energies

Article
Thermal Comfort Evaluation of Rooms Installed with
STPV Windows
Hao Tian 1 , Wei Zhang 1, *, Lingzhi Xie 2 , Zhichun Ni 3 , Qingzhu Wei 3 , Xinwen Wu 1 ,
Wei Wang 1 and Mo Chen 1
1 Key Laboratory of Deep Underground Science and Engineering (Ministry of Education), School of
Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China; piscesth@163.com (H.T.);
13305788343@163.com (X.W.); 13540025344@163.com (W.W.); chenmo@stu.scu.edu.cn (M.C.)
2 Institute of New Energy and Low-carbon Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China;
xielingzhi@scu.edu.cn
3 Suzhou Talesun Solar Technologies Co., Ltd., Suzhou 215542, China; Paul@talesun.com (Z.N.);
qingzhu.wei@talesun.com (Q.W.)
* Correspondence: xskin821@163.com; Tel.: +86-18683682165




Received: 25 January 2019; Accepted: 26 February 2019; Published: 28 February 2019


Abstract: Thermal comfort is an important aspect to take into consideration for the indoor
environment of a building integrated with a semi-transparent Photovoltaics (STPV) system. The
thermal comfort of units with photovoltaic windows and that of conventional windows, which is an
ordinary without PV, were evaluated via on-site tests and questionnaires. Using the thermal comfort
investigation of the test rig, the maximum difference in air temperature was found to be around
5 ◦ C between test unit and comparison unit. The predicted mean vote (PMV)–predicted percentage
dissatisfied (PPD) value of the test unit was better than that of the comparison unit. It was observed
that on sunny days, the PMV value ranged from 0.2 (nature) to 1.3 (slightly warm) in the test unit,
and that of the comparison unit was 0.7 (slightly warm) to 2.0 (warm), thereby providing better
thermal comfort, especially during mornings. The maximum difference in PPD values was found to
reach 27% between the two units at noon. On cloudy days, the difference was negligible, and the
thermal sensation between the foot and the head were almost the same. Fifty respondents were asked
to complete a carefully designed questionnaire. The thermal sensation of the test unit was better than
that of comparison unit, which corresponded with the test results. Thermal, lighting, acoustic, and
other environment comfort scores were combined, and the acceptance of the test unit with the STPV
windows was found to be 73.8%. The thermal sensation difference between men and women was
around 5%. Thus, during summer, STPV windows can improve the thermal comfort and potentially
reduce the air-conditioning load.

Keywords: Semi-transparent PV (STPV) windows; thermal comfort; on-site test; questionnaire;

PMV-PPD

1. Introduction
Since accelerated economic development goes hand in hand with exorbitant energy consumption,
the demand of energy is continually on the rise. Thus, it is essential to reduce worldwide resource
consumption [1]. About 40% of the energy is consumed in buildings [2]. Heating ventilation and
air-conditioning systems (HVACs) contribute to the largest chunk of energy consumption in the
overall energy demand in buildings [3]. Photovoltaics (PV) window technology is the key to solve
this problem since it can reduce purchased electricity costs of air conditioning and also change the
indoor environment.

Energies 2019, 12, 808; doi:10.3390/en12050808 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 808 2 of 15

The popular photovoltaic

The popular photovoltaiccells
cells applied
applied on on
STPV STPV windows
windows can becandivided
be divided into crystalline
into crystalline silicon
silicon solar cells (c-Si) and amorphous solar cells (a-Si). As shown in Figure
solar cells (c-Si) and amorphous solar cells (a-Si). As shown in Figure 1, the c-Si module 1, the c-Si module
is non-
is non-transparent,
transparent, but hasbut haspower
high high power generation
generation efficiency.
efficiency. Themodule
The a-Si a-Si module has good
has good transmittance,
transmittance, but
but
with low power generation efficiency in the range of about 4.1%–12%. Recently, concentrator
with low power generation efficiency in the range of about 4.1–12%. Recently, concentrator
photovoltaics
photovoltaics (CPVs)
(CPVs) have
have been
been applied
applied to
to STPV
STPV windows
windowsto tobring
bringabout
aboutbetter
betterperformances.
performances.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1.
Figure 1. (a) Amorphous solar cells (a-Si), (b) crystalline silicon solar cells (c-Si), and (c) concentrator
photovoltaic (CPV) cell.
photovoltaic (CPV) cell.

For the research on on PVPV window

windowtechnology,
technology,aaseries seriesofofstudies
studiesfocusing
focusing onon thethe performance
performance of
of
STPVSTPV windows
windows (and(and others)
others) investigated
investigated the energy
the energy savingsaving
effect ofeffect of PV windows.
PV windows. Jong-Ho Jong-Ho
Yoon [4]
Yoon [4] conducted
conducted an experiment an experiment
about theabout the temperature
temperature of STPV of STPV windows,
windows, the results theshowed
results showed
that the
that the temperature
temperature of vertical of windows
vertical windows increase significantly
increase significantly in summer, in summer,
while thatwhile that of horizontal
of horizontal windows
windows
and inclined andwindows
inclined windows
increases increases
significantly significantly
in winter.inK.E. winter.
Park K.E. Park [5] discovered
[5] discovered that whenthat the
when the temperature of the PV module increases by 1 ◦ C, the power decreases by 0.48% and 0.52%
temperature of the PV module increases by 1 °C, the power decreases by 0.48% and 0.52% under
under
standard standard test conditions
test conditions (STCs) (STCs)
(500W/m (500 W/m2 outdoor).
2 outdoor). Tin-tai Chow Tin-tai Chow
et al. et al. [6] adesigned
[6] designed ventilated a
ventilated
photovoltaic photovoltaic
window whose window newwhosedesignnewcould design couldair
reduce reduce air conditioning
conditioning load and load and improve
improve visual
visual
comfort. comfort.
Nuria Nuria [7] installed
[7] installed photovoltaic
photovoltaic windows
windows in ain room,
a room,and andobtained
obtained decreased
decreased energy
consumption.
consumption. CristinaCristinaCornaro
Cornaro et al.
et [8]
al. invented
[8] invented dye-sensitized
dye-sensitizedsolar cells
solarand tested
cells andittested
for its electrical
it for its
and thermal
electrical andproperties. Dye-sensitized
thermal properties. solar cells play
Dye-sensitized an important
solar cells play role in renewable
an important roleenergy research
in renewable
due
energyto its features
research dueand tolow-cost
its featuresmanufacturing
and low-costprocesses.
manufacturing processes.
The systematic
systematic investigation
investigation of buildings buildings equipped
equipped with STPV STPV windows
windows shouldshould include
include
performance
performance assessment, energy consumption prediction, and thermal comfort evaluation. The
assessment, energy consumption prediction, and thermal comfort evaluation.
possibility
possibility of of STPV
STPV windows
windows improving
improving the the indoor
indoor thermal
thermal environment
environment is is worth
worth investigating.
investigating. Most
of the
the previous
previous studies
studies have focused on the technological technological aspect of STPV windows, but only a few
articles focus on the indoor comfort of STPV windows. With regard to the influence of of PV
PV windows
windows
on the indoor lighting environment, Wei Wang Wang et et al.
al. [9]
[9] discovered
discovered that that onon sunny
sunny days
days thethe effective
effective
daylight illumination (UDI) of the laboratory was 52.2% higher than that of the conventional room.
Khedari et
J. Khedari et al.
al. [10]
[10] investigated
investigated the the performance
performance of a multi-purpose
multi-purpose PV-slat window (PV-SW) and and
found that the multi-purpose PV-SW can produce up to 15 W of
found of power,
power, decrease indoor temperature,
temperature,
provide sufficient
and provide sufficient light
light for
for the
the house. However,
However, a lot of researchers have investigated the indoor
environment, where
environment, where somesome focus
focus onon how
how PV PV windows
windows affectaffectthe
theindoor
indoorenvironment.
environment.
From previous
From previousresearch
researchit itcan canbebe found
found thatthat windows
windows havehave a large
a large impact impact on indoor
on indoor comfort.
comfort. Solar
Solar radiation
radiation enters the enters
room the roomthrough
mainly mainlywindows,through whichwindows, affectswhich affectsthermal
the indoor the indoor thermal
environment.
environment.
Javad Khalesi et Javad Khalesi
al. [11] studied et the
al. [11]
impactstudied the impact of
of a combination of aa combination
passive ventilationof a passive
systemventilation
and smart
system and
windows in asmart windows inbuilding.
climate-adaptive a climate-adaptive
It was demonstratedbuilding.that It was
up todemonstrated
50% reductionthat up to 50%
in temperature
reduction in
difference temperature
between the floordifference between
and ceiling was the floor and
achievable ceiling
with was achievable
electrochromic with electrochromic
windows. MingzheLiu
windows.
et MingzheLiu
al. [12] conducted et al. [12] analysis
parametric conducted on parametric analysis
the heat transfer, on the heat
daylight, and transfer, daylight,for
thermal comfort and a
thermal comfort
sustainable for a sustainable
roof window with tripleroof window
glazing with triple
and external glazing
shutter. Theand external
results shutter.
revealed Theexternal
that the results
revealedimproved
shutter that the both external shutter improved
the thermal and comfort both the thermalofand
performances the comfort
window.performances
Performanceof of the
an
window. Performancewindow
evaporatively-cooled of an evaporatively-cooled
driven by a solar window chimneydriven by a solar
was studied in achimney
dry climatewas studied
by Walid in
a dry climate by Walid AbouHweij et al. [13]. A system model was coupled to a space Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model to predict the window temperature and impact on comfort. The results
showed significant improvement in overall thermal comfort, and air-conditioning energy savings of
Energies 2019, 12, 808 3 of 15

AbouHweij et al. [13]. A system model was coupled to a space Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
model to predict the window temperature and impact on comfort. The results showed significant
improvement in overall thermal comfort, and air-conditioning energy savings of up to 10% were
up to 10% were
recorded. recorded.
Wei Zhang Wei
et al. [14]Zhang
used et al. [14] used
machine machine
learning (ML)learning
to bridge(ML) to bridge
the gap the gap
between between
controllable
controllable
building buildingand
parameters parameters and thermal
thermal comfort comfortanbyextensive
by conducting conductingstudyanonextensive study
the efficacy on the
of different
efficacy
ML of different
techniques ML techniques
for modeling comfort forlevel.
modeling
Huancomfort
Zhang et level. Huan
al. [15] Zhang aetcorrected
proposed al. [15] proposed
predicteda
corrected
mean votepredicted
(CPMV) to mean vote (CPMV)
evaluate the indoor to thermal
evaluatecomfort
the indoor thermal
in solar comfort in solar conditions.
conditions.
The CPMV was validated to be applicable for evaluating the indoor thermal comfort of buildings
solar radiation.
with solar radiation. For the assessment of indoor thermal comfort, a test or a questionnaire were
selected as the evaluation methods. In J Khalesi’s [10] research, the temperature stratification and air
monitored. Francesca Stazi et al. [16] developed an automatic
quality of the indoor environment are monitored.
system for the opening and closing of windows in order to optimize optimize indoor air quality and thermal
comfort ininclassrooms.
comfort classrooms. TheThe objective
objective approaches
approaches were compared
were compared to the students’
to the students’ subjective
subjective responses,
responses,
which werewhich were
collected collected
via via questionnaires.
questionnaires.
To conclude,
To conclude, thermal comfort is an important
important aspect of the the indoor
indoor environment
environment of buildings
buildings
integrated with a PV system. In this article, the thermal comfort in the test unit, equipped with both
PV windows and conventional windows, was evaluated by on-site testing and questionnaires. questionnaires. It was
conducted in the city of Chengdu, which is located in the
conducted the southwest
southwest of of China,
China, during
during the
thehot
hotsummer.
summer.
For on-site testing, the examination of thermal comfort in the comparison unit was presented using
predictedmean
the predicted meanvote—predicted
vote—predicted percentage
percentage dissatisfied
dissatisfied (PMV-PPD)
(PMV-PPD) index.
index. Fifty Fifty respondents
respondents were
were asked to complete a well-designed questionnaire based on the standard ‘Evaluation
asked to complete a well-designed questionnaire based on the standard ‘Evaluation Method of Indoor Method of
Indoor Thermal
Thermal ComfortComfort
in China’in GB
China’ GB T33658-2017
T33658-2017 [17]. [17].

2. Methodology

2.1. Test Unit

2.1. Test Unit and
and PV
PV Module
Module
The
The test
test rig
rig included
includedtwo
twoidentical
identicaltest
testunits (depth)×× 33 m
units(3(3mm(depth) (width)×
m (width) × 33 m
m (height)),
(height)), as
as shown
shown
in
in Figure
Figure 2.
2. The
The windows
windows were
were installed
installed on
on aa south-facing
south-facing wall. The window
wall. The window to to wall
wall ratio
ratio was
was in
in
accordance with ‘Code for thermal design of civil building’ ‘GB-50176’
accordance with ‘Code for thermal design of civil building’ ‘GB-50176′ [18]. [18].

Test unit Comparison unit

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Test unit.
Test unit.

Our research team team designed

designed the
the prototypes
prototypes of of the
the STPV
STPV windows.
windows. The STPV window was
comprised of
comprised of aa layer
layer of
of tempered
temperedglass,
glass,aalayer
layerofofair,
air,and
anda alayer
layerofoffilm
filmmodule,
module,asasshown
shown
inin Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
The parameters
parameters ofof the
the STPVwindow
STPV windowareareshown
shownininTable
Table1.1.This
Thisincreases
increases the
the air thermal resistance,
can effectively
which can effectively prevent
prevent outdoor
outdoor heat
heat from
from entering.
entering.
 Energies 2019, 12, 808 4 of 15

(a)(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of PV window: (a) single-layer, (b) double-layer.
Figure 3. Schematic
Figure diagram
3. Schematic diagramofofPV
PVwindow: (a) single-layer,
window: (a) single-layer,(b)(b) double-layer.
double-layer.

Table 1. Physical and electrical properties.

Table 1. Physical and electrical properties.
a.a.Electrical
Electrical properties ofa-Si
properties of a-Si
PV module PV module a. Electrical properties of a-Si amorphous silicon
amorphous silicon
PV module
Maximum power
Maximum(W)power (W) 50/m2 amorphous
50/m 2 silicon
Maximum power rate
PV
PV conversion (W)
conversion rate 6.7% 50/m
6.7% 2

PV conversion rate b.b.Physical properties

Physical properties 6.7%
Layer Layer b. Physical properties thickness (mm)
thickness (mm)
Glass
Layer tempered
Glass tempered 6 6 thickness (mm)
Air gap Air gap 9 96
Glass tempered Single PV glass 10
Single PV glass 10
Air gap 9
c.c.Other
Other properties
properties
Single PV glassWeight density 10
40 kg/m2 40 kg/m2
Weight density
Dimension Dimension c. Other properties 1.24 m (L) × 0.64
1.24 mm(L)
(W) 0.64 m (W)
Weight density Visible transmittance 20% 40 kg/m2
Visible transmittance 20%
Dimension 1.24 m (L) 0.64 m (W)
2.2. Test Equipment
2.2.Visible
Test and
and Method
transmittance
Equipment Method 20%
As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4,4, the
the weather
weather data
data was
was monitored
monitored with
with outdoor
outdoor test
test equipment,
equipment, and and
2.2. Test Equipment
measured and
humidity, Method
outdoor ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, air pressure,
measured humidity, outdoor ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, air pressure, global solar global
solar radiation,
radiation, direct direct solar radiation,
solar radiation, etc.
etc. The The diagram
diagram of the of the indoor
indoor air temperature
air temperature test is test is shown
shown in
in Figure
As shown
Figure 5.
in 2Figure
Table shows
4, the
all
thekey
weather data and
instruments
was monitored
their
with outdoor
specifications.
test equipment, and
5. Table 2 shows all the key instruments and their specifications.
measured humidity, outdoor ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, air pressure, global solar
radiation, direct solar radiation, etc. The diagram of the indoor air temperature test is shown in Figure
5. Table 2 shows all the key instruments and their specifications.

(a)
Figure 4. Cont.

(a)
Energies 2019, 12, 808 5 of 15

(air temperature, radiant

(b)
temperature, humility,
4. Test
Figure 4. Testequipment.
equipment. (a)(a) Outdoor
Outdoor wind
environmental direction,
environmental
and and
power and
power air
generation
generation test equipment.
test equipment. (b)
(b) Indoor
flow)
Indoor environment
environment test equipment.
test equipment.

The indoor environment test equipment was capable of measuring the indoor temperature,
humidity, radiant temperature, air flow rate, wet bulb temperature, and illumination in accordance
with the ‘standard of test methods for thermal environment of building’ JGJ/T 347-2014. [19]. Thermal
comfort performance of the test unit and comparison unit was measured using the thermal comfort
meter.
The measuring points were arranged at intervals of 0.5 m from the floor at the diagonal
intersection of the building. They were mounted on a photovoltaic window facing south. Relative
humidity in the test unit was measured using a high precision data recorder. The radiation
temperature (Trt), ambient temperature, and air flow velocity were tested by a thermal comfort meter
with relatively high precision. All the parameters were measured by the ‘Evaluation Method of
Indoor Thermal Comfort in China’ [17].
The indoor air temperature, the inner and outer surface temperature of the PV module, and the
ambient temperature of the test unit were measured with 15 T-type thermocouples. Relative
humidity of the test unit was Figuremeasured by adiagram
5. Placement high precision
of the test(+2%) data recorder. The global solar
equipment.
irradiance on the south vertical Figure 5. Placement
plane diagram with
was measured of the an
testadvanced
equipment. digital solar radiometer, and
air flow was measured using Table a hot 2. Instruments and specifications.
wire anemometer. Radiation temperature (Trt), ambient
2.3. Thermal Comfort Test Method
temperature, and
Equipment wind speed were
Manufacturer measured by an outdoor
Function environmental weather station in
Accuracy/Sensitivity
accordanceThe American
Outdoor with
Society of Heating,
‘GB T33658-2017′ [17].
multi-channel
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standard specifies CETCin
the conditions 41which a fractionPV of testing
the occupants find the environment0 W–10 kWthermally
PV
acceptable. The PMV-PPD
Solar radiation indicator is used to indicate
Table 2. Instruments
CETC41 people’s
andsolar
Testing the perceived
specifications.
radiation value
0–1800the
to W/m environment.
2 ; ±3%
The thermal comfort index PMV-PPD reflects the degree of human thermal balance deviation and is
Illuminance meter CETC41 Lighting test 0–100,000 lux; 1 lux; ±4%
a comprehensive
Equipment comfort indicator that representsFunction
Manufacturer the feelings of mostAccuracy/Sensitivit
people in the same
Multi-channel The minimum resolutions
y are
environment. CETC41 Data collector
data recorder 1 µV and 0.1 ◦ C
Outdoor multi-
PMV scales constitute seven thermal sensation points ranging from −3 (cold) to +3 (hot), where
CETC 41 Testing outdoorPV testing
environment Temperature: ±0.5 ◦ C,kW
0 W–10 humidity:
0 represents
channelneutral
PV thermal sensation. PMV is a mathematical
parameters (air temperature,
expression involving
0.1%, ±2%; atmospheric
activities,
Weather station
clothing, CETC41
Solar and four environmental
radiation parameters,Testing
CETC41 represented by equations
the solar
atmospheric radiationsuch
pressure, that
0–1800
pressure: 1Equations
W/m
mbar; 2;(1)
wind ±3%and
rate:
(2) can be plugged into Equation (3) and simplified. The
humility, andintermediate
air flow) value
0.1 of
m/s;the thermal
wind ±5%
resistance
direction:
0–100,000 lux; 1 lux;
L Illuminance
ofThermocouples-Tmeter
this paper was 0.09 m2·K/WCETC41
because of the thin Lighting
clothing test by people
worn −20 ◦in ◦ C; 0.1 ◦ C;[17]
the summer. ◦
The
CETC41 Temperature test C–100
±4% ±0.5 C
equations are defined as follows: Testing indoor environment The minimum
Multi-channel data
Thermal comfort meter M −CETC41
W = C R radiant
𝐸
parameters (air temperature,
𝐶Data collector𝑆
𝐸 humility, 𝑆 , resolutions
±0.5% are 1 (1)
CETC41 temperature, μV
recorder
wind direction, and air flow) and 0.1 °C
𝐿= M − W − 3.05 10 5733 − 6.99 M − W − Pa − 0.42 M−W −
Temperature:
58.15 − 1.7 10 M 5867 − Pa − 0.0014M 34 − t − 3.96 10 f (2)
The indoor environment test
t equipment
273 − t was Testing
273 − f outdoor
capableh of measuring
t −t , ±0.5indoor
the °C, humidity:
temperature,
humidity, radiant temperature, air flow rate, wet environment parameters
bulb temperature, 0.1%, ±2%;
and illumination in accordance
.
with the ‘standard of test PMV
Weather station = 3.155
CETC41
methods 0.3 𝑒 environment
for thermal (air 0.28 L. of building’ JGJ/T 347-2014
temperature, atmospheric (3) [19].
Thermal atmospheric pressure, pressure: 1 mbar;
where M is the rate of metabolic heat production (W/m ), W is rate of mechanical work (W/m ), thermal
comfort performance of the test unit and comparison
2 unit was measured using the 2 C is
comfort of convective heat loss (W/m2), R is thehumility,
meter.
the rate radiative and air flow)
sensible wind
heat loss from skinrate:
(W/m 0.12),m/s;
Cres is
Therate
the measuring points
of convective were
heat lossarranged at intervals
from respiration (W/m of2),
0.5Eres
misfrom the floor
the rate atwind direction:
the diagonal
of evaporative ±5%
intersection
heat loss from
of the building.(W/m
respiration They2), were mounted
Ssk is the on astorage
rate of heat photovoltaic
in the skin window
(W/m2),facing is the−20
and Scrsouth. °C–100
Relative
rate °C;
of heathumidity
storage in
Thermocouples-T CETC41 Temperature test
in the core (W/m 2). Load is the thermal load on the body, defined as the difference
the test unit was measured using a high precision data recorder. The radiation temperature (Trt), 0.1 °C;
between±0.5 °C
internal
heat production
Thermal and heat loss to the actual environment.
comfort TestingIclindoor
is the thermal resistance of clothing, in
square meters CETC41 area of the body with±0.5%
meterdegrees Celsius per Watt. fcl is the ratio of surface
environment parameters clothes to the
surface area of the body without clothes. ta is the air temperature, in degrees Celsius. tr is the mean
radiant temperature, in degrees Celsius.
Energies 2019, 12, 808 6 of 15

ambient temperature, and air flow velocity were tested by a thermal comfort meter with relatively high
precision. All the parameters were measured by the ‘Evaluation Method of Indoor Thermal Comfort
in China’ [17].
The indoor air temperature, the inner and outer surface temperature of the PV module, and the
ambient temperature of the test unit were measured with 15 T-type thermocouples. Relative humidity
of the test unit was measured by a high precision (+2%) data recorder. The global solar irradiance
on the south vertical plane was measured with an advanced digital solar radiometer, and air flow
was measured using a hot wire anemometer. Radiation temperature (Trt), ambient temperature, and
wind speed were measured by an outdoor environmental weather station in accordance with ‘GB
T33658-2017’ [17].

2.3. Thermal Comfort Test Method

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standard specifies the conditions in which a fraction of the occupants find the environment thermally
acceptable. The PMV-PPD indicator is used to indicate people’s perceived value to the environment.
The thermal comfort index PMV-PPD reflects the degree of human thermal balance deviation and is a
comprehensive comfort indicator that represents the feelings of most people in the same environment.
PMV scales constitute seven thermal sensation points ranging from −3 (cold) to +3 (hot), where 0
represents neutral thermal sensation. PMV is a mathematical expression involving activities, clothing,
and four environmental parameters, represented by equations such that Equations (1) and (2) can
be plugged into Equation (3) and simplified. The intermediate value of the thermal resistance L of
this paper was 0.09 m2 ·K/W because of the thin clothing worn by people in the summer. [17] The
equations are defined as follows:

M − W = (C + R + Esk ) + (Cres + Eres ) + (Ssk + Scr ), (1)

Load = (M − W) − 3.05 × 10−3 × [5733 − 6.99(M − W) − Pa]−

0.42 × [(M − W) − 58.15h] − 1.7 × 10−5 M × (5867 −
i Pa) − 0.0014M(34 − ta )− (2)
4
3.96 × 10−8 fcl × (tcl + 273)4 − (tr + 273) − fcl hc × [tcl − ta ],

PMV = 3.155·0.3·e−0.114·M + 0.28·L. (3)

where M is the rate of metabolic heat production (W/m2 ), W is rate of mechanical work (W/m2 ), C is
the rate of convective heat loss (W/m2 ), R is the radiative sensible heat loss from skin (W/m2 ), Cres is
the rate of convective heat loss from respiration (W/m2 ), Eres is the rate of evaporative heat loss from
respiration (W/m2 ), Ssk is the rate of heat storage in the skin (W/m2 ), and Scr is the rate of heat storage
in the core (W/m2 ). Load is the thermal load on the body, defined as the difference between internal
heat production and heat loss to the actual environment. Icl is the thermal resistance of clothing, in
square meters degrees Celsius per Watt. fcl is the ratio of surface area of the body with clothes to the
surface area of the body without clothes. ta is the air temperature, in degrees Celsius. tr is the mean
radiant temperature, in degrees Celsius.
The relationship between PPD and PMV is as follows [20]:
 
PPD = 100 − 95 exp −0.03353PMV4 − 0.2197PMV2 (4)

2.4. Subjective Investigation Method

This research was carried out based on the thermal comfort opinions of students from Sichuan
University and used the standard ASHRAE 7-point thermal sensation scale to assess the respondents’
perception of the indoor thermal environment. Before the experiment began, subjects were asked
to sit in the test unit for 15 min. Fifty people were divided into two groups on the basis of their
gender, consisting of 25 males and 25 females. Their anthropological data are shown in Table 3. The
Energies 2019, 12, 808 7 of 15

questionnaire attached to Table 4 was based on the “Evaluation Method of Indoor Thermal Comfort in
China” [17].

Table 3. Anthropology data of subjects.

Sex Sample size Age Height (m) Mass (kg) BMI a

Male 25 20.2 ± 0.8 1.69 ± 0.12 68.3 ± 0.7 23.9 ± 1.2
Female 25 19.8 ± 0.7 1.58 ± 0.04 52.1 ± 1.7 20.8 ± 0.1
a body mass index (BMI) = mass (kg)/[height (m)]2

Table 4. Thermal comfort questionnaire.

Survey No: Date:

Section 1: Individual Detail
1. Age: ————–yr. 2. Sex: M F 3. Height: ————cm 4. Weight: ————kg
5. Nationality: ————— 6. Native Place: —————————
Section 2: Thermal Environment
(1) What is your feeling about the temperature in this moment?
Cold Cool Slightly Cool Neutral Slightly warm Warm Hot
(2) How do you consider the temperature difference between head and ankle?
Completely not acceptable Not acceptable Slightly not acceptable Slightly acceptable
Acceptable Perfectly acceptable
(3) What is your thermal sensation?
Comfort Light annoyance Annoyance Heavy annoyance
(4) Based on your personal preferences, how would you consider the room temperature?
Acceptable Slightly acceptable Not acceptable Slightly not acceptable
(5) What is your opinion about this room?
Perfectly tolerable Slightly hard to tolerate Hard to tolerate
(6) What is your feeling about the humidity in this moment?
Very dry Moderately dry Slightly dry Neutral Slightly humid
Section 3: Other environment
(1) Subjective feeling of indoor light environment
Very dark Relatively dark Generally bright Relatively bright Very bright
(2) What do you think of the indoor light uniformity?
Uneven Slightly uneven Neutral Slightly uniformity Uniformity
(3) How’s indoor glare?
Terrible Slightly terrible Normal Good
(4) How do you feel about the indoor acoustic environment of the room?
Noisy Slightly noisy Normal Slightly Quiet Quiet
(5) How’s feeling about the indoor air quality?
Terrible Slightly terrible Receivability No air quality problem

3. Evaluation Results and Analysis

3.1. Thermal Environment Analysis with Semi-Transparent PV (STPV) Windows and Power Generation
There are two situations that should to be considered in the analysis of window structure,
single-layer and double-layer. As shown in Figure 6, the inner surface temperature of two STPV
windows were captured by an infrared thermal imager. The temperature of the inner surface of
the single-layer window was around 4 ◦ C higher than that of double-layer window. It would
bring a negative impact on the indoor thermal comfort and temperature fluctuations in the summer.
A double-layer STPV window was selected with air thermal resistance in order to improve indoor
thermal comfort.
The electrical energy generated test was carried out during the thermal environment test.
As shown in Figure 7, the global radiation on the window fluctuated from 50 W/m2 to 400 W/m2 with
a mean value in 184 W/m2 . The maximum power generation reached 30 W/m2 when the radiation
was 400 W/m2 . When it was sunny, the power generation could be 20 W~80 W with a mean power
 3. Evaluation Results and Analysis

Energies 2019, 12, 808

3.1. Thermal Environment Analysis with Semi-Transparent PV (STPV) Windows and Power Generation 8 of 15

There are two situations that should to be considered in the analysis of window structure, single-
generation
layer andin double-layer.
50 W. On the other hand,in
As shown theFigure
power6,generation
the inner was 15 W~60
surface W in cloudy
temperature conditions.
of two STPV
Compared to sunny days, the conversion efficiency on cloudy days was slightly
windows were captured by an infrared thermal imager. The temperature of the inner surface reduced, andofthe
maximum value was
the single-layer maintained
window at around
was around 4 °C5%. Thethan
higher electrical
that ofperformance
double-layertest results Itofwould
window. the a-Si
window
bring showed thatimpact
a negative the power generated
on the indoorby the a-Sicomfort
thermal windowand could meet partial
temperature energy demands
fluctuations in the of
thesummer.
buildingA in double-layer
this test during winter
STPV when was
window intensity of the
selected solar
with airradiation is low. Thein
thermal resistance mean
orderpower
to
conversion
improve efficiency was 5.6%
indoor thermal during the test.
comfort.

(b)
(a)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. 6. Infrared
Figure Infrared thermography
thermography ofofa asemi-transparent
semi-transparent PVPV (STPV)
(STPV) window:
window: (a) single-layer,
(a) single-layer, (b)
(b)double-layer.
double-layer.Visible
Visiblelight
lightofof
the STPV
the window:
STPV (c) (c)
window: single-layer, (d) double-layer.
single-layer, (d) double-layer.

The electrical energy generated test was carried out during the thermal environment test. As
shown in Figure 7, the global radiation on the window fluctuated from 50 W/m2 to 400 W/m2 with a
mean value in 184 W/m2. The maximum power generation reached 30 W/m2 when the radiation was
400 W/m2. When it was sunny, the power generation could be 20 W~80 W with a mean power
generation in 50 W. On the other hand, the power generation was 15 W~60 W in cloudy conditions.
Compared to sunny days, the conversion efficiency on cloudy days was slightly reduced, and the
maximum value was maintained at around 5%. The electrical performance test results of the a-Si
window showed that the power generated by the a-Si window could meet partial energy demands
of the building in this test during winter when intensity of the solar radiation is low. The mean power
conversion efficiency was 5.6% during the test.

Figure 7.
Figure Power generation
7. Power generation and
and radiation
radiation of
of STPV
STPV windows.
windows.

3.2. Thermal Comfort Comparison Test of the STPV Window and Conventional Window
The test was carried out from 3 July to 9 July, which included four sunny days and two cloudy
days. The mean air temperature and radiant temperature of the room equipped with the STPV
 Figure 7. Power generation and radiation of STPV windows.
Energies 2019, 12, 808 9 of 15
3.2. Thermal Comfort Comparison Test of the STPV Window and Conventional Window
TheThermal
3.2. test was carried
Comfort out fromTest
Comparison 3 July
of theto 9 July,
STPV which
Window andincluded fourWindow
Conventional sunny days and two cloudy
days. The mean air temperature and radiant temperature of the room equipped with the STPV
The test was carried out from 3 July to 9 July, which included four sunny days and two cloudy
window
days.and conventional
The mean window
air temperature and are shown
radiant in Figure
temperature 8. room
of the On 7equipped
July, a sunny
with theday,
STPVthe mean air
window
temperature in the comparison
and conventional window areunitshownand intest unit
Figure 8. reached
On 7 July,37a °C andday,
sunny 32.5the
°C, respectively.
mean The radiant
air temperature in
temperature in the comparison unit and test unit
◦ reached ◦ 38.5 °C and 32.7 °C, respectively.
the comparison unit and test unit reached 37 C and 32.5 C, respectively. The radiant temperature On in9 July,
a cloudy day, the mean
the comparison airtest
unit and temperature
unit reachedin38.5 ◦
the C room ◦
with C,
and 32.7 conventional
respectively. window
On 9 July, and PV window
a cloudy day,
◦
reached 28.8 air
the mean °C temperature
and 26.5 °Cinrespectively.
the room with The radiant window
conventional temperature
and PVinwindow
the comparison
reached 28.8 unitC and
and test
26.5 ◦ C respectively. The radiant temperature in the comparison unit and test unit reached 29.3 ◦ C and
unit reached 29.3 °C and 27.4 °C, respectively. The mean air temperature and radiant temperature of
◦ C, respectively. The mean air temperature and radiant temperature of the test unit were always
27.4unit
the test were always lower than that of the comparison unit during daytime. The temperature
lower than
rose at a slightly that of therate
faster comparison unit during
in the morning anddaytime.
fell at a The temperature
slower rosethe
rate during at aafternoon.
slightly faster
In rate
general,
in the morning and fell at a slower rate during the afternoon. In general, the radiant temperature was
the radiant temperature was higher than air temperature during the daytime and was slightly lower
higher than air temperature during the daytime and was slightly lower at night. This was because
at night. This was because solar energy transmitted during daytime and was transmitted/conducted
solar energy transmitted during daytime and was transmitted/conducted from indoors to outdoors
fromatindoors to outdoors at night. It can be seen from Figure 8 that after installing the STPV window,
night. It can be seen from Figure 8 that after installing the STPV window, the fluctuation in air
the fluctuation
temperatureinand airradiant
temperature and radiant
temperature decreasedtemperature decreased
as a result of the betteras a result
thermal of the better
performance of thermal
the
performance
STPV window.of the STPV window.

Figure
Figure 8. 8. Outdoortemperature
Outdoor temperature and
andindoor
indoortemperature.
temperature.

In order to analyze the local thermal comfort, the air temperatures from 0.5 m to 2 m in the test
are shown in Figure 9. From 0.5 m to 2 m, the temperature gradually increased over a small range.
The maximum difference between the temperature at 0.5 m and 2 m was lower than 1 ◦ C. Thus, the
temperature difference was insignificant from 0.5 m to 2 m. This indicates that the local thermal
comfort was uniform and acceptable.
Indoor thermal comfort is a comprehensive index that includes the measurement of the solar
radiation, temperature, radiant temperature, humidity, and air flow rate. The plot representation of
the PMV-PPD value, proposed by GB/T50785-2012 [20] to assess the whole-body thermal comfort, can
be found in Figure 10.
 In order to analyze the local thermal comfort, the air temperatures from 0.5 m to 2 m in the test
are shown in Figure 9. From 0.5 m to 2 m, the temperature gradually increased over a small range.
The maximum difference between the temperature at 0.5 m and 2 m was lower than 1 °C. Thus, the
temperature difference was insignificant from 0.5 m to 2 m. This indicates that the local thermal
Energies 2019, 12, 808 10 of 15
comfort was uniform and acceptable.

Figure
Figure 9. Temperature
9. Temperature from0.5
from 0.5m
m to
to 22 m
m in
in the
theroom
roomwith
withSTPV window.
STPV window.

Indoor thermal comfort is a comprehensive index that includes the measurement of the solar
radiation, temperature, radiant temperature, humidity, and air flow rate. The plot representation of
the PMV-PPD value, proposed by GB/T50785-2012 [20] to assess the whole-body thermal comfort,
can be found in Figure 10.
During sunny days, according to the test, the PPD measurements in the test unit fluctuated from
5.8% to 51.2%. In the test unit, the most uncomfortable conditions also occurred during the noon
period, with a PMV value of 1.3. On the other hand, PPD measurements in the comparison unit
fluctuated from 18.6% to 76.9%. The most uncomfortable conditions occurred during the noon period
with a PMV value of 2.0 in the comparison unit. When the solar radiation did not reach a high value,
occurring in the morning, the test unit obtained the most comfortable conditions according to the
PMV-PPD value.
During cloudy days, due to the low solar radiation, the PV window only worked for short
periods of time. PPD values were (a) changed (5.8%–15.3%), and the mean (b) value was 10.47%, while the
PMV distribution fluctuated
Figure 10. Mean predictedfrom
mean0.51
valueto(PMV)
0.7 with a mean
versus predictedvalue of 0.54.
percentage Compared
dissatisfied (PPD)toforthe
thetest unit,
the PPD value changed
STPV window conventional
andfrom 18.6% to
conventional window:
33.9%,(a)and
window: day,
theday,
sunny mean (b)cloudy
(b) cloudyday.
value day. 25.47% in the comparison unit.
was
The PMV distribution fluctuated from 0.7 to 1.2 with a mean value of 1.02.
During sunny
3.3. Subjective days, according
Questionnaire to the test, the PPD measurements in the test unit fluctuated from
Investigation
Due to the shielding of solar radiation, the PMV-PPD value was always higher in the comparison
5.8% to 51.2%. In the test unit, the most uncomfortable conditions also occurred during the noon
thanThe
unit period, results of the
that
withofa test
PMVunit.
questionnaire investigation
valueAlthough
of 1.3. OnPMV-PPD
are summarized
scores
the other hand, PPD not inFigure
aremeasurements 11. It provided
the suggested valuable in
acceptability
in the comparison unit
information
ASHARE about
standards, the offset
thetotest between
unit the two units, and they can be clearly identified. The box-plot
fluctuated from 18.6% 76.9%. Theequipped with theconditions
most uncomfortable STPV windowoccurredshowed
during thea noon
better thermal
period
shows
environment the thermal
than sensation
theofcomparison of the objects,
unit. the upper limit meant a higher PMV value during the
with a PMV value 2.0 in the comparison unit. When the solar radiation did not reach a high value,
questionnaire investigation, and the lower limit meant a better PMV value during the questionnaire
occurring in the morning, the test unit obtained the most comfortable conditions according to the
investigation. For example, the first box-plot in Figure 11 showed that the PMV value was from 0.5–0.8,
PMV-PPD value.
indicating that people felt comfortable during the test. The upper and lower limit in the second box-plot
During cloudy days, due to the low solar radiation, the PV window only worked for short periods
in Figure 10a and third box-plot in Figure 10b had a wider span, which indicated a greater
of time. PPD values were changed (5.8–15.3%), and the mean value was 10.47%, while the PMV
temperature difference between indoor and outdoor. These box-plots showed that the gap between
distribution fluctuated from 0.51 to 0.7 with a mean value of 0.54. Compared to the test unit, the PPD
median and lower quartile was less than the gap between median and upper quartile, especially in
value changed from 18.6% to 33.9%, and the mean value was 25.47% in the comparison unit. The PMV
the comparison unit. This phenomenon shows that many of the respondents felt hotter when they
distribution fluctuated from 0.7 to 1.2 with a mean value of 1.02.
stayed in the comparison unit.
Due to the shielding of solar radiation, the PMV-PPD value was always higher in the comparison
As to the respondents, thermal sensory vote statistics can be found. People felt warmer in the
unit than that of test unit. Although PMV-PPD scores are not in the suggested acceptability in ASHARE
comparison unit than in the test unit. In the test unit the PMV ranged from 0.5–1.5, and the mean
standards, the test unit equipped with the STPV window showed a better thermal environment than
value was 1.06. In the comparison unit the PMV ranged from 0.7 to 1.9, and the mean value was 1.46.
the comparison unit.
In the test unit the PPD value was 28.3%, while in the comparison unit the PPD value was 48.2%.
Based on the results of the subjective investigation, the thermal comfort in unit with STPV windows
was found to be 40% better than that in the corresponding unit without STPV windows. To conclude,
respondents were not pleased with the thermal indoor conditions of the two units due to the lack of
air-conditioning, which was crucial to not disturb the indoor environment.
shows the thermal sensation of the objects, the upper limit meant a higher PMV value during the
questionnaire investigation, and the lower limit meant a better PMV value during the questionnaire
investigation. For example, the first box-plot in Figure 11 showed that the PMV value was from 0.5–0.8,
indicating that people felt comfortable during the test. The upper and lower limit in the second
Energies 2019, 12, 808
box-plot
11 of 15
in Figure 10a and third box-plot in Figure 10b had a wider span, which indicated a greater
temperature difference between indoor and outdoor. These box-plots showed that the gap between
3.3. Subjective Questionnaire Investigation
median and lower quartile was less than the gap between median and upper quartile, especially in
the comparison
The resultsunit.of This phenomenon
the questionnaire shows thatare
investigation many of the respondents
summarized Figure 11. It felt hottervaluable
provided when they
information about
stayed in the comparison unit.the offset between the two units, and they can be clearly identified. The box-plot
shows
As to the the thermal sensation
respondents, of thesensory
thermal objects, the
voteupper limit can
statistics meant
be afound.
higher People
PMV value during the
felt warmer in the
questionnaire investigation, and the lower limit meant a better PMV value during
comparison unit than in the test unit. In the test unit the PMV ranged from 0.5–1.5, and the mean the questionnaire
investigation. For example, the first box-plot in Figure 11 showed that the PMV value was from
value was 1.06. In the comparison unit the PMV ranged from 0.7 to 1.9, and the mean value was 1.46.
0.5–0.8, indicating that people felt comfortable during the test. The upper and lower limit in the second
In the test unit the PPD value was 28.3%, while in the comparison unit the PPD value was 48.2%.
box-plot in Figure 10a and third box-plot in Figure 10b had a wider span, which indicated a greater
Based on the results of the subjective investigation, the thermal comfort in unit with STPV windows
temperature difference between indoor and outdoor. These box-plots showed that the gap between
was found
medianto belower
and 40% better than
quartile wasthat
less in
thanthethe
corresponding unit without
gap between median and upperSTPV windows.
quartile, To conclude,
especially in the
respondents
comparison were not
unit. pleased
This with the
phenomenon thermal
shows indoor
that many of conditions of the
the respondents felttwo units
hotter whendue to the
they stayedlack of
air-conditioning, which
in the comparison unit. was crucial to not disturb the indoor environment.

(a)

(b)
Figure 11.11.
Figure PMVPMVininthe
the(a)
(a) test unit,(b)
test unit, (b)comparison
comparison unit.
unit.

As to the respondents, thermal sensory vote statistics can be found. People felt warmer in the
According to the results of the subjective investigation of the indoor light environment in the
comparison unit than in the test unit. In the test unit the PMV ranged from 0.5–1.5, and the mean
test unit and comparison unit, the subjective analysis results of indoor light environment are shown
value was 1.06. In the comparison unit the PMV ranged from 0.7 to 1.9, and the mean value was 1.46.
in Figure
In the12, which
test include
unit the the subjective
PPD value was 28.3%,perception of indoor
while in the illumination,
comparison indoor
unit the PPD light
value wasuniformity,
48.2%.
and indoor glare. The results showed that nearly 90% of people thought that the light environment
Based on the results of the subjective investigation, the thermal comfort in unit with STPV windows
in the unit equipped with the STPV window was more acceptable than 75% of the unit equipped with
the conventional window. Thus, once combined with previous light performance tests [9], STPV
windows can improve the indoor light environment. Also, the results of other indoor environmental
parameters, such as hot and wet environment, acoustic environment, and indoor air quality of both
units, were acceptable to more than 60% similarly for both units.
Energies 2019, 12, 808 12 of 15

(b)
was found to be 40% better than that in the corresponding unit without STPV windows. To conclude,
respondents were not pleased Figurewith the thermal
11. PMV in the (a)indoor conditions
test unit, of theunit.
(b) comparison two units due to the lack of
air-conditioning, which was crucial to not disturb the indoor environment.
Accordingtotothe
According theresults
resultsofof the
the subjective
subjective investigation
investigation of the
of the indoor
indoor lightlight environment
environment intest
in the the
test unit
unit and comparison
and comparison unit,unit, the subjective
the subjective analysis
analysis results
results of indoor
of indoor light
light environment
environment are are shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 12, 12, which
which include
include the the subjective
subjective perception
perception of indoor
of indoor illumination,
illumination, indoorindoor
lightlight uniformity,
uniformity, and
and indoor
indoor glare.glare. The results
The results showed showed that nearly
that nearly 90% of90% of people
people thought thought
that thethat
lighttheenvironment
light environment
in the
in the
unit unit equipped
equipped with
with the the STPV
STPV window window was more
was more acceptable
acceptable than of
than 75% 75% theofunit
the unit equipped
equipped withwith
the
the conventional
conventional window.
window. Thus, Thus, once combined
once combined with previous
with previous light performance
light performance tests [9],
tests [9], STPV STPV
windows
windows
can improvecanthe
improve
indoor the
lightindoor light environment.
environment. Also,of
Also, the results the results
other of other
indoor indoor environmental
environmental parameters,
such as hot and wet environment, acoustic environment, and indoor air quality of both units,ofwere
parameters, such as hot and wet environment, acoustic environment, and indoor air quality both
units, weretoacceptable
acceptable more thanto60%more than 60%
similarly for similarly
both units.for both units.

Figure 12. Results

Figure 12. Results of
of the
the subjective
subjective questionnaire
questionnairesurvey
surveyon
onthe
theindoor
indoorlight
lightenvironment.
environment.

Assessment
Assessmentofofthe thetotal
totalacceptability
acceptabilityrating, concerning
rating, concerningthetheindoor
indoorthermal air of
thermal airthe
of test
the unit
test and
unit
the
andcomparison unit, was
the comparison carried
unit, wasout. The overall
carried acceptability
out. The overall level related to level
acceptability indoorrelated
thermodynamics
to indoor
compared the environment
thermodynamics compared of the
thelaboratory
environmentwith that of male
of the and female
laboratory with respondents.
that of male It wasandobserved
female
in Figure 13 that
respondents. the thermal
It was observedresponses
in Figurefor13 males showed
that the different
thermal responses indoor
for thermal assessments
males showed in
different
comparison to females.
indoor thermal Aboutin5%
assessments of the different
comparison responses
to females. indicated
About 5% of thethatdifferent
females were more indicated
responses sensitive
to deviations
that compared
females were moretosensitive
males. Ittowas surveyed
deviations that as the
compared tosolar
males. radiation increased,that
It was surveyed the as
percentage
the solar
of acceptability
radiation of thermal
increased, comfort reduced
the percentage in both genders.
of acceptability In addition,
of thermal comfortwhile considering
reduced the overall
in both genders. In
acceptability of humidity in all operations, the proportion of female subjects was slightly
addition, while considering the overall acceptability of humidity in all operations, the proportion of lower in
comparison to male respondents. This resulted from low metabolic rates, low skin temperatures, and
loss of evaporation in female respondents compared with male respondents that were interviewed.
female subjects was slightly lower in comparison to male respondents. This resulted from low
metabolic rates, low skin temperatures, and loss of evaporation in female respondents compared with
Energies 2019, 12, 808 13 of 15
male respondents that were interviewed.

Figure 13. Overall acceptability rating of the two units.

Figure 13. Overall acceptability rating of the two units.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
As per our experiments, it was discovered that during summer STPV windows can potentially
improveper
As theour experiments,
thermal temperature it was and discovered that during
lighting comfort, and summer
potentiallySTPV windows
reduce can potentially
air-conditioning load.
improve
The indoor thethermal
thermal comfort
temperature of theand STPVlighting
windowscomfort,
were,andthus,potentially reduce air-conditioning
tested during summer in Chengdu, load.
The
China.indoor thermal comfort
The conclusions, of the STPV
in accordance with windows were, thus,
the test results tested during summer
and questionnaires, in Chengdu,
were as follows:
China. The conclusions, in accordance with the test results and questionnaires, were as follows:
1. It was
1. It was found
found thatthat
duringduringthe the
test,test, the power
the power conversion
conversion efficiency
efficiency of STPV
of STPV window window was 5.6%,
was 5.6%, and
and the maximum power generated was 85 W with a radiation of 400 W/m 2 . The panel worked
the maximum power generated was 85 W with a radiation of 400 W/m . The panel worked normally, 2

normally,
even with even with on
low irradiance lowcloudy
irradiance
days,on duecloudy
to thedays, due to of
absorption theweak
absorption
light. of weak light.
2. In In ◦ higher than that of
comparison, the inner surface temperature of the single-layer was 44°CChigher
comparison, the inner surface temperature of the single-layer was than that
double-layer
double-layer windows.windows. Thus,Thus, the higher
the higher innerinner surface
surface temperature
temperature generatedcan
generated canbring
bringabout
about a
negative effect on thermal comfort during summer. STPV
negative effect on thermal comfort during summer. STPV windows had better thermal insulation windows had better thermal insulation
effecteffect
due to duethetopresence
the presence of the
of the air air
layer layer to block
to block heat
heat transfer.This
transfer. Thisininturn
turnincreased
increasedthe the indoor
indoor
thermalthermal
comfort comfort
of theofunittheinstalled
unit installed with double-layer
with double-layer STPVSTPV window.window.
While
3. While considering
considering semi-transparent
semi-transparent windows, windows,
the indoor theairindoor air temperature
temperature and radiant and radiant
temperature
in thetemperature
unit with thein the unit with
conventional the conventional
window were higher windowthan the unit werewithhigher than the
the STPV unit with
window, and the
STPVdifference
window, and ◦ C between the
maximum in airthe maximum was
temperature difference
aroundin5 air°C temperature
between the test wasunit
around and 5comparison unit.
test the
Thereby, unitpresence
and comparison unit. Thereby,
of this shielding the presencea of
effect represented morethiscomfortable
shielding effect represented
environment a more
in the test
comfortable
unit with the STPV environment
window than in the
thattest unitcomparison
in the with the STPV unitwindow
during than
summer.that in the comparison unit
4. Theduring
PPD summer.
value of the test unit equipped with the STPV window was better than that of the
comparison
4. The PPD unit equipped
value of thewith the conventional
test unit equipped with window.
the STPV On window
a typical wassunny day,than
better the PMVthat ofvalue
the
ranged from 0.2–1.3
comparison in the
unit test unit,
equipped while
with thethat of the comparison
conventional window.unit Onwas 0.7–2.0.
a typical On the
sunny day,basis
theofPMVthe
test results it was found
value ranged that STPV
from 0.2–1.3 windows
in the test unit, effectively
while thatprevented solar radiation
of the comparison unit was from entering
0.7–2.0. On the
roombasis
and reduced
of the testtheresults
indooritradiation
was found temperature. However, effectively
that STPV windows the difference was notsolar
prevented significant
radiationon
cloudy days. It is noteworthy that the thermal sensation between the
from entering the room and reduced the indoor radiation temperature. However, the difference foot and the head was noted to
be almost
was notthe significant
same, indicating
on cloudy that days.
the indoor temperature
It is noteworthy thatdistribution
the thermal was uniform.
sensation between the foot
5. It was
and evident
the headfrom the questionnaire
was noted to be almost the results
same, that the thermal
indicating sensation
that the indoor of the test unit
temperature with the
distribution
STPVwas window
uniform.was better than that of the comparison unit with the conventional window. These
findings
5. areevident
It was in concurrence
from the with the test results.
questionnaire results Upon
that the combining thermal, of
thermal sensation lighting,
the testacoustic,
unit withand the
other STPV
environmental comfort scores, the acceptability of the test unit
window was better than that of the comparison unit with the conventional window. These with the STPV window was
60%–91%,
findingswhilearethat of the comparison
in concurrence with theunit with theUpon
test results. conventional
combining window
thermal, was 54%–75%.
lighting, The
acoustic,
thermalandsensation difference between
other environmental comfort males scores,and the females was found
acceptability to beunit
of the test around
with the 5%,STPV
whichwindow
can be
accounted for duewhile
was 60–91%, to the differences
that of heat resistance
of the comparison unit with the in the skin and the
conventional windowmetabolic differences
was 54–75%. The
thermal sensation difference between males and females was found to be around 5%, which can
Energies 2019, 12, 808 14 of 15

be accounted for due to the differences of heat resistance in the skin and the metabolic differences
between the two sexes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, and Writing-Original Draft Preparation, H.T.; Writing-Review and
Editing, W.Z.; Project Administration, L.X., Methodology, Z.N. and Q.W.; Experiment, W.W., X.W. and M.C.
Funding: This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.
2016YFE0124500), Science & Technology Department Foundation of Chengdu City, China (2017-GH02-00006-HZ)
and Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province (2019YFH0184).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Tang, Y. The Integration of Photovoltaic Building Ushered in the Development of Spring; Urban Housing: Zhuhai,
China, 2009; pp. 56–59.
2. Li, S.; Mei, J.; Yao, Y. Research Status and Development Trend of Solar Photovoltaic Building Integration.
Sichuan Archit. 2013, 33, 38–41.
3. Xiao, Y.; Li, D. Application status and development trend of solar photovoltaic building integration. Energy
Sav. 2010, 29, 12–18.
4. Yoon, J.-H.; Shim, S.-R.; An, Y.S.; Lee, K.H. An experimental study on the annual surface temperature
characteristics of amorphous silicon BIPV window. Energy Build. 2013, 62, 166–175. [CrossRef]
5. Park, K.E.; Kang, G.H.; Kim, H.I. Analysis of thermal and electrical performance of semi-transparent
photovoltaic (PV) module. Energy 2010, 35, 2681–2687. [CrossRef]
6. Chow, T.-T.; Li, C.; Lin, Z. Innovative solar windows for cooling-demand climate. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
2010, 94, 212–220. [CrossRef]
7. Martín-Chivelet, N.; Gutiérrez, J.C.; Alonso-Abella, M.; Chenlo, F.; Cuenca, J. Building Retrofit with
Photovoltaics: Construction and Performance of a BIPV Ventilated Façade. Energies 2018, 11, 1719. [CrossRef]
8. Cornaro, C.; Ludovica, R.; Marco, P. Thermal and Electrical Characterization of a Semi-Transparent
Dye-Sensitized Photovoltaic Module under Real Operating Conditions. Energies 2018, 11, 155. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, W.; Zhang, W.; Xie, L. Experimental Assessment of the Energy Performance of a Double-Skin
Semi-Transparent PV Window in the Hot-Summer and Cold-Winter Zone of China. Energies 2018, 11, 1700.
[CrossRef]
10. Khedari, J.; Waewsak, J.; Supheng, W. Experimental investigation of performance of a multi-purpose PV-slat
window. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2004, 82, 431–445. [CrossRef]
11. Khalesi, J.; Goudarzi, N. Thermal Comfort in a Climate-Adaptive Building with Smart Windows and
Different Outlet Opening Locations. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 1, 1–33.
12. Liu, M.; Heiselberg, P.K.; Antonov, Y.I. Parametric analysis on the heat transfer, daylight and thermal comfort
for a sustainable roof window with triple glazing and external shutter. Energy Build. 2019, 183, 209–221.
[CrossRef]
13. Hweij, W.A.; Al Touma, A.; Ghali, K. Evaporatively-cooled window driven by solar chimney to improve
energy efficiency and thermal comfort in dry desert climate. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 755–761. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, W.; Liua, F. Improved thermal comfort modeling for smart buildings: A data analytics study.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 103, 634–643. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, H.; Yang, R. The CPMV index for evaluating indoor thermal comfort in buildings with solar radiation.
Build. Environ. 2018, 134, 1–9. [CrossRef]
16. Stazi, F.; Naspi, F.; Ulpiani, G. Indoor air quality and thermal comfort optimization in classrooms developing
an automatic system for windows opening and closing. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 732–746. [CrossRef]
17. Evaluation Method of Indoor Thermal Comfort in China GB T33658-2017; Standardization Administration: Beijing,
China, 2017; pp. 11–17.
18. Code for Thermal Design of Civil Building ‘GB-50176’; Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2017;
pp. 13–19.
19. Standard of Test Methods for Thermal Environment of Building JGJ/T 347-2014; Standardization Administration:
Beijing, China, 2014; pp. 7–14.
Energies 2019, 12, 808 15 of 15

20. Standard of Method for Evaluating Humid and Thermal Environment in China GB/T50785-2012; Standardization
Administration: Beijing, China, 2012; pp. 20–23.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).