort parameters
Category Vertical air temperature
difference (K)
Floor surface
temperature (8C)
Radiant temperature asymmetry (K)
Warm ceiling Cool ceiling Cool wall Warm wall
A <2 1929 <5 <14 <10 <23
B <3 1929 <5 <14 <10 <23
C <4 1731 <7 <18 <13 <35
546 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548
more reasonable to allow conditions to vary outside the
specied criteria for some limited periods of time. For each
of the thermal comfort factors, it may be possible from
measurements or calculations to calculate a factor `%
dissatisfied time' to take into account how long a time,
and by how much, the conditions may deviate from the
established comfort criteria. For such factor(s), additional
criteria may be established or the values should be given in
terms of an overall index of indoor environmental quality.
Except for draught (air velocity), the local thermal dis-
comfort parameters like vertical air temperature differences,
oor surface temperatures and radiant temperature asym-
metry have mainly been studied for younger, sedentary
people in general thermal comfort. The studies have in most
cases only looked at one factor. There is a need to extend the
study on local thermal comfort parameters for other types of
activities and subject groups.
There is very little information on the combined effect of
general thermal comfort and local thermal comfort. Some
studies have been made on the inuence of air velocity
(draught) and general thermal discomfort. The inuence of
the general thermal comfort on other local discomfort para-
meters like radiant temperature asymmetry, vertical air tem-
perature differences, and oor temperatures has not been
studied. Moreover, very few studies have looked at the com-
bined effect of several local thermal discomfort parameters.
To be able to predict the combined inuence of the
thermal environment on people, it is important to obtain
more information on the combined effect of general and
local comfort, and when there is exposure to several local
discomfort parameters at the same time. As there are very
large inter-individual variances in response to the thermal
environment, it is essential to use relatively large samples of
subjects to enable research results to achieve the statistical
signicance necessary for generalization in practice.
A key objective of standards is to transfer the latest
scientic knowledge into practice. Standards governing
indoor thermal environments at the international level (Inter-
national Standard Organization (ISO); European Standard
Organization (CEN)), and also the national level (ASHRAE)
are on a constant cycle of revision, public review, and
promulgation. Substantial progress in our understanding
of human response to thermal environments has been made
in numerous laboratory and eld research projects in the last
decade. Many of these signicant advances are now inform-
ing the current round of standard revisions.
Appendix A.
A.1. ISO TC 159 SC5ergonomics of the physical
environment: summary of work
ISO TC159 SC5 produces International Standards in the
area of the ergonomics of the physical environment. As this
has a wide scope and standards are produced in other areas of
standardization (e.g. vibration) within ergonomics this has
been conned to thermal environments (WG1), lighting
(WG2) and danger signals and communication in noisy
environments (WG3). WG1 produces standards concerned
with heat stress, cold stress and thermal comfort as well as
supporting standards concerned with the thermal properties
of clothing and metabolic heat production due to activity. It
also considers physiological measures, skin reaction to
contact with hot, moderate and cold surfaces and thermal
comfort requirements for people with special requirements.
WG2 is concerned with the ergonomics of lighting and is
strongly guided by the international lighting commission
(CIE). WG3 considers communication in noisy environ-
ments including warning and danger signals and speech.
Recent new work items have included the effects of com-
bined stress environments and also the performance of
glazing in terms of visual and thermal comfort.
A.2. Published standards and standards in development
v ISO 7243 (1995): Hot environmentsestimation of the
heat stress on working man, based on the WBGT-index
(wet bulb globe temperature).
v ISO 7726 (1998): Thermal environmentsinstruments
and methods for measuring physical quantities.
v ISO 7730 (1994): Moderate thermal environments
determination of the PMVand PPD indices and specifica-
tion of the conditions for thermal comfort.
v ISO 7731 (1986): Danger signals for workplacesaudi-
tory danger signals.
v ISO 7933 (1989): Hot environmentsanalytical determi-
nation and interpretation of thermal stress using calcula-
tion of required sweat rate.
v ISO 8995 (1989): Principles of visual ergonomicsthe
lighting of indoor work systems.
v ISO 8996 (1990): Ergonomicsdetermination of meta-
bolic heat production.
v ISO 9886 (1992): Evaluation of thermal strain by phy-
siological measurements.
v ISO 9920 (1995): Ergonomics of the thermal environ-
mentestimation of the thermal insulation and evapora-
tive resistance of a clothing ensemble.
v ISO 9921-1 (1996): Ergonomic assessment of speech
communication (Part 1)speech interference level and
communication distances for persons with normal hearing
capacity in direct communication (SIL method).
v ISO 10551 (1995): Ergonomics of the thermal environ-
mentassessment of the influence of the thermal envir-
onment using subjective judgment scales.
v ISO 11399 (1995): Ergonomics of the thermal environ-
mentprinciples and application of International Stan-
dards.
v ISO 11428 (1994): Ergonomicsvisual danger signals
general requirements, design and testing.
v ISO 11429 (1994): Ergonomicssystem of danger and
non-danger signals with sound and light.
B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548 547
A.3. Technical reports
v ISOTR 11079 (technical report, 1993): Evaluation of cold
environmentsdetermination of required clothing insu-
lation, IREQ.
A.4. Current work programme
A.4.1. Ergonomics of the thermal environmentISO TC
159 SC5 WG1
v ISO 15742: Ergonomics of the physical environment
combined effects of thermal environment, air pollution,
acoustics and illumination.
v Revision of ISO 7933 (1989): Hot environmentsanaly-
tical determination and interpretation of thermal stress
using calculation of required sweat rate.
v Revision of ISO 8996 (1990): Ergonomicsdetermina-
tion of metabolic heat production.
v Revision of ISO 9886 (1992): Evaluation of thermal strain
by physiological measurements.
v Revision of ISO 7730 (1994): Ergonomics of the thermal
environmentanalytical determination and interpretation
of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMVand PPD
indices and local thermal comfort.
v Revision of ISO TR 11079 (technical report, 1993): Inter-
national Standardevaluation of cold environments
determination of required clothing insulation, IREQ.
v ISO DIS 11371: Ergonomics of the thermal environ-
mentvocabulary and symbols.
v ISO DIS 12894 (1993): Ergonomics of the thermal envir-
onmentmedical supervision of individuals exposed to
hot or cold environments.
v ISO/NP 13732 (Part 1): Ergonomics of the thermal
environmentmethods for the assessment of human
responses to contact with surfaces (Part 1: hot surfaces).
v ISO CD 13732 (Part 2): Ergonomics of the thermal
environmentmethods for the assessment of human
responses to contact with surfaces (Part 2: moderate
surfaces).
v ISO/NP 13732 (Part 3): Ergonomics of the thermal
environmentmethods for the assessment of human
responses to contact with surfaces (Part 3: cold surfaces).
v ISONP 14405: Ergonomics of the thermal environment
evaluation of the thermal environment in vehicles.
v ISONP 14415: Ergonomics of the thermal environment
application of International Standards to the disabled, the
aged and other handicapped persons.
v ISONP 15265: Ergonomics of the thermal environment
risk of stress or discomfort.
v ISONP 15743: Ergonomics of the thermal environment
working practices for cold indoor environments.
A.4.2. LightingISO TC 159 SC5 WG2
v Revision of ISO 8995 (1989): Principles of visual ergo-
nomicsthe lighting of indoor work systems.
A.5. Danger signals and communication in noisy
environmentsISO TC 159 SC5 WG3
v ISO 9921: Ergonomic assessment of speech communica-
tion in noisy environmentsrevision of Part 1 and to
include Parts 0, 2 and 3 (principles, criteria, prediction
and assessment).
v Revision of ISO 7731 (1986): Danger signals for work-
placesauditory danger signals.
References
[1] N. Delleman, T. Itani, K.C. Parsons, K. Scheuermann, T. Stewart,
User involvement in International Standardization, in: Proceedings of
the XIVth Triennial Congress of the IEA and 44th Annual Meeting of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Ergonomics for the New
Millennium, 29 July4 August 2000.
[2] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen,
1970.
[3] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Conflicting criteria for thermal
sensation within the Fanger predicted mean vote equation, in:
Proceedings of CIBSE/ASHRAE Joint National Conference, Harro-
gate, UK, 29 September1 October 1996.
[4] A.P. Gagge, J.A.J. Stolwijk, Y. Nishi, An effective temperature scale
based on a single model of human physiological temperature
response, ASHRAE Transactions 77 (1971) 247262.
[5] G. Havenith, I. Holmer, K.C. Parsons, Personal factors in thermal
comfort assessment: the estimation of clothing properties and
metabolic heat production, Energy and Buildings (2002).
[6] CR 1752, Ventilation for Buildings: Design Criteria for the Indoor
Environment, CEN, Brussels, 1998.
[7] ASHRAE Standard 55-92, Thermal Environment Conditions for
Human Occupancy, ASHRAE, Atlanta, 1992.
[8] J. Toftum, A.K. Melikov, L.W. Rasmussen, A.A. Kuciel, E.A.
Cinalska, A. Tynel, M. Bruzda, P.O. Fanger, Human Response to Air
Movement. Part 1. Preference and Draught Discomfort, ASHRAE
Project 843-TRP, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, 2000.
[9] R. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal
comfort and preference, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1a) (1998) 145
167.
[10] L.G. Berglund, Comfort and humidity, ASHRAE Journal 40 (8)
(1998).
[11] L. Fang, G. Clausen, P.O. Fanger, The impact of temperature and
humidity on perception and emission of indoor air pollutants, in:
Proceedings of Indoor Air'96, Tokyo, Institute of Public Health,
Tokyo, 1996.
[12] S.G. Brager, 1161-TRP: The Effect of Personal Control and Thermal
Variability on Comfort and Acceptability, Contract Awarded by
ASHRAE, September 2000.
[13] B. Griefhahn, Bewertung von Zugluft am Arbeitsplatz, Fb 828,
Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedi-
zin, Dortmund, 1999.
[14] J. Toftum, R. Nielsen, Draught sensitivity is influenced by general
thermal sensation, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18
(4) (1996) 295305.
[15] J. Toftum, R. Nielsen, Impact of metabolic rate on human response to
air movements during work in cool environments, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18 (4) (1996) 307316.
[16] J. Toftum, G. Zhou, A. Melikov, Airflow direction and human
sensitivity to draught, in: Proceedings of CLIMA 2000, Brussels, 1997.
[17] G. Langkilde, L. Gunnarsen, N. Mortensen, 1985. Comfort limits
during infrared radiant heating of industrial spaces. CLIMA 2000,
Copenhagen.
548 B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 537548