Thermal comfort evaluation in a mechanically ventilated office building located in a continental climate

Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Thermal comfort evaluation in a mechanically ventilated office building located in a continental climate S. Soutullo ∗ , R. Enríquez, M.J. Jiménez, M.R. Heras Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Unit, CIEMAT, Madrid E-28040, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 April 2014 Received in revised form 3 June 2014 Accepted 26 June 2014 Available online 5 July 2014 Keywords: Centrally air-conditioning High-quality monitoring Thermal comfort Fanger method

a b s t r a c t To quantify the thermal comfort achieved in an office building placed in Madrid and considering climatic variations, building designs, behaviour of inhabitants and the operation of the conditioning systems, two experimental campaigns have been carried out during the summer and the winter time. Depending on the season of the year different temperature profiles have been obtained as a consequence of meteorological variables and inhabitant concerns. Energy balance between indoors and outdoors indicate the thermal oscillation as well as the thermal deviation from the comfort bands. To analyze the daily evolution two typical days have been calculated by the Hall methodology. The quantification of thermal sensation of the occupants has been calculated by the PMV/PPD methodology. This evaluation shows low percentages of people dissatisfied with the indoor environments and low energy demands achieved inside the offices. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Environmental impacts, industrial activities, urban patterns or the use of conditioning systems, have led to an intensification of the building energy demands and greenhouse gases emissions to the atmosphere [1]. Currently this sector represents more than 40% of the primary energy consumption in most countries [2] so reductions in these trends have become a global worry. With this aim, the European Union has developed new directives to improve the energy performance of new and existing buildings, reduce the energy imports and mitigate the climate change [3]. In Spain, the building sector represents about 26% of the final energy consumption but it is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions produced [4]. The analysis of this energy consumption by uses indicates that more than 42.5% goes for heating systems while 9% is used for cooling. These values have been increasing during the last years approaching to the energy consumption of the Northern European countries. Therefore, more efficient buildings must be constructed in order to create almost zero energy buildings. The first stage of this objective is the use of natural resources to design efficient buildings that are integrated into their environments. The second stage is to optimize

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 913466344. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Soutullo). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.049 0378-7788/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

the appliances and equipment, including the use of renewable systems. The implementation of these passive and active strategies must never compromise comfort and healthy requirements [5]. There are three ways to thermally conditioning an office building: centrally air-conditioning (HVAC), naturally ventilated and a mixture of both. The main differences between them are: the interaction between inhabitants and the control systems, the building adaptability to climatic conditions and the energy demands. In the European context there have been several projects to study the comfort levels achieved in office buildings [6–9]. These projects investigate the way to quantify this thermal sensation with mathematical and statistical methods. In the Spanish context, the Ministry of Science and Innovation has promoted a Singular Strategic Project of Research and Development, PSE-ARFRISOL (Bioclimatic Architecture and Solar Cooling, in Spanish) [10], being its main objective to demonstrate the usefulness of bioclimatic architecture and solar thermal and photovoltaic systems to save energy in future buildings. For this purpose, five office buildings were constructed or restored in different climatic zones of Spain. These prototypes were built for high-quality measurements recorded during monitoring to support research activities on thermal comfort, energy performance analysis and both active and passive systems integration in buildings. This article analyses the thermal behaviour of one of these new buildings, located in Madrid, by means of thermal balances between indoors and outdoors.

S. Soutullo et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429

425

Table 1 Passive and active techniques implemented in ED70 building.

2. Initial requirements 2.1. Building description The analyzed case (ED70 building) is an extension of an existing building located at the CIEMAT facilities in Madrid, which maintains the same proportions, size and exterior appearance than the previous construction. This building has a rectangular shape with a total surface of 2000 m2 , distributed in three floors plus a basement. The main direction is oriented in the north-south axis with the openings distribution in fac¸ade according to local regulations. This building is mechanically conditioned to hold office rooms and laboratories. For safety reasons, the biological lab activities imply very rigorous environmental specifications with low energy saving potential. On the other hand, offices offer a great opportunity to implement energy efficiency measures. These rooms represent a 25% of the total building surface, this is, the ground floor. Office and labs air conditioning is provided by means of a two-stage system. First, a centralized AHU unit pre-treats the renovation air up to a working temperature. Then, terminal units modulate for the needs of each room. In order to reduce the conventional energy demands and increase comfort levels, a passive design has been combined with the use of active solar systems. The techniques implemented in this building are: ventilated fac¸ades, insulation improvement in exterior walls, differential treatment of walls and shading devices. Two active solar systems have been installed: thermal collectors for domestic hot water production, heating and cooling; and photovoltaic panels for electrical production. A summary of the passive and active systems implemented in this building can be seen in Table 1. The thermal field, composed by solar thermal flat plate collectors, is integrated at the pergola structure that shades the roof of the building. The photovoltaic field, composed by semitransparent photovoltaic modules, is integrated at the shading devices of the south fac¸ade (Fig. 1). Although several rooms in ED70 have been monitored during the winter 2011/2012 and summer 2012, only two offices have been presented in this article to be representative of all. These rooms are located at the ground floor, one oriented to the south (P0.13) and one oriented to the north (P0.20), as shows in Fig. 2. Internal divisions among offices are made of furniture while the external divisions among offices and the corridor are made from

Passive techniques

Active techniques

Ventilated fac¸ade in South orientation Improvement of insulation in exterior walls Differential window glassing according to orientation + frame with thermal break: South: double clear North: double clear low emissivity Optimized shading devices of south windows (width & incident angle) Shading of roof

Solar cooling: 4 Climatewell 20 kw machines connected to cooling tower 180 m2 of Tim flat plate solar collectors with 4 m3 water storage Semitransparent PV panels (5 7 kWp) used also as shadowing for south fac¸ade holes

Air-air climatization. Four-pipe installation connected to ATU’s and inductors for distribution Intelligent indoors illumination system

glass. Geometry (ground area of about 22 m2 ) and materials of both offices are the same but occupancy and internal gains are different. In P0.13 there are six people working with the doors open, leading to high heat and mass exchange between the office and the corridor. In P0.20 there are usually three people, but sometimes there are two, four or five, working in a closed room for almost the workday, which means low air exchanges with the corridor. No special dress code is required, so the clothing factor has been assumed as the normal value for each season (0.5 and 1 clo for winter and summer respectively). To increase the interaction between the building and users as well as their comfort perception, all the occupants can establish set point temperatures of each office. 2.2. Experimental design The experimental campaign has been designed and implemented to assess the energy performance of the building taking into account their thermal response to internal and external perturbations. Up to date, there is no standard procedure regarding experimental building energy performance evaluation. Several evaluation techniques at a different complexity levels coexist, such as long-term dynamic integrated analysis [11], dynamic grey box modelling [12], building simulation validation and calibration [13], among others. With this purpose, different sensors were installed in both offices (including all adjacent offices and corridor as

Fig. 1. South fac¸ade view of ED70 building.

426

S. Soutullo et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429

Fig. 2. Office rooms analyzed in ED70 building.

boundary conditions) and outdoors on the top of the building. As it is shown from a theoretical perspective in [14], one key issue to solve correlations among identified model parameters is a multioutput framework, which is an experimental design able to use more than one measurement as an output of the model. In this case, glass surface and wall surface temperatures can be added to indoor air temperature measurements. The rest of the contributions to the energy balance have been also measured, including humidity, electrical power, CO2 concentration and openings of doors and windows. Supply and return air temperatures to the room have also been measured to evaluate the energy introduced by the active system. Supply and return temperatures in the water loop are also measured, to deal with inductor performance evaluation. In a more rigorous approach (as those needed in a dynamical modelling) air exchange rates should be measured or identified to avoid uncertainty derived from weak assumptions. Since the main focus of this work is the thermal comfort evaluation, the performance of the active system has been taken equal to the design values. To estimate energy demand as a global indicator for the design, nominal values for the air exchange rate have been used. The response of the building to the external perturbations has been analyzed through energy balances between indoors and outdoors. To do this, the most representative meteorological variables must be included in the monitoring system. Sensors of external air temperature and humidity, global solar radiation on the horizontal, wind direction and speed have been installed on a weather station placed on the top of the building. All data are measured and recorded every minute in an automated system with a 16-bit A/D conversion to reduce uncertainties. Postprocessing tools have been developed to produce databases with different temporal frequencies. A more comprehensive description of the monitoring system can be found in [15], more information about the software that manages the data acquisition system is reported in [16], and one overview about the different applications and usefulness of this test facility is reported in [17].

Table 2 Monthly average temperature and standard deviation recorded in P0.13 and P0.20 during winter and summertime. Season

Magnitude

P0.13

P0.20

Winter

Tmean monthly (◦ C) 

20.6 0.4

23.6 0.2

Summer

Tmean monthly (◦ C) 

25.7 0.4

25.9 0.3

different profiles of temperature inside ED70. The gap between these indoor temperatures and the comfort bands gives an idea of how efficient is this building. Two thermal comfort levels have been established according to each season and the Spanish regulations for Thermal Installations [18]: summer band (23–25 ◦ C) and winter band (21–23 ◦ C). The thermal analysis presented in this article has been performed from Monday to Friday, considering the occupational timetable of these offices (7–18 h). Exterior measurements have shown high daily temperature oscillations for both summer (from 19 ◦ C to 30 ◦ C) and wintertime (from −3 ◦ C to 19 ◦ C). Except for the colder winter measurements produced in the early working hours when both offices are not fully occupied, indoor temperatures are slightly above or slightly below the thermal comfort bands. The hourly temperature measured during wintertime varies from 18.6 ◦ C to 24.9 ◦ C at the P0.13 office and from 21.7 ◦ C to 25.7 ◦ C in P0.20. During the summer season the hourly temperature measured inside P0.13 and P0.20 varies from 23.2 ◦ C to 28.8 ◦ C and from 24.8 ◦ C to 28.2 ◦ C, respectively. Table 2 shows the monthly average temperature and the standard deviation achieved inside both offices. Moisture measurements along 2011/2012 ranged between 10% and 45% in both offices, which are always within the humidity limits set for comfortable and healthy office buildings [18]. 3.1. Thermal oscillation between indoors and outdoors

3. Thermal analysis Once the experimental setup has been finished, the experimental campaign starts with the aim of evaluating the thermal behaviour inside P0.13 and P0.20. Climatic perturbations produce

To evaluate the thermal oscillation monitored inside each office, the temperature difference between indoors and outdoors versus the ambient temperature has been represented. This chart shows the temperature gap and its distribution along one period of time

S. Soutullo et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429

427

Tint-Tout (ºC)

30 25

P013

20

P020

15 10 5

Winter Comfort Band

0 -5 -5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tout (ºC) Fig. 3. Thermal oscillation measured inside P0.13 during the winter period (2011/2012).

Fig. 5. Temperature profiles obtained during the typical winter day: 18 of January 2012.

[19]. To quantify how comfortable are these records during the whole year, two comfort bands have been marked for each season. During wintertime the comfort band is 22 ± 1 ◦ C while in summertime the comfort band is 24 ± 1 ◦ C. These comfort temperatures have been used as set points to calculate a variation of the heating and cooling day degrees methodology. This variation is a simple procedure to calculate the difference between the indoors average temperature and the comfort values, which gives an idea of how is the thermal deviation inside the office rooms. The same methodology has been applied to calculate the ambient effective day degrees, reaching 1126 ◦ C heating day degrees for winter and 117 ◦ C cooling day degrees for summer. These reference values indicate cold winters and slightly hot summers. Figs. 3 and 4 represent the hourly temperature drops measured inside P0.13 (grey points) and inside P0.20 (black points) during the winter and summertime respectively. Fig. 3 shows the thermal evolution measured during the wintertime. As it can be seen, both offices have reached or have approached to the thermal comfort levels despite recording very low ambient temperatures. In P0.20 the temperature difference between indoors and outdoors is slightly above the comfort band while in P0.13 this difference are, most of the time, within the comfort level. In this office when ambient conditions are too cold, measurements are slightly below to this comfort band. Fig. 4 shows the thermal evolution measured during the summertime inside P0.13 and P0.20. The temperature difference inside P0.13 indicates that the indoor environment has achieved a comfortable thermal sensation. When ambient conditions are too hot, indoors measurements are slightly below the upper limit of the summer comfort band. Ventilation produced by the air exchange between the P0.13 office and the corridor has a beneficial effect during the summertime, reducing their internal gains. In P0.20

the difference between indoors and outdoors produces a slightly warmer environment. This office has been registered a hermetic thermal behaviour that maintained the set point conditions. Negative differences with high ambient temperatures represent a slightly warmer thermal behaviour inside both offices. 3.2. Typical day Hourly temperature profiles allow evaluating mean and extreme values that take place in a representative day for a specific period. To select the typical day for each season, a method based on the Hall methodology has been applied. The Hall methodology [20] is an empirical procedure that uses meteorological records of long experimental campaigns to characterize the yearly weather for a specific location. The outlet file of this method is a Typical Meteorological Year (TMY). In this monitoring, an approximation of this methodology for a short period of time has been applied [19]. Using the meteorological records, the absolute difference between daily and seasonal variables has been calculated with the Filkenstein–Schafer statistics. The most representative day has been selected as the minimal value of the weighted sum for the winter season (18th of January 2012) and for the summer season (25th of July). Figs. 5 and 6 show the hourly thermal evolutions during these two typical days. These graphs represent the outdoor temperature (black line) as well as the indoor temperature in P0.13 (grey points) and P0.20 (black points). As it can be seen, both offices have measured slightly constant temperatures over 24 h during these seasons. To quantify how comfortable are these records, the winter comfort band (22 ± 1 ◦ C) and the summer comfort band (24 ± 1 ◦ C) have been marked.

Tint-Tout (ºC)

20 15

P013

10

P020

5 0

Summer Comfort Band

-5 -10 -15 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tout (ºC) Fig. 4. Thermal oscillation measured inside P0.13 during the summer period (2012).

Fig. 6. Temperature profiles obtained during the typical summer day: 25 of July 2012.

S. Soutullo et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429 Table 4 Initial hypothesis for the PMV-PPD calculation.

Clothing resistance (CLO) Type activity Activity (MET) Indoor wind velocity (m/s)

Summer

Winter

1 + 0.15 (chair resistance) Sedentary (office) 1.2 0.1

0.5 + 0.15 (chair resistance) Sedentary (office) 1.2 0.1

2

40

P0.20

Winter Period

30

1 0

Neutral Sensation

20

-1

10 0

-2 2

4. Offices energy demand

0

5

10

15

20

P0.13

5. Indoor thermal comfort evaluation Thermal comfort is a subjective response or condition of mind that people have to express satisfaction with the surrounding environment [22]. This definition carries out a high degree of subjectivity because it depends on many cultural and energy factors difficult to quantify. There are two approaches to analyze the indoor thermal comfort [23]: quantitative [24,25] and adaptive [26,27]. ED70 building is mechanically conditioned all the year and the windows are always closed for security reasons, so the people reactions to reduce the discomfort sensations are drastically Table 3 Energy demand of the building under study. Office

Heating demand (kWh/m2 year)

Cooling demand (kWh/m2 year)

Spanish reference: Madrid (E4) P0.13 occupancy (Electrical) P0.20 occupancy (Electrical)

25.0 15.3 13.8

64.0 21.6 16.7

PMV

0

Neutral Sensation

40 30 20 10

-1 -2

PPD (%)

PMV PPD

1

As stated in the building description, the indoors conditioning system is a four pipe installation connected to an Air Handling Unit (AHU) with inductors for the air distribution to the rooms. While the AHU system works 24 hour per day and 365 days per year, inductors work only during occupancy periods. To estimate the energy demand these periods are taken into account. This operation is performed through electrical power measurements, lighting and equipment together, for both rooms [11]. It will be considered occupancy periods those which present electrical power above certain threshold. The threshold is the maximum value of electrical power by night during the period. For both rooms, the obtained threshold is 150 W. The energy demand of these offices is supposed to be equal to the energy introduced by the mechanical ventilation system. Supply and return air temperature is measured and design air mass flow rate is used for the calculation. This could lead to some uncertainty if dynamic studies are to be performed. However, to check a whole period for labelling or for comparison purposes, this approach will be considered valid. The results are summarized in Table 3. To quantify the obtained values, all the results are presented against the Spanish E4 offices data bases. These E4 data are use as reference values provided by the Spanish Government for the existing stock of new Spanish buildings [21]. It should be highlighted that these offices are saving almost a half of the energy with respect to the reference values.

PPD (%)

The ambient daily oscillation during 18th of January is very high, with a temperature range above 13 ◦ C (Fig. 5). However, these climatic conditions have not pointed to extreme interior oscillations. The temperature inside P0.13 has varied between 19.3 ◦ C and 21.3 ◦ C, which is within or slightly below the winter comfort band. The temperature inside P0.20 has ranged from 23 ◦ C to 24.7 ◦ C, which is slightly above the comfort band. As expected, the maximum values have been reached during the maximum incident solar radiation hours. Fig. 6 shows that the temperature profiles during the summer typical day are slightly above the comfort band, despite having a very hot outdoor temperature with high ambient oscillations (T ≈ 11 ◦ C). The temperature ranges vary between 25.9 ◦ C and 26.5 ◦ C in P0.20 and 25.2 ◦ C to 26.5 ◦ C in P0.13. These values indicate very stable patterns with comfortable environments in both cases.

PMV

428

0 0

5

10

Hour

15

20

Fig. 7. PMV and PPD reached inside P0.13 and P0.20 during the winter working hours.

reduced. Considering these assumptions, the quantitative method has been applied in this study. The quantitative method recommended in the Spanish Building Code is the Fanger methodology [28], described by the International Standard ISO 7730:1994 [24]. This Standard proposes a method to predict two indices: thermal sensation (PMV) and the degree of discomfort (PPD). The first index varies between −3 and 3 and represents a thermal comfort scale from hot to cold environments. The second index predicts the percentage of people dissatisfied with the environment conditions and varies between 5% and 100%. This iterative method has been applied considering several hypotheses for the inputs (Table 4). Low values of wind velocity have been measured inside because all the windows have been closed all year. Fig. 7 shows PMV (black points) and PPD (grey points) indices obtained inside P0.20 and P0.13 during the winter working hours. During this period, P0.20 has reached a neutral thermal sensation with a percentage of people dissatisfied that varies from 5% to 10%. However the comfort profiles registered inside P0.13 are completely different. In this office the thermal sensation is computed between neutral to slightly cool environment, which increase the percentages of dissatisfied people to maximum values of 37%. The slightly cool environment peaks have been recorded during the first hours of the day always in Monday. This building has been used as a research prototype to investigate specific situations which required special energy conditions. These experiments have always been done during the weekends. As a consequence, extreme thermal oscillation has modified the thermal stability of this office. During the summer working hours, despite the hot climate of Madrid, pseudo-comfortable bands have been achieved inside both offices with a percentage of dissatisfied people lower than 20% (Fig. 8). The percentage of events with a neutral thermal sensation is higher inside P0.13 than in P0.20, getting values of 99% and 85% respectively. To complete the thermal sensation level inside both offices, a slightly warm scale has been obtained. Higher percentages of warmer environments during the summer months inside P0.20 are due to the absence of sinks to exchange all the heat acquired

S. Soutullo et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 424–429 2

40

PMV

30

Neutral Sensation

20

-1

10

-2

0 0

5

10

2

15

20

P0.13

PMV

Neutral Sensation

50 40 30 20

-1

10

PPD (%)

PMV PPD

1 0

PPD (%)

1 0

Science. The authors would like to thank all the companies and Institutions included in PSE-ARFRISOL project.

50

P0.20

Summer Period

0

-2 0

5

10

Hour

15

429

20

Fig. 8. PMV and PPD reached inside P0.13 and P0.20 during the summer working hours.

during the day, consequence of the very low air movements with outdoors or the corridor. The mean value of PPD index is 6.4% in P0.13 and 9.3% in P0.20 with two different profiles. On the one side, the percentage of people dissatisfied in P0.13 has risen during the hours of maximum solar radiation. These values match with the highest peaks of PMV, so a slightly warm environment increases the PPD index. On the other side, the highest peaks of dissatisfied in P0.20 have been reached during the first hours of the workday. 6. Conclusions In order to reduce the conventional energy demands of a new office building in Madrid and minimize the greenhouses emissions, several solar passive and active strategies have been combined in the building design. This building, composed by office rooms and laboratories, is mechanically conditioned all year due to the special energy requirements of its laboratories. Despite having a central AHU system, inductors work independently as a function of the needs of each room. Two rooms have been monitored during the winter 2011/2012 and the summer 2012 to analyze the temperature profiles of these offices, so one comfort band has been taking into account for each season. Considering indoor and outdoor measurements, seasonal dress, sedentary activity and low indoor wind velocities, a pseudocomfortable behaviour has been obtained inside both offices during the whole year. These patterns correspond to low values of energy demands (less than the Spanish standardization E4). The PMV/PPD method has been used to quantify the thermal perception of heat and cold achieved in both rooms during winter and summer. The thermal sensation scale has been varied between the slightly cool band (first hours of the winter Mondays) and slightly warm band (summertime). These environments represent slightly low percentages of people dissatisfied with the ambient conditions. The average PPD reached during the summertime is lower than 10% while the average percentage of people dissatisfied in winter grows up to 20% in P0.13 and goes down to 6% in P0.20. Acknowledgements The PSE-ARFRISOL, Reference PS-120000-2005-1, is a Strategic Singular Scientific-Technological Project accepted by the National Plan of Research and Develop 2004-2007, co-financed with FEDER Funds and supported by the Spanish Ministry of Innovation and

References [1] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, C.A. Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption information, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 394–398. [2] International Energy Agency (IEA), Key World Energy Statistics (2006). [3] European Union. Directive 2012/27/EU, Official Journal of the European Union L15 55 (2012) 1–56. [4] Institute for Energy Diversification and Saving (IDAE), Government of Spain, Energy Savings and Efficiency Action Plan 2011-2020. http://www.idae.es/ index.php/id.663/mod.pags/mem.detalle (accessed 3.6.14). [5] B. Givoni, Comfort, climate analysis and building design guidelines, Energy and Buildings 18 (1992) 11–23. [6] K.J. McCartney, J.F. Nicol, Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe, Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 623–635. [7] ThermCo Project: Low energy cooling and thermal comfort, http://www.thermco.org/ (accessed 1.4.14). [8] SARA Project: Sustainable architecture applied to replicable public access Building, http://www.sara-project.net/ (accessed 1.4.14). [9] E. Giancola, S. Soutullo, R. Olmedo, M.R. Heras, Evaluating rehabilitation of the social housing envelope: experimental assessment of thermal indoor improvements during actual operating conditions in dry hot climate, a case study, Energy and Buildings 75 (2014) 264–271. [10] PSE-ARFRISOL Project: Bioclimatic Architecture and Solar Cooling, http://www.arfrisol.es/ (accessed 1.4.14). [11] L. Castillo, R. Enríquez, M.J. Jiménez, M.R. Heras, Dynamic integrated method based on regression and averages, applied to estimate the thermal parameters of a room in an occupied office building in Madrid, Energy and Buildings (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.039. [12] M.J. Jiménez, H. Madsen, Models for describing the thermal characteristics of building components. Special issue on outdoor testing, analysis and modelling of building components, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 152–162. [13] R. Enríquez, M.J. Jiménez, M.R. Heras, Analysis of a solar office building at the South of Spain through simulation model calibration, Energy Procedia 30 (2012) 580–589. [14] R. Enríquez, M.J. Jiménez, Experimental requirements in building energy performance evaluation, Sustainable Energy Week: Workshop on High Energy Performance Buildings, Design and Evaluation Methodologies, Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [15] M.J. Jiménez, LECE-UiE3-CIEMAT Test Facilities, in: A. Janssens, S. Roels, L. Vandaele (Eds.), Full scale test facilities for evaluation of energy and hygrothermal performances, BFG, UGent, Belgium, 2011, ISBN 978-94-9069-584-2. [16] J.A. Ferre, M. Pasamontes, M. Castilla, M. Berenguel, M.J. Jiménez, D. Bravo, M. Pérez, Desarrollo de un sistema de monitorización y control para edificios bioclimáticos en el marco del proyecto ARFRISOL, I Congreso sobre Arquitectura Bioclimática y Frío Solar, Almería, Spain (2010). ISBN: 978-84-693-5141-3. [17] M.J. Jiménez, R. Enríquez, M.J. San Isidro, S. Soutullo, M.R. Heras, Desarrollo de metodologías para la evaluación energética experimental de edificios a escala ˜ de Física (2013). real: contribución del PSE-ARFRISOL, Revista Espanola [18] Government of Spain, RITE: Reglamento de Instalaciones Térmicas de Edificios, Spanish Regulation of thermal installations in buildings, BOE 207 (Spanish Official Bulletin). http://www.idae.es/index.php/mod.pags/ mem.detalle/relcategoria.1030/id.27/relmenu.53/ (accessed 1.4.14). [19] M.R. Heras, M.J. Jiménez, M.J. San Isidro, L.F. Zarzalejo, M. Pérez, Energetic analysis of a passive solar design, incorporated in a courtyard after refurbishment, suing an innovative cover component based in a sawtooth roof concept, Solar Energy 78 (2005) 85–96. [20] I.J. Hall, Generation of a Typical Meteorological Year, in: Proceedings annual meeting of AS of ISES, Denver CO, USA, 1978. [21] Spanish Economy Ministry, Estrategia de Ahorro y Eficiencia Energética en ˜ 2004–2012. E4. Sector de la Edificación, Spanish Government (2003). Espana, [22] ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. Thermal Comfort Chapter, Atlanta: ASHRAE, 1999. [23] G. Gómez-Azpeitia, G. Bojórquez Morales, R.P. Ruiz Torres, El confort térmico: dos enfoques teóricos, Journal of Scientific Research on Architecture 2 (1) (2007) 45–57. [24] ISO. International Organization for Standardization, Standard 7730 (E). Moderate Thermal Environments. Determination of the PMV and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort. Genève, Switzerland, 1994. [25] B.W. Olesen, G.S. Brager, A better way to predict comfort: the new ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, AHSRAE Journal (2004). [26] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings, Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 563–572. [27] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference, AHSRAE Transactions 104 (1) (1998) 145–167. [28] P.O. Fanger, Calculation of thermal comfort: Introduction of a basic comfort equation, ASHRAE Transactions 73 (2) (1967) 1–20.