4.7 Article

Thermal comfort evaluated for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 206-216

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.008

关键词

Thermal comfort; Building energy saving; personal comfort system (PCS); Local heating/cooling; Heated and cooled chair; Corrective power (CP)

资金

  1. ARPA-E(Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy, Department of Energy) DELTA (Delivering Efficient Local Thermal Amenities) program [DE-AR0000529]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Personal comfort systems (PCS) have potential to fulfill building occupants' personal thermal comfort preferences with great efficiency. But to integrate them into building conditioning, there must be a broader selection of PCS devices available. Design guidance and standards are needed to assure that such devices provide high levels of comfort effectiveness and energy efficiency. This study addresses these needs. A suite of minimumpower PCS devices was built that target body parts significant to alliesthesia-a heated shoe insole, heated/ cooled wristpad, small deskfan, and heated/cooled chair. They were tested in a climate chamber under cool and warm conditions using both thermal-manikin and human-subjects. Their efficiency at physically heating/cooling the body is high; the combined suite has a coefficient of performance (COP) of 3.6 for cooling and 0.88 for heating. The subjects' whole-body thermal acceptance and thermal comfort perception were improved by the devices in an additive manner; using the combined suite over 80% of people accepted ambient temperatures of 18 degrees C and 29 degrees C. The PCS 'corrects' the ambient temperature towards thermal neutrality by as much as 6.5 K cooling and 3.6 K heating, overcoming building occupants' typical interpersonal thermal differences and making possible large HVAC energy savings in buildings. The idea of temperature corrective power can be the basis of standards for PCS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据