Verhaart, J; Veselý, M and Zeiler, W (2015) Personal heating: Effectiveness and energy use. Building Research & Information, 43(3), pp. 346-354. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Buildings use approximately 40% of primary energy with most energy expended on the provision of a comfortable indoor climate. An extended range of indoor temperatures can significantly reduce the energy load. However, lower temperature set points for heating can cause thermal discomfort. Giving building occupants the option to warm themselves (e.g. a local source at their desk or workstation) can mitigate this discomfort by the provision of a personalized conditioning system. A model is presented to assess the performance of personalized heating and its impact on the whole building energy load. Researchers, designers and facility managers can use this model to compare performance and analyse energy savings. The total energy use of personalized heating is estimated by scaling its settings to the actual level of discomfort resulting from a lowered heating set point. This model is used to assess seven different personalized heating systems. Assessments reveal that personalized heating brings a remarkable energy-saving potential, while maintaining or even improving individually perceived thermal comfort. Assessments are based on an assumed linear relation between the power and level of increased thermal sensation. Future research in personalized conditioning systems should be directed towards the development of the full characteristics and specific settings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive behaviour; agency; comfort provision; energy reduction; heating; personal control; thermal comfort |
| Index terms: | primary energy, agency, effectiveness, thermal sensation, thermal comfort, option, scaling, indoor climate, personal control, indoor temperature, energy-saving, discomfort, heating system, adaptive behaviour, manager, comfort, designer, energy reduction, energy use |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, occupational health and safety management, sociology, profession, organization, practitioner, environmental engineering, human factors, health risk and incident analysis, performance management, environmental science, behavioral psychology, energy systems |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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