Nicol, J F and Wilson, M (2011) A critique of European Standard EN 15251: Strengths, weaknesses and lessons for future standards. Building Research & Information, 39(2), pp. 183-193. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
European Standard EN 15251 has broken new ground. Firstly, it assembles existing information about optimizing thermal, air quality, acoustic and visual comfort so that designers can make energy calculations which embody all the best information about aspects of the environment that impinge on energy use. Secondly, it follows other standards in recognizing the different expectations occupants have of the thermal environment in mechanically and naturally ventilated buildings. Potentially this makes EN 15251 an important standard in the design and the evaluation of new and existing buildings. Therefore, it is essential to be clear about its strengths and weaknesses and to indicate ways in which future updates might improve on it. This paper considers the way in which the Standard is written, its underlying philosophy and purpose, and the ways in which it defines unacceptable thermal conditions and how they might be misunderstood. Questions are raised regarding the use of outdoor temperature to define indoor comfort as the basis for providing a comfortable indoor thermal environment. Suggestions are made for improving the Standard.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive thermal comfort; building standards; buildings; energy use; european standard en 15251; standards |
| Index terms: | designer, thermal environment, critique, visual comfort, comfort, air quality, philosophy, energy use, thermal comfort |
| Subjects: | energy systems, environmental engineering, profession, climate science, occupational health and safety management, philosophical studies, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here