A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Thermal comfort performance and energy-efficiency evaluation of six personal heating/cooling devices
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5449-5614
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-6786
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1373-0304
Abstract Personal Comfort Systems (PCS) have the potential to improve individual thermal satisfaction and reduce energy consumption in buildings, but guidance on their application is still lacking. This study aims to evaluate and compare the thermal comfort effectiveness and energy consumption of six different personal heating/cooling devices (including warm air blower, electric radiant heater, heated cushion, desk fan, floor fan, and ventilated cushion). Twenty-eight college students were recruited to use the heating/cooling devices under cold (18 °C) and hot (32 °C) conditions, respectively. The results showed that all three heating devices improved subjects' average thermal sensation from cool (−1.96) to neutral (−0.18 – 0.09) under cold condition, while their energy efficiency varied greatly. The warm air blower (420.0 W) and electric radiant heater (630.1 W) consumed significantly more energy than the heated cushion (43.0 W). 67.8% of the subjects chose the heated cushion as their most preferred heating device. Under hot condition, the desk fan and floor fan increased subjects’ thermal acceptability to more than 80%, while ventilated cushion with a maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s cannot correct human thermal comfort. All cooling devices based on fans were available with small electric power (3.3–29.9 W). Most subjects (60.7%) preferred the floor fan among the three cooling devices. The advantages and disadvantages of each device perceived by the subjects were also investigated through interviews. This work can help researchers further understand the differences between different PCS devices, and guide the optimization and application of PCS devices.
Highlights No significant difference in thermal comfort between the three heating devices. Ventilated cushion with maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s had no effect in 32 °C. Heated cushion/floor fan was the most preferred heating/cooling device. Discomfort came from the air draught, local overheating, and uneven heating/cooling. Thermal comfort and energy performance of typical PCS devices were compared.
Thermal comfort performance and energy-efficiency evaluation of six personal heating/cooling devices
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5449-5614
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-6786
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1373-0304
Abstract Personal Comfort Systems (PCS) have the potential to improve individual thermal satisfaction and reduce energy consumption in buildings, but guidance on their application is still lacking. This study aims to evaluate and compare the thermal comfort effectiveness and energy consumption of six different personal heating/cooling devices (including warm air blower, electric radiant heater, heated cushion, desk fan, floor fan, and ventilated cushion). Twenty-eight college students were recruited to use the heating/cooling devices under cold (18 °C) and hot (32 °C) conditions, respectively. The results showed that all three heating devices improved subjects' average thermal sensation from cool (−1.96) to neutral (−0.18 – 0.09) under cold condition, while their energy efficiency varied greatly. The warm air blower (420.0 W) and electric radiant heater (630.1 W) consumed significantly more energy than the heated cushion (43.0 W). 67.8% of the subjects chose the heated cushion as their most preferred heating device. Under hot condition, the desk fan and floor fan increased subjects’ thermal acceptability to more than 80%, while ventilated cushion with a maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s cannot correct human thermal comfort. All cooling devices based on fans were available with small electric power (3.3–29.9 W). Most subjects (60.7%) preferred the floor fan among the three cooling devices. The advantages and disadvantages of each device perceived by the subjects were also investigated through interviews. This work can help researchers further understand the differences between different PCS devices, and guide the optimization and application of PCS devices.
Highlights No significant difference in thermal comfort between the three heating devices. Ventilated cushion with maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s had no effect in 32 °C. Heated cushion/floor fan was the most preferred heating/cooling device. Discomfort came from the air draught, local overheating, and uneven heating/cooling. Thermal comfort and energy performance of typical PCS devices were compared.
Thermal comfort performance and energy-efficiency evaluation of six personal heating/cooling devices
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5449-5614
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-6786
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1373-0304
Abstract Personal Comfort Systems (PCS) have the potential to improve individual thermal satisfaction and reduce energy consumption in buildings, but guidance on their application is still lacking. This study aims to evaluate and compare the thermal comfort effectiveness and energy consumption of six different personal heating/cooling devices (including warm air blower, electric radiant heater, heated cushion, desk fan, floor fan, and ventilated cushion). Twenty-eight college students were recruited to use the heating/cooling devices under cold (18 °C) and hot (32 °C) conditions, respectively. The results showed that all three heating devices improved subjects' average thermal sensation from cool (−1.96) to neutral (−0.18 – 0.09) under cold condition, while their energy efficiency varied greatly. The warm air blower (420.0 W) and electric radiant heater (630.1 W) consumed significantly more energy than the heated cushion (43.0 W). 67.8% of the subjects chose the heated cushion as their most preferred heating device. Under hot condition, the desk fan and floor fan increased subjects’ thermal acceptability to more than 80%, while ventilated cushion with a maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s cannot correct human thermal comfort. All cooling devices based on fans were available with small electric power (3.3–29.9 W). Most subjects (60.7%) preferred the floor fan among the three cooling devices. The advantages and disadvantages of each device perceived by the subjects were also investigated through interviews. This work can help researchers further understand the differences between different PCS devices, and guide the optimization and application of PCS devices.
Highlights No significant difference in thermal comfort between the three heating devices. Ventilated cushion with maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s had no effect in 32 °C. Heated cushion/floor fan was the most preferred heating/cooling device. Discomfort came from the air draught, local overheating, and uneven heating/cooling. Thermal comfort and energy performance of typical PCS devices were compared.
Thermal comfort performance and energy-efficiency evaluation of six personal heating/cooling devices
Tang, Yin (author) / Yu, Hang (author) / Zhang, Kege (author) / Niu, Kexin (author) / Mao, Huice (author) / Luo, Maohui (author)
Building and Environment ; 217
2022-04-04
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Thermal comfort evaluated for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices
| British Library Online Contents | 2018
Thermal comfort evaluated for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices
| British Library Online Contents | 2018
Thermal comfort evaluated for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices
| British Library Online Contents | 2018
Thermal comfort evaluated for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices
| British Library Online Contents | 2018