Recent research that looks at the method used to determine thermal comfort in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 published in an article, “Energy Consumption in Buildings and Female Thermal Demand,” in Nature Climate Change, misinterpreted data, according to ASHRAE.
“The interpretation of the authors regarding the basis for Standard 55 is not correct,” Bjarne Olesen, Ph.D., a member of the ASHRAE Board of Directors, thermal comfort research and former chair of the Standard 55 committee, said. “The part of the standard they are referring to is the use of the PMV/PPD index. This method is taken from an ISO/EN standard 7730, which has existed since 1982. The basic research for establishing comfort criteria for the indoor environment was made with more than 1,000 subjects with an equal amount of women and men.
“In the main studies, where they did the same sedentary work and wore the same type of clothing, there were no differences between the preferred temperature for men and women. So the researchers’ finding of a lower metabolic rate for females will not influence the recommended temperatures in the existing standards. Also their study is not conclusive. They only studied 16 females at a sedentary activity.
“They should also have studied 16 men at the same activity to be able to compare. The reason why we, in some field studies, find that women prefer higher room temperature than men is attributed to the level of clothing. Women better adapt their clothing to summer conditions while men are still wearing suits and ties. So if the thermostat is set to satisfy the men, the women will complain about being too cold. In the standard, this adaption of clothing to summer is taken into account. So if the standard is followed, the women would be satisfied; but maybe not the men.”
Related Stories
| May 31, 2012
Natural gas industry opposes federal carbon-neutral construction rule
The natural gas industry and some allies are working to block a federal green building rule that was expected to be a national model for carbon-neutral construction.
| May 31, 2012
Lawsuits push the legal boundaries of green building definition
This article explores some legal issues stemming from lawsuits in which plaintiffs have charged developers with not delivering on a promised level of sustainability.
| May 31, 2012
ANSI approves Green Building Initiative’s design standard
The Green Building Initiative (GBI), a Portland, Ore. nonprofit organization, has had its new consensus-based standard for the design, construction, and operations of environmentally friendly buildings approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
| May 31, 2012
USGBC testing Minnesota buildings to see if they are living up to LEED standards
The Minnesota chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has teamed up with EnergyPrint, a St. Paul, Minn. energy consulting firm, to study the energy and water use of more than 150 buildings in the state that have LEED certification.
| May 29, 2012
Reconstruction Awards Entry Information
Download a PDF of the Entry Information at the bottom of this page.
| May 25, 2012
Major retail chains welcome LEED Volume option
Large national chains such as Starbucks, Marriott, Verizon, and Kohl’s are welcoming the LEED Volume Program that enables them to batch certify similar projects.
| May 25, 2012
Alaska’s okay of gravel aggregate with naturally occurring asbestos opens up development
Some long-delayed projects in the Upper Kobuk region of Alaska may now move forward thanks to legislation that allows construction in areas that have naturally occurring asbestos.
| May 25, 2012
Las Vegas building codes may thwart innovative shipping container development
A developer wants to build a commercial development out of steel shipping containers in Las Vegas, but city codes would have to be altered or the project would have to obtain waivers for it to receive the city’s go-ahead.
| May 25, 2012
Collapse of Brooklyn building that killed worker blamed on improperly braced frame
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited SP&K Construction with 11 safety violations, for which it could face more than $77,000 in fines.