The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes in every-day thermal environments

Quantifying the relevance of adaptive thermal comfort models in moderate thermal climate zones

“…Because the adaptive models are valid only for regular levels of metabolism and clothing insulation, the PMV/PPD-model will remain in force for situations with high levels. This is conflicting with the findings of Nicol and Humphreys [25], who showed that particularly for high met-and clo-values the PMV/PPD-model is not valid. Perhaps future guidelines and standards will be based on an improved PMV/PPD-model that allows for adaptation, such as a model proposed by Fanger and Toftum [24].…”

“…For both naturally conditioned and fully air-conditioned buildings, the PMV/PPDmodel will remain in use internationally. The PMV/PPD-model is shown to be valid for predicting thermal comfort in fully air-conditioned buildings in near-comfort conditions [25], the kind of buildings it was originally created for by Fanger [1]. The question arises why this model does not stay in force in the Netherlands for the great number of Beta buildings that can be categorised as fully air-conditioned.…”

Rolling horizon optimization for real-time operation of thermostatically controlled load aggregator

“…In this paper, we employ an ISO standard thermal comfort model [21] to estimate the occupants' thermal comfort degrees. The model we used is the ISO7730 model, which has many implementations of HVAC systems [22,23]. It depicts the analytical representation of human's thermal comfort degree by two indices: predicted mean vote (PMV) and predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD).…”

Comfort considerations in Net ZEBs: theory and design

“…After the introduction of the rational model by Fanger, numerous studies supported it, (e.g., Parsons (2002)) or validated it (e.g., Humphreys and Nicol (2002)), or proposed modified formulations (e.g., Araújo and Araújo (1999);Mayer (1997); Xavier and Lamberts (2000); Yoon, Sohn, and Cho (1999)) or extensions (e.g., Lin and Deng (2007); Ole Fanger and Toftum (2002)), or highlighted its limitations (e.g., Croome, Gan, and Awbi (1993); Howell and Kennedy (1979); Humphreys and Hancock (2007)) and discrepancies (e.g., Benton, Bauman, and Fountain, (1990); Doherty and Arens (1988)). The main shortcomings of the Fanger model are: (i) people are considered passive sensors of the thermal environment, instead of active individuals who adapt their activity, clothing ensemble, and the customization opportunities of the building (operability of the windows, doors and solar shadings, or modification of set-points, etc.…”