A larger statistical basis and a wider application area of the PMV equation in the Fanger model: application area of the PMV equation

Abstract

For sedentary activities, the PMV equation, derived by Fanger, is mainly based on the research of Nevins et al. (720 test subjects). Nevins' experiments were later on repeated by Fanger, but with 128 college-age Danish subjects and 128 elderly Danish subjects, instead of American subjects. Rohles did the research from Nevins et al. again, but over a more extensive temperature range and more, namely 1600, test subjects. Rohles' research results have been partly included in the derivation of the PPD equation, but not in the derivation for the PMV equation. Rohles' experimental results are published at a later time than the publication of the thesis of Fanger. The question arises: 'If Rohles' experimental results were included in the derivation of the PMV equation, instead of Nevins' experimental results, to what extent does that change the PMV equation and the application area of the PMV equation, with regard of validity, for sedentary activities?'. In the same way, as Fanger described in his thesis, and using the results of Rohles' experiment, this study is limited to the derivation of a PMV equation with a wider PMV range than −2 to 2, for sedentary activities.

Proposal for the assessment of thermal indoor climate based on the thermal acceptability, in addition to the thermal (dis)satisfied.

“…1. a second-skin façade, thermal activation of floor and ceiling, constant floor temperature of 23°C during working hours and 15 hours after working hours, constant ceiling temperature of 23°C during working hours, Central Government Real Estate Agency guideline criterion, PMV calculated in accordance with NEN-EN-ISO 7730 [2] 2. as 1, however PMV calculated in accordance with [14] 3. as 2, but no cooling of the inlet air and no ceiling cooling, a constant floor temperature of 21°C 4. as 3, but a constant floor temperature of 20°C…”

“…• The evaluation of the thermal indoor climate in the office space, on an annual basis, shows a significant difference if the PMV is calculated in accordance with NEN-EN-ISO-7730 or in accordance with the proposal, as done by Roelofsen et al [14] (see variant 1 and 2 in table 2). For an explanation of why this is the case, see [14] . In short, it means that the NEN-EN-ISO 7730 model [2] overestimates the temperature sensation in non-air-conditioned buildings [17] .…”

“…In short, it means that the NEN-EN-ISO 7730 model [2] overestimates the temperature sensation in non-air-conditioned buildings [17] . Roelofsen et al [14] show why this is the case and why the model, for sedentary activities, can be better based on Rohles' research [9] than Nevins et al's research [15] .…”

“…• the thermal sensation at temperatures higher than 27.8°C [14,18] to be processed in the thermophysiological model, the discrepancy, as described in the literature [19] , between the calculation results with the thermophysiological NEN-EN-7730 model and an adaptive model, in the situation of a building of the Alpha type, can be significantly reduced [20] . This is also evident from this calculation study.…”

“…• airspeed adjustment in clothing fitting, in accordance with [13] • a calculation in accordance with [14] , as there may be an indoor temperature greater than or equal to 27.8°C. This is the maximum temperature within the study of Nevins et al [15] , on the basis of which the NEN-EN-ISO-7730 model for sedentary activities was derived.…”