Journal Pre-proof

A Framework for Adopting Adaptive Thermal Comfort Principles in

Design and Operation of Buildings

Runa T. Hellwig , Despoina Teli , Marcel Schweiker ,

Joon-Ho Choi , M.C. Jeffrey Lee , Rodrigo Mora , Rajan Rawal ,
Zhaojun Wang , Farah Al-Atrash

PII: S0378-7788(19)31616-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109476
Reference: ENB 109476

To appear in: Energy & Buildings

Received date: 31 May 2019

Revised date: 5 September 2019
Accepted date: 28 September 2019

Please cite this article as: Runa T. Hellwig , Despoina Teli , Marcel Schweiker , Joon-Ho Choi ,
M.C. Jeffrey Lee , Rodrigo Mora , Rajan Rawal , Zhaojun Wang , Farah Al-Atrash , A Framework
for Adopting Adaptive Thermal Comfort Principles in Design and Operation of Buildings, Energy &
Buildings (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109476

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

A Framework for Adopting Adaptive Thermal Comfort Principles in Design

and Operation of Buildings
Runa T. Hellwig1,*, Despoina Teli2, Marcel Schweiker3, Joon-Ho Choi4, M.C. Jeffrey Lee5,
Rodrigo Mora6, Rajan Rawal7, Zhaojun Wang8, Farah Al-Atrash9
1
Aalborg University, Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology CREATE,
Rendsburggade 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark
2
Division of Building Services, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology, SE-412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden
3
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Building Science Group, Englerstr. 7, 76131 Karlsruhe,
Germany
4
Building Science, School of Architecture, University of Southern California, 850 West 37th
St. WAH #204, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, U.S.A.
5
National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Department of Interior Design,
129, Sec. 3 Sanmin Road, 40401, Taichung, Taiwan
6
Building Science Graduate Program, British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), 3700
Willingdon Avenue, Burnaby, Canada.
7
Centre for Advanced Research in Building Science and Energy, CEPT University, K.L.Campus,
Navarangpura, Ahmedabad 380009, India
8
Harbin Institute of Technology, School of Architecture, Harbin, 150090, China.
9
School of Architecture and Built Environment, German Jordanian University, Darat Othman
Bdeir, P.O.Box 35247, 11180, Amman, Jordan.
*Corresponding author: Runa T. Hellwig, rthe@create.aau.dk
Declarations of interest: none
Abstract:
The concept of adaptive thermal comfort was formulated many decades ago and has been validated in
numerous field studies. As a result, wider acceptable indoor temperature ranges based on adaptive models
have been included in international and national standards and the adaptive approach to thermal comfort is
regarded as a significant contributor in achieving low energy building design and operation. Despite the ever-
increasing scientific literature on adaptive comfort around the world, the overall understanding of how to
translate the adaptive principles into design practice and concepts for operating buildings is still limited, which
suggests a gap between the scientific outcomes and the real-world applications. This discussion paper
identifies the challenges and gaps in using the principles of adaptive thermal comfort by design practitioners
and discusses them in light of relevant research findings. More than 100 literature sources were reviewed in
support of the discussion. The paper then proposes a framework that aims to facilitate the adoption of
adaptive comfort principles in design and operation of buildings and describes the outline of an imminent
guideline for low energy building design based on the concept of adaptive thermal comfort.
Keywords: adaptive thermal comfort, personal control, building energy efficiency, climate context, sufficiency
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

1. Introduction
Establishing an acceptable sufficient indoor climate without increasing the energy use in
indoor spaces is one of the world’s challenges. Buildings are often designed to maintain
constant, nearly steady-state thermal conditions uniform throughout the building with the
aim to minimize legal liability and maximise comfort (Deuble and de Dear 2012a). These
buildings place control on automatic systems, which manage the indoor environmental
conditions and deny occupants means of intervention (Bordass and Leaman 1997). In
contrast, buildings designed and operated according to the adaptive thermal comfort
concept inherently favour a certain indoor environmental variation, with indoor thermal
conditions changing gradually in response to the prevailing outdoor conditions, while
remaining within the limits that people readily adapt to.
The adaptive thermal comfort concept is not new and researchers found numerous
proofs of the concept in field studies (e.g. Nicol and Humphreys 1973, Auliciems 1981b, de
Dear et al. 1997, McCartney and Nicol 2002, Manu et al. 2016), supporting that humans are
satisfied with a wide range of indoor temperatures provided they have the opportunity and
willingness to adapt by themselves. However, the overall understanding of how to design
for adaptation in relation to the outdoor conditions, hence how to translate the adaptive
principles into a design culture and concepts for operating buildings is still limited.
Consequently, there is gap between scientific research and real-world-application, which
needs to be dealt with. Therefore, Annex 69: “Strategy and practice of adaptive thermal
comfort in low energy buildings” was established in 2015 by international thermal comfort
experts under the umbrella of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy in Buildings
and Communities Programme (EBC). Besides establishing a) a new extended database,
Annex 69 has the following overall objectives: b) to provide indoor thermal environment
criteria based on the adaptive concept; c) to provide a basis for the creation or revision of
indoor environment standards; d) to propose passive building design strategies to achieve
thermal comfort with low energy consumption and e) to provide design guidelines for new
cooling and heating devices (EBC 2018). One of the major project deliverables will be a
design guideline on how to use the adaptive comfort concept for lowering the energy use in
buildings, including the usage of personal thermal comfort systems. This is an ongoing
activity of the authors of this paper within activity B2 of the Annex. The planned guideline
aims to facilitate the application of the principles of adaptive thermal comfort in planning
practice. The main target groups are building planners (architects, engineers, sustainability
certification consultants/councils) and building operators (facility managers, owners,
tenants). The guideline can be a valuable piece of information for the discussions between
building owners and occupants and their building planners and building operators.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to discuss challenges and gaps identified in using
the principles of adaptive thermal comfort by building practitioners and associates.
Challenges relate first of all to the understanding of the adaptive principles, whereas the
gaps are mainly related to missing information and links for the practical application of the

2
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

adaptive concept. We relate these challenges and gaps to findings from research. We then
propose a framework that aims to facilitate the adoption of adaptive comfort principles in
design and operation of buildings as a complementary tool to a holistic design 1 process. Our
framework will serve to outline the scope of the future guideline for low energy building
design based on the concept of adaptive thermal comfort.
2. Adaptive comfort concept and its principles
Human perception of the indoor thermal environment together with the notion of thermal
comfort have been researched already in the beginning of the 19th century (Houghton and
Yaglou, 1923a,b). The relationship between thermal perception and prevailing indoor and
outdoor conditions was established by the pioneering works of Auliciems (1969a, 1969b,
1981b, 1981a), Nicol and Humphreys (1973) and Humphreys (1976, 1978). In contrast to the
static view on thermal comfort, they define thermal comfort as a self-regulating system.
Their work forms the foundation for the formulation of the three adaptive principles, today
known as behavioural, physiological, and psychological (de Dear et al. 1997). In this context,
the work by Auliciems, Humphreys and Nicol is the first to mention a) behavioural
thermoregulation by changing posture or activity, clothing insulation levels or the thermal
environment and b) social factors and constraints related to thermal control (Nicol and
Humphreys, 1973). Thermoregulatory adjustments based on acclimatisation processes
(Auliciems, 1981b) have been subject of earlier research in the thirties.
Reviewing the three adaptive principles, Schweiker et al. (2012) conclude that their
basic mechanisms are known, but more research is necessary for a further understanding of
each adaptive principle and their interactions. To summarise these mechanisms,
behavioural adaptation consists of clothing adjustments or adjustments to the indoor
thermal environment by adaptive opportunities (e.g. window opening or using a fan). These
adaptive behaviours affect the human body’s heat balance by regulating the rate of internal
heat generation and the body heat loss via convection, long-wave radiation, evaporation or
conduction. Research has shown that the probability of these behaviours varies with
changing outdoor conditions (e.g. Nicol, 2001; Baker and Standeven 1997, de Carli et al.
2007; Haldi and Robinson 2009; Cândido et al. 2011; Schiavon and Lee 2013, Wang et al.
2018). Physiological adaptation (acclimatisation) serves to reduce thermal stress on the
human body after repeated stimuli outside the comfort range on the cold or hot side. As a
consequence, the response of the thermoregulation system is altered through adjustments
in physiological parameters e.g. an enhanced metabolic expenditure (van Marken
Lichtenbelt et al. 2014) or the onset temperature of sweating (Hori, 1995; Taylor, 2014). This
shows that physiological adaptation requires exposures to non-neutral conditions, which in
addition have been shown to have additional positive health effects (e.g. Hanssen et al.,
2015; Pallubinsky et al., 2017). For example, Hanssen et al. (2015), and Schrauwen and van
Marken Lichtenbelt (2016) have shown that excursions to the cold and warm side of neutral
conditions improved the health status of patients with type 2 diabetes. Psychological

1
holistic design: often also called whole building design, integrated design or collaborative design.

3
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

adaptive mechanisms include for instance notions of perceived control, characterising the
degree of control humans feel they have over their indoor environment facilitated e.g. by
the availability of operable windows or the degree of privacy (e.g. Paciuk, 1990; Fountain et
al., 1996; Hellwig, 2015, Boerstra, 2016); or changed expectations (Brager and de Dear,
2003; Strengers, 2008; Luo et al. 2016, Wang et al. 2017), e.g. due to pro-environmental
attitudes (Leaman and Bordass, 2007). The range of acceptable indoor temperatures widens
with a higher level of perceived control available to an individual.
Schweiker and Wagner (2015) assign the largest effect to clothing level adjustments,
i.e. a behavioural adaptation, followed by physiological adaptation especially on the warm
side and psychological adaptation. This is supported by much earlier work of Cabanac, later
also emphasised in the built environment context by Nicol and Humphreys (1973), which
shows that behavioural adaptation is the one favoured by humans, hence the first to be
applied.
3. Adaptive principles in current standards and guidelines
In their early years of development, standards for the indoor environment mainly relied on
the heat balance approach for providing thermal comfort criteria. Based on ASHRAE RP 884
worldwide database (de Dear et al. 1997), in 2004, ASHRAE was the first to include in its
Standard 55 (ASHRAE, 2004) the adaptive approach as a method for naturally ventilated
buildings. Based on the results of the European SCATs study (McCartney and Nicol, 2002),
EN 15251:2007 (CEN, 2007), its imminent successor prEN 16798 (CEN, 2019) and ISO 17772-
1 (ISO, 2017) provide a similar method for buildings not mechanically heated or cooled (free
running).
The second version of the Dutch ISSO 74 combines the heat balance model for heated
spaces with an adaptive model based on the data from the SCATs database for the non-
heating period (Boerstra et al., 2015). The use of the adaptive model depends on whether a
space offers high degree of personal control.
The Chinese Standard GB/T50785-2012 provides two methods for the evaluation of
free-running buildings: 1) a method based on a similar formulation of the adaptive model as
in ASHRAE Standard 55, and 2) a calculation method based on an adaptive predicted mean
vote (aPMV) (Li et al., 2014). Both approaches offer different temperature ranges according
to climate zones prevalent in China.
India based its Model for Adaptive Comfort (IMAC) on field surveys in five Indian
climate zones (Manu et al., 2016). The surveyed buildings comprise naturally ventilated,
mixed-mode and air-conditioned office buildings. The IMAC approach considers explicitly
mixed-mode buildings, which are becoming increasingly prevalent in India. Two adaptive
models were developed, one for naturally ventilated and one for mixed-mode buildings. The
equations have been included in the National Building Code 2017 (BIS 2017), the Energy
Conservation Building Code 2017 and in building certification schemes.
In the UK, the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) have included
the European adaptive model in three non-mandatory guides: “CIBSE Guide A:
Environmental design” (CIBSE, 2015), TM52 on the assessment of overheating in non-

4
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

residential buildings (Nicol, 2013) and “TM59 Design methodology for the assessment of
overheating risk in homes” (Bonfigli et al., 2017), all based on the European adaptive model
of EN 15251 (CEN 2007), ISO 17772-1 (ISO 2017) and prEN 16798.
Tables 1 and 2 summarise the standards and codes, which include the adaptive
concept. As can be seen, the standards account for the applicability of adaptive models by
categorising buildings or spaces. Unlike ASHRAE St 55 (ASHRAE 2017), EN 15251 (CEN 2007),
ISO 17772-1 (ISO 2017) and prEN 16798 which use the classification of buildings into
conditioned (centrally HVAC conditioned, heated or cooled), and occupant-controlled
naturally ventilated or free running, ISSO 74 (Boerstra et al. 2015) has been using a
classification according to the degree of personal control available in a space. The building
types, alpha (high occupant control) and beta (low/no occupant control), are determined
based on a flowchart of adaptive opportunities. As most of the buildings in the Netherlands
(like in other European countries) do not only use one of the two main conditioning modes
but a combination of them (van der Linden et al., 2006), this approach therefore evaluates
combined options of occupant control.
Using the criteria described in EN 15251 (CEN 2007), ISO 17772-1 (ISO 2017) and prEN
16798 (CEN 2019) to categorise the operation modes of buildings, it has become one
planning option of consultancy companies e.g. in Germany to combine the heat balance
model for the heating period and the adaptive model for the non-heating period (BNB
2015). This and other types of mixed-mode operation of buildings are common in many
other countries. However, the various types of mixed-mode operation are not included in
the standards and there is no consistency in the operation mode categories. The definitions
used therefore have been criticised as ambiguous on the applicability of the adaptive model,
especially for mixed-mode buildings (EBC 2018, Kazanci et al., 2019) which points to a need
for clarifications in terminology.
Tables 1 and 2 show that current classifications of buildings mainly consider the
conditioning mode but no other building design characteristics, such as construction type
(e.g. thermal mass, insulation), architectural features or spatial configurations (e.g.
openings, layout, orientation, shading) or operation aspects, which also impact on a
building’s ability to provide thermal comfort and affect the effectiveness of occupants’
adaptive responses (e.g. window design, orientation and internal openings affect the
effectiveness of window opening for providing cooling). There is also a strong focus on
behavioural adaptation and absence of the two other adaptive principles (physiological,
psychological) discussed in section 2, and associated design and operational possibilities.
The latest versions of ASHRAE St 55 (ASHRAE 2017) and ISO 17772-1 (ISO 2017)
incorporate the effect of elevated air speed on comfort, which allows for wider acceptable
ranges of operative temperature especially when occupants have control over the air speed.
The inclusion of adaptive models in current standards and guidelines and the elevated air
speed method are one step forward and help to avoid unnecessary use of active
conditioning. However, the standards focus primarily on the allowable indoor temperatures

5
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

without sufficient guidance for facilitating buildings and their operation designed to the
adaptive comfort concept.
Table 1. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current international standards for different
building operation modes.
Table 2. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current national standards for different building
operation modes.
4. Making use of the adaptive principles
In this chapter, we report on identified challenges and barriers and summarise exemplary
information, which may contribute to a future guideline. We would like to point out that
there is a strong interaction between the several factors mentioned, meaning that a change
in one factor might require changes in another factor leading to different comfort or
satisfaction perceptions (Humphreys and Nicol, 2018).
4.1. Contribution to lowering energy use in buildings
Applying the adaptive principles in all kind of climates would most likely contribute to
lowering the energy used in new and existing buildings (Yang et al., 2014; Barbadilla-Martín
et al., 2018, Gokarakanda et al. 2019). But why can we expect this positive contribution?
Humphreys and Nicol (2018) summarise that humans are found to live comfortable in
diverse climates at temperatures between 15 and 35˚C. This means that the design
temperature can be diverse and changes with the prevailing climate, facilitating a low as
possible temperature difference between indoors and outdoors, resulting in a low demand
for active conditioning. At the same time, there is more and more evidence, that thermal
exposures slightly outside thermal neutrality lead to a wider range of accepted
temperatures and can even have positive health aspects, as mentioned above e.g. an
improved health status of patients with type 2 diabetes (Hanssen et al. 2015; Schrauwen
and van Marken Lichtenbelt 2016). The wider range of temperatures can further lead to
energy savings as they offer the potential to reduce the realised indoor-outdoor
temperature difference and thereby the required actual cooling or heating capacity.
Even in mechanically conditioned buildings there is potential to introduce a certain
degree of thermal adaptation e.g. if the building is properly zoned. Henze et al. (2007)
demonstrate that running a building following adaptive comfort criteria while optimising the
control of thermal mass strongly reduces total cooling loads and associated building
systems’ energy consumption. Using personalised comfort systems leads to an increased
perception of personal control and allows the indoor temperature to be closer to the
prevailing outdoor temperature, an effect called corrective power of personalised comfort
systems (Zhang et al. 2015).
Despite the clear energy saving potential outlined above, there are still challenges in
achieving this desired outcome in practice. In permanently or seasonally conditioned
spaces, rebound effects have been observed diminishing the effect of energy efficiency
measures. For instance, rebound effects can occur due to i) a changed temperature regime
(extent rebound), e.g. when occupants gradually decide for higher indoor temperatures
during the heating period (e.g. Hansen et al. 2018), ii) a changed conditioning schedule
(temporal rebound), e.g. intermittent, night set-back or shut-off vs permanent conditioning

6
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

(e.g. Gruber et al. 1989), iii) an extended availability of conditioning systems to more rooms
(spatial rebound), e.g. entire apartment vs selected spaces of an apartment and iv) changed
occupant behaviours (behavioural rebound), e.g. reducing the frequency or degree of
changes in amount of clothing worn (e.g. Hansen et al. 2018, Karyono 2018). There are of
course several sources of rebound effects. We mention here those related to thermal
comfort and therefore relevant for building energy use.
From a study in two mixed-mode office buildings in Jordan it can be seen that,
although perceived control of the occupants and satisfaction was high, the occupant-driven
room temperatures tended to be constant all year round. The occupants had access to
decentralised air-conditioning units with adjustable thermostats (Al-Atrash 2018).
Furthermore, it has been found that occupants, due to the adoption of western lifestyle,
change e.g. their clothing behaviour towards more pieces of garments in warm and humid
climates, requiring then lower temperatures to compensate for the warmer clothing
(Karyono 2018). A study in University halls of residence in the UK found that students
previously adapted to warm climates would create their preferred warm indoor
environment in the new location given the choice and controls, leading to higher heating
demand than designed (Amin et al., 2018). In a heating dominated region, it was found that
occupants in energy-inefficient houses dressed warmer than occupants in energy-efficient
houses (Hansen et al. 2018). Certain behaviours and controls’ use can therefore reverse the
energy conservation potential of adaptation, unless appropriate measures are in place.
4.2. Challenges in understanding the adaptive principles
The conceptual model behind the bivariate relation of indoor operative temperature to
outdoor temperature is far more sophisticated. It qualitatively describes the impact of
influencing factors, which are not part of calculation models of adaptive thermal comfort. It
is often described as a black box model. Furthermore, some qualitative factors of the
conceptual model are outside the classic educational training of building designers
(behavioural adaptation, psychological adaptation). Acclimatisation, as one contributor to
physiological adaptation, might be necessary to be communicated again, as it has not been
part of the common understanding of thermal comfort anymore since the 70ies. Some
missing links towards a full understanding of acclimatisation processes within humans
remain for future research. In the context of overheating, Hellwig (2018) discusses whether
using the term adaptation might be the source of reservations among stakeholders towards
the adaptive model, as they would expect adaptation being related to a stressful situation.
On one hand, the bivariate representation of the adaptive approach makes it
attractive for dynamic thermal building simulation. On the other hand, for building
designers in the planning process, who have been trained according to the previous
common understanding of steady state, a black box model incorporating non-quantifiable
factors appears to be a source of difficulty and uncertainty when deciding for a building’s
design.
As thermal comfort has often been explained using the term “satisfaction” (ASHRAE
2017), there is a need to explain under which circumstances occupants tend to be satisfied.

7
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

As numerous studies have shown, there is a range of variables which can neither be
measured nor simulated, as mentioned earlier, personal control, expectations or level of
acclimatisation etc. Excellent summaries on these factors are available e.g. by the Usable
Buildings Trust2, or e.g. Humphreys and Nicol (1998).
Definitions for conditioning modes depend on how the conditioning practice in a
certain country uses the term. Whereas natural ventilation for instance has often been used
as a synonym for free-running buildings, in some countries, natural ventilation refers
exclusively to the way indoor air is exchanged with outdoor air. Meanwhile, ASHRAE (2017)
uses the term occupant-controlled naturally conditioned space. The term mixed-mode
building is often used for buildings with a combination of natural ventilation and mechanical
conditioning, mainly using air in alternating operation or seasonally (Kalz and Pfafferott
2010, Brager and Baker, 2008; Manu et al. 2016). EN 15251 (CEN 2007) uses the term
building without mechanical cooling and defines at the same time that the heating system
should not be in operation. Active cooling is used as synonym for mechanical cooling,
covering both cooling of air and thermally activated systems (building elements or chilled
panels). Regionally common definitions may vary, and therefore, the guideline currently
under development can provide an overview over the terms often used and their meaning.
4.3. Local climate, season and acclimatisation
The main driver of human adaptation in buildings with a certain connection to outdoor
climate (i.e. free-running buildings) is the local climate and its seasonal course. If exposed,
humans adapt to the prevailing outdoor climate, and their indoor comfort temperature is
strongly related to the outdoor temperature they experience (Humphreys, 1978). It has
been frequently reported that people in hot climates are able to feel comfortable at
temperatures much higher than those from cold climates (Humphreys & Nicol 1998; van van
Hoof 2008; Brager & de Dear 1998) and people from different climate zones have different
tolerance to cold and warm indoor environments, which is attributed to an extent to
physiological adaptation due to exposure to non-neutral thermal conditions.
Seasons also contribute to the formation of thermal experience. Seasonal changes
provide people with enough time to adapt to their different thermal environments. Wang et
al. (2010, 2014) showed that human neutral temperature varied in different seasons and it
was higher in summer and spring than in winter. Cao et al. (2011) found that low outdoor
temperature during winter made people adapt to the cold environment while in the
summer people had a higher tolerance to the hot environment. Humphreys’ meta-analysis
of thermal comfort studies concluded that people within a population can tolerate seasonal
drifts in the indoor temperature of up to 7 to 8 Kelvin (Humphreys et al., 2016).
Indoor and outdoor climates have a mutual influence on occupants’ adaptability. The
relationship between the mean indoor temperature and people’s comfort temperature has
been found to be strong (Humphreys, 1976; Auliciems 1981, Ning et al. 2016) which means
that people are able to match their comfort temperature to their typically experienced

2
http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/ last accessed: 3 Sept 2019

8
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

environment. Li et al. (2018) found that occupants living in the unheated thermal
environments in the South-east China zones are more adaptive and tolerant to cooler
winter indoor conditions than those living in the North part of China where central heating
systems are in use. Similarly, occupants in social housing apartments in the UK were found
to have adapted to the high and stable indoor temperatures they were exposed to (Teli et
al., 2016). Wang et al. (2018) found that the participants were more sensitive to
temperature variations at the early heating phase. They adapted to a warm heated
environment gradually during the whole winter.
The above research shows that thermal experience in different climates and indoor
thermal environments affects people's physiological adaptation and expectations, forming
different subjective thermal responses and neutral temperatures. Such effects of climate
and seasons need to be considered in the development of the planned guideline to avoid
the adoption of a universal design approach that would disregard climate and human
adaptability, leading to a higher energy use than necessary. Furthermore, a number of
adaptive comfort models have been developed for different climate zones (e.g. Manu et al.
2016, Toe 2018). The planned guideline cannot introduce all of them. However, a collection
of models could be included in a repository and described in a more general way.
4.4. Local constraints and further contextual factors
Certain building usages require more or less constant thermal conditions all-year-round,
such as museums. Also, public indoor spaces are certainly to be looked at in a different way
than e.g. offices or homes. The latter spaces offering a higher degree of privacy are
predestined for the application of the adaptive approach, which considers adaptive actions
of occupants as an essential basic part of comfort creation and perception.
There are individual differences in attitudes: For example, Leaman and Bordass (2007)
or Deuble and de Dear (2012b) found that occupants with a higher level of environmental
concern are more likely to tolerate conditions beyond the “ideal” in green buildings
compared to occupants with a lower level of environmental concern. Personality and
openness to receive information on the building differ between persons. Occupants can
have increased expectations due to culture, modernity, lack of adaptation to outdoors, or a
learned attitude. An extensive review of the various factors affecting people’s adaptive
behaviours in different building types can be found in Korsavi et. al (2018).
There are further contextual factors, often local constraints or social norms, which
should be taken into account when designing buildings or considering bioclimatic/ passive
design strategies. Such factors can limit the opportunities for a functioning adaptive design:
- Outdoor air pollution and noise
- Urban heat island effect, limiting the effectiveness of natural ventilation in non-air-
conditioned spaces
- Disease transmitting insects
- Security issues
- Requirements regarding other building planning aspects e.g. fire safety
- Cultural custom (e.g. dress code)

9
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

- Space scarcity in highly populated areas limiting opportunities to design for natural
ventilation
- Real Estate Company planning – difficulties in involving occupants in the planning
phase
- Technological challenges, e.g. typical air-conditioning set-point control is based on air-
temperature
These challenges can probably not be addressed by an improvement of a standard alone.
For several cases, a guideline may be supportive in developing design solutions for some
items as addressing these issues may lead to more awareness about the missing design
solution. It can also be seen that many of these constraints are related to highly urbanised
areas in the more extreme climates.
4.5. Adaptive responses, personal control and user behaviour
Fundamental to the adaptive approach is the role of the user: “If a change occurs that
produces discomfort, people tend to act to restore their comfort.” (Humphreys and Nicol
2018). In frequent discussions amongst professionals at energy efficiency symposia where
user behaviour is addressed, we have experienced many building professionals’ subjective
perception that occupants’ behaviour would be random or not logical, and in many cases
contradictory to a low energy use of a building, e.g. window opening at “wrong” conditions
or using thermostats in a “wrong” way (see further examples Usable Building Trust2). They
define the user’s role according to their self-image as professionals, marketing strategies for
new building technologies or design solutions promising increased comfort through comfort
provision, which literally assigns a passive role to users (Hellwig 2018). The degree of control
was identified in many studies as a main driver for thermal comfort or satisfaction (e.g.
Leaman and Bordass 2006, Hellwig, 2005, Schweiker et al. 2018). Regarding the impact of
control on comfort perception or satisfaction, a conceptual model was presented in Hellwig
(2015), showing that social norms, expectation (e.g. Fountain et al., 1996; Brager and de
Dear, 2003) and psychological factors can support or limit adaptive opportunities. When
expectations are not met this may result in complaints during building operation (Bischof et
al. 2002). It is important that a user has realistic expectations which are consistent with the
performance of the building after the building is commissioned, otherwise this can lead to
disappointment (Usable Building Trust2).
Research has shown that occupants’ satisfaction decreases with a higher number of
persons in the same room, which can be attributed to a lower degree of perceived control
and higher social interactions necessary (Hedge et al., 1989; Duval, Charles and Veitch,
2002; Marquardt, Veitch and Charles, 2002; Wagner and Schakib-Ekbatan, 2011; Al-Atrash
2018). As an example, Schweiker and Wagner (2016) showed that the number of occupants
in a room with elevated temperature alters the adaptive opportunities used by occupants:
less ceiling fans and blinds were used in four person offices compared to single person
offices, but more clothing level adjustments occurred in larger offices. In addition, perceived
control and neutral temperature decreased with a higher number of persons. Hence,
designing for high personal control in open-plan offices is challenging due to a generally

10
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

diminished perception of privacy. However, Leaman and Bordass (2006) argue that
individual control in an open office can be perceived as high as long as there is a means of
changing the environment, e.g. by calling facilities’ management and having the request
resolved quickly. A layout of work spaces which provides individuals with sufficient space
and means for adjustments and privacy can increase perceived control and satisfaction
levels.
There are several recent activities (e.g. IEA EBC Annex 66, 2019, IEA EBC Annex 79,
2019) and review papers regarding the state of the art on behaviour and control (Schweiker
et al. 2018, Hellwig, 2015). With regard to the energy use of buildings, behaviour has been
identified to be as important as the energy efficiency quality of the building design (Gram-
Hanssen, 2013). A huge variety of different adaptive behaviours exists, which people can
choose to make themselves more comfortable. Table 3 shows conceivable adaptive actions
or responses to warmer or cooler than previously experienced environments, sorted
according to their effect principles. Schweiker et al (2018) categorised adaptive actions into
physiological, individual, environmental and spatial adjustments. The building usage/type
(e.g. residential, office, classroom etc.) may reduce the number and type of conceivable
adaptive actions as it e.g. may not be appropriate to use a blanket when sitting in a
classroom or taking off more clothes in an office environment. Conceivable adaptive actions
may also differ according to the local climate. For instance, measures such as wetting of
walls or floors can be ineffective in warm and humid regions compared to hot and arid
climates. However, although an adaptive action may be more suited to a certain season,
climate or building type, it may also be applicable in a different context depending on time
of the day or occupancy. In sight of climate change, adaptive actions previously not used in
a certain region may become desirable and appropriate in the future.
In the planned guideline, some basic principles for designing for occupant control
should be implemented. There are still common misunderstandings in the interpretation of
personal control among building planners and operators regarding the amount of control,
the seriousness of this topic and the level of information needed by occupants (Hellwig and
Boerstra 2017, 2018). It might be supportive to include an exemplary list of design decisions
or operational practices not conducive to high perceived control, as they impose restrictions
to occupants.
Hellwig (2018) points out that behavioural actions might not only help to adapt to a
stimulus but also to remove this stimulus, e.g. by using technological means; hence if the
technology used has enough capacity to fully remove or avoid the stimulus physiological
adaptation (acclimatisation) to the deviating conditions will not take place. In order to avoid
this, energy efficient solutions can be chosen. Provided the users are conscious about the
“green” performance of their building and understand its importance, the controls are
usable and they received factual information on how to make use of certain technological
means to adapt, they will be able to use their building in the intended way (Leaman and
Bordass 2007; Deuble and de Dear 2012b, Usable Building Trust2).

11
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

For building operation, it is important not to discourage the user from taking control
actions. For overall satisfaction, it is supportive if an occupant – to a certain degree - feels
responsible for the indoor climate at their workplace. Otherwise, the occupant has to rely
too much on a building’s autonomic behaviour or changes to be implemented by the facility
manager which can be stressful as it is indirect control (Johnson, 1974). To facilitate
satisfaction of the users an appropriate complaint strategy system of the facility
management of the building is desirable. This includes that complaints of users are taken
seriously and comprises an appropriate feedback loop.
In this paper we have not included personalised comfort systems as this will be the
outcome of another activity of Annex 69.
Table 3. Conceivable adaptive actions or responses to warmer or cooler than previously experienced
environments; adopted from Humphreys and Nicol, 1998; Nicol and Humphreys, 2018, Schweiker et al. 2016;
Taylor 2014, van Marken Lichtenbelt et al. 2014, further inspiration from R.F. Rupp and N. Brito see
acknowledgement, and adjusted, re-arranged and amended by the authors. Adaptive actions are seen as
predominantly conscious behaviour; adaptive responses (in italic letters) are seen as predominantly
autonomous unconscious physiological reactions of the body.
4.6. Building design and operation
The standards describe under which operation mode(s) the adaptive model can be applied.
The underlying assumption is that the building’s design is capable for this operation mode,
namely is designed according to bioclimatic/passive design principles. However, the
standards do not explicitly state this nor potential issues in applying them in practice. On
the one hand, modern construction, conditioning technologies and lack of suitable
bioclimatic/ passive building design for multi-storey buildings have led to construction and
conditioning practices in many regions of the world, which are different to their traditional,
vernacular approach. Looking at prevalent building designs all over the world it appears to
be necessary to include this kind of advice into the standards. On the other hand, there are
limitations in the application of bioclimatic design, e.g. local constraints (see also section
4.4.). For example, in dense urban areas, high-rise buildings tend to overshadow each other
so that opportunities for passive solar heating and daylighting are limited. At the same time,
overshadowing in warm climates can also lower the cooling needs, which demonstrates the
interrelation of design approaches with the prevailing climatic and urban context regarding
their energy impact.
So far, there is few examples of passive design features included in the standards as e.g.
shutters. At the same time, passive design is more: it is about thermal mass, night
ventilation, solar protection or shading, use of passive or active solar technologies etc. in a
balanced way and where relevant. It is outside the scope of the planned guideline to repeat
passive/bioclimatic design principles for different climatic zones which have been published
elsewhere (e.g. Kubato et al. 2018, Manzano-Agugliaro et al. 2015; Zhai and Previtali 2010;
Manu et al. 2019, Kwok 2018). Nevertheless, basic principles need to be introduced in order
to show their relationship to the adaptive principles as well as potential constraints in their
application and possible ways to address them.

12
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

The layout of a floor plan, fenestration and positioning of openings, thermal

properties of materials used in the envelope or in internal building elements, room height
and depth do not only affect the readiness of a building for the free-running mode. These
parameters also affect the choice of the conditioning systems affecting energy efficiency
and the level of personal control of the occupants. In an open plan office, it might be
difficult to provide individual access to windows although it might be still possible to
implement natural ventilation.
There is a time lag of about one week in clothing adaptation for short-term changes in
the weather (Humphreys and Nicol, 1998) and of up to two weeks for physiological
acclimatisation to heat for sudden changes (Taylor 2014), e.g. in a heat wave. The time lag in
human adaptation to changing outdoor conditions is represented in the calculation of the
outdoor running mean temperature (McCartney and Nicol 2002, EN 15251 2007 and
successors, ASHRAE 2017). Buildings designed according to the adaptive principles should
therefore provide sufficient buffer to allow occupants to adapt (Hellwig 2018). The ability of
a building to buffer is highly linked to the predictability and reliability of a building’s thermal
behaviour, which is an important building property for occupants (Bordass and Leaman
1997).
Therefore, a successful building design implementing the adaptive comfort principles
is one that aims to maximize use of passive potential, regardless of the type of usage or the
operation mode. In order to facilitate human thermal adaptation to changes in the
prevailing outdoor weather the building has to be designed so that: a) it provides a
sufficient environment-regulating capacity within the building construction and enclosure,
and b) it makes use of adequate technological opportunities enhancing the thermal
environment if what is mentioned under a) is not sufficient. Therefore, it can be stated that
a successful adaptive thermal comfort design is one in which design for human thermal
adaptation is foreseen, planned, and carefully embedded in the design and operation intent.
Three general types of buildings are considered in their different relation to design for
adaptive thermal comfort: 1) Naturally ventilated, free-running, passive buildings, 2) Mixed-
mode buildings, and 3) mechanically conditioned, actively conditioned, air-conditioned
buildings. These types of buildings offer occupants different degrees of thermal adaptation
and thermal environmental control.
1) Naturally ventilated, free-running, passive buildings: The performance of free-
running buildings depends solely on their passive design and the external weather
conditions. Therefore, the adaptive concept to thermal comfort is appropriate for
evaluating the effectiveness of passive systems (Chiesa et al. 2017). All definitions known to
the authors define the availability of operable windows as necessity. Some standards state
that conditioning systems should not be in operation (ISO 17772-1 (2017)/ prEN 16798)
others state that conditioning systems should not be installed (Construction and Planning
Agency Taiwan, (2018)). Flexible clothing policies as an organisational factor is required
(ASHRAE 2017, ISO 17772-1 (2017)/ prEN 16798). Ceiling fans are seen as mandatory in

13
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

climates where air-movement is a desirable strategy to increase heat loss of the body
(Construction and Planning Agency Taiwan, 2018, National Building Code India, BIS 2017).
2) Mixed-mode buildings: Several definitions of the term “mixed-mode” exist. Brager
(2006) defines a mixed-mode building as a hybrid combination of natural ventilation
(operable windows: manually or automatically controlled), and mechanical systems
(including air distribution equipment and refrigeration equipment for cooling). This
definition describes the situation of mixed-mode in climates where cooling using air is
prevalent. It does not provide information whether heating in general or predominantly
radiative systems for both cooling and heating is covered by this definition. EN 15251 (CEN
2007) and its successors exclude the heating case from the scope of application of the
adaptive model.
The operation of mixed-mode buildings can be in concurrent (same space, same time),
change-over (same space, different times) in either permanently alternating mixed-mode or
in seasonal mixed-mode, or zoned-mode (differed spaces, same time) (Brager 2006). In
some national codes mixed-mode is defined by the operation of AC only during extreme
outdoor conditions (National Building Code India, BIS 2017) and with extreme orientations
(Construction and Planning Agency Taiwan, 2018). For these types of buildings, a façade
design is required which is suitable to the building context (local climate, building
type/usage, local constraints).
There has been a discussion on whether mixed-mode buildings can be planned or
assessed using adaptive comfort models. There is evidence (Brager and Baker, 2008) that in
mixed-mode buildings, indoor temperatures “can be allowed to float within the more
energy-efficient acceptability limits of the adaptive comfort standard and still ensure
comfortable conditions for the occupants. When temperatures reach the maximum limits
then HVAC systems can be turned on in a limited way to ensure temperatures stay within the
adaptive comfort standard limits (rather than switching to the narrow set points of a
centrally-controlled AC building)” (Deuble and de Dear 2012a, p.59). Research by Luo et al.
(2015) brought evidence that the adaptive model is applicable to mixed-mode buildings
especially when natural ventilation is utilised. The CIBSE AM13 (2000) explains in detail the
principles and best practices in the design of buildings for mixed-mode ventilation. Deuble
and de Dear (2012a) indicate that mixed-mode ventilation requires intelligent control
systems that switch automatically between natural and mechanical modes to minimize
energy use without compromising air quality and thermal comfort. Mixed-mode ventilation
has – in a European context – also been called hybrid ventilation (Heiselberg, 2002). Further
discussion about a more general definition of mixed-mode buildings with examples for
typical applications in exemplary climates seems to be necessary.
3) Mechanically conditioned, air-conditioned, actively conditioned buildings: These
buildings can be heated or cooled, either with water-based systems (predominantly
radiative systems) or based on air (air-conditioning). The operation of these systems can be
either centralised or decentralised, whereby centralised operation tends to offer the lowest
degree of personal control. Decentralised systems offer more control. If combined with

14
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

operable windows the question could be raised whether they fall under the “concurrent”
category of mixed mode buildings.
A source of misunderstanding has been the comfort classes/categories introduced in
some standards (A, B, C or I, II, III) for design and operation of buildings. Although explained
e.g. in EN 15251 (CEN 2007), ISO 17772-1 (ISO 2017) and prEN 16798 as the level of
expectation they are often interpreted as level of quality, with tight indoor climate control
seen as superior (Nicol and Wilson, 2011). For example, sustainability rating systems, such
as the German BNB (2015), award more credits for class A/category I buildings. Class A/
category 1 stands for high expectation and is meant to be applied for very sensitive people,
vulnerable groups who might be sick or restricted in their possibilities to adapt, either
because of missing ability to sense temperature (as e.g. for dementia) or because of
disability in changing clothing without the help of others. As could be shown by Arens et al.
(2010), no relative satisfaction benefit could be found for class A/category 1 buildings.
Conditioning practices have been changing since the invention and broader
implementation of central conditioning systems and there is a clear tendency to condition
entire spaces as well as conditioning over long periods. We should therefore consider that
people have likely adapted to their often experienced indoor environments. The
temperature experienced in these spaces is likely the typical set-point (design) temperature
according to a country’s standards or regulations. They experience a “normal” environment
(Humphreys and Nicol 1998). This does not necessarily mean that they cannot be
comfortable at changed temperatures but if changes in the building’s temperature
operation are intended (in order to improve energy-efficient building operation) this would
require an appropriate communication of the topic.
From the start of planning to beyond the commissioning, users should be involved in
the decision-making processes as part of an intensive communication strategy, whenever
possible. This avoids misunderstandings, minimises misconceptions and enables
participation. Involving occupants from the beginning is of course more difficult in cases of
buildings built on the real estate market for unknown tenants. In such cases ‘sample
occupants’ or pre-defined sets of ‘sample occupants’ could be used during the design phase
to cover the variety of users expected for the building in question. An additional
consideration is the transfer of design intentions into the building usage and operation
phase by means of information processes, e.g. digital “manuals” of the building tailored to
future occupants and available to them, even without the involvement of the real estate
owner. Overall, stronger effort for user information and involvement as well as fine-tuning
of the building systems would need to be placed in the operational phase of the building in
order to compensate for their absence in the design phase.
The advantages of involving occupants are two-fold: 1) learning their thermal needs
and experiences, motivating them and managing their expectations, and 2) informing them
about the building, its environmental systems, the expected environmental variability and
effects on performance, and most importantly about their role in controlling their own
thermal environment and its impacts on building performance. As explained by Leaman and

15
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Bordass (2007) “…if people understand how things are supposed to work and what they are
for – window controls, perhaps, or thermostats – they tend to be more tolerant if things do
not turn out quite as well as they should”. Thus, a greater knowledge and understanding of
building environmental features and controls can lead to a relaxation of comfort
expectations, with significant implications for energy use (Brown and Cole 2008). In the UK,
a process has been developed called "Soft Landings" to help implement structural and
technical measures for sustainable buildings ("The Soft Landings Framework" 3). Similar
approaches exist in other countries. Furthermore, research is focussing on how to involve
users in the design and operation process of buildings (e.g. Martek et al. 2019, Bull and
Janda 2018).
5. Framework for adopting the adaptive principles
Based on the considerations in the previous sections we developed a framework to support
the adoption of adaptive principles in building design and operation. Hereby we focus on
those elements of a holistic design process which we identified being primarily relevant to
the adoption of adaptive principles (Figure 1). The primary elements of the framework are:
the building context, adaptive principles, planning/design, adaptive responses/actions and
the operational planning/operation of the building, which are described below with links to
the corresponding sections.
Building context: As derived from the discussion, the local climate (section 4.3), local
constraints (section 4.4), building type and its use (section 4.4, 4.6) and the local social
norms (section 4.5) determine the way adaptive principles (section 2) apply to a specific
building context. It should be highlighted that the adaptive principles are not influenced by
the building context, since they are based on fundamental physical, physiological and
psychological concepts. However, their potential is moderated by the building context. For
instance, in a warm climate, occupants are expected to accept warm indoor conditions
(psychological and physiological adaptation to a warm climatic context) rather than in a cold
climate. The moderated adaptive principles then feed into the design, operational planning
and operation of the building.
Planning/design (section 4.6): Priority is given to passive design, envelope and
construction methods to filter and moderate the weather variability. These are then
supplemented or enhanced if needed by use of active systems and technologies (building
services design), ranging from fans to simpler mechanical systems. In parallel, appropriate
adaptive opportunities are designed to ensure the occupants’ ability to adjust their indoor
environment. They depend on the building’s passive and active design and vice versa, if a
certain adaptive opportunity should be available to the users, then passive and active design
are to be designed in such a way that this opportunity can later on perceived as an
opportunity. This design process is iterative, as every design decision affects the others.
Adaptive responses/actions: Based on the three adaptive principles: behavioural,
physiological and psychological adaptation and through the building’s context and design,

3
www.softlandings.org.uk last accessed 3 Sept 2019

16
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

possible adaptive actions are defined (4.5). Although not comprehensive, Table 3 presents
an extended collection of adaptive actions, which serve also as a basis to determine
operational strategies and approaches.
Operational planning/operation: In this phase, actors play the most significant role for
the effective implementation of adaptive actions. Occupants’ participation is encouraged
not only when the operational phase starts but already in an early design and operational
planning stage to learn their needs and later inform them on how to use the building in the
intended way (section 4.6). The organisational management and operator (facility manager
FM) need to develop an operational strategy that involves and facilitates adaptive actions.
This process may then feed information back to the design brief for the building’s service
systems and adaptive opportunities design. During operation, an efficient feedback loop
between the actors can ensure that issues are identified and addressed promptly.
The framework aims to support and complement a holistic building design1 approach
and not to replace it, as it does not include all possible design criteria but focuses on the
inclusion of adaptive principles in the process.

17
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Figure 1: Proposed framework for adopting the adaptive principles in planning and
operation of buildings. For the “Adaptive responses/actions” refer to Table 3.
6. Outlook
In this paper, we reported on the challenges and gaps in using the adaptive thermal
comfort approach to lower the energy use in buildings. We identified those areas, which
need to be addressed in the planned design guideline on adaptive thermal comfort. We
have done so based on our understanding that human thermoregulation and the physical
principles of heat exchange between humans and their environment form one basis of
adaptive thermal comfort, yet do not represent the complete set of variables of this
comprehensive approach towards thermal comfort. Although not quantifiable or sometimes
not solely in control of building planners, and therefore identified being a source of
uncertainty for them, building contextual factors play a major role. Therefore, as expressed
earlier by Humphreys and Nicol (2018): “The adaptive model does not fit easily into the
current way of expressing standards for thermal comfort”.

18
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Designing buildings according to the adaptive principles requires an occupant-centred

and climate-centred approach that realises synergistic building-occupant controlled indoor
environments in response to the prevailing outdoor weather. Implementing this approach
involves many challenges and complexities that demand a collaborative effort1 between the
several building disciplines towards a common goal: achieving comfortable, satisfying indoor
environments sustainably.
The developed framework forms now our basis to develop the guideline. We are
seeking to find a balance between providing concrete guidance on one hand and on the
other hand enhancing creative thinking to be open for new low energy facilitating solutions,
not limiting solution to what we know currently or are used to. Another challenge lies in
adequately considering the requirements resulting from our diverse climates,
acknowledging both today’s and future climates or seasons, which may not allow for a free-
running mode at all times, but facilitating free-running modes in building operation as often
as possible. We have not discussed personalised comfort systems (PCS) in this paper as they
will be an outcome of another Subtask activity of Annex 69 but will be included in the final
guideline.
Through the discussion in this paper, the following specific objectives for the guideline
have been identified: 1) To improve the overall understanding of the adaptive principles; 2)
To explain the adaptive principles’ relation to building energy use; 3) To help interpreting
the adaptive model in building practice; 4) To include advice for heated or cooled buildings
into the guideline, not limiting the application of the adaptive thermal comfort concept to
free running buildings, especially, how to use the adaptive principles in permanently or
long-season conditioned spaces.
The guideline will address multiple stakeholders, i.e. building practitioners, including
building planners (architects, engineers, sustainability certification consultants/councils) and
building operators (facility managers, owners, tenants). It will also be a useful source of
knowledge and guidance for educating future building professionals. As the guideline is
meant to enhance the knowledge about the application of the adaptive principles, it should
provide supportive exemplary solutions from practice and different climates. Case study
buildings of Annex’ 69 (EBC 2018) Subtask C form one source for these examples. It will form
the basis for an improved description of criteria for the application of the adaptive approach
in standards. Insofar, the guideline we can now develop based on the framework presented
here, aims to support a successful adaptive thermal comfort design in which design for
human thermal adaptation is foreseen, planned, and carefully embedded in the design and
operation intent.
7. Acknowledgement
This work has been performed within the framework of the International Energy
Agency - Energy in Buildings and Communities Program (IEA-EBC) Annex69 “Strategy and
Practice of Adaptive Thermal Comfort in Low Energy Buildings”. www.iea-ebc.org,
www.annex69.org
The authors would like to thanks Fergus Nicol from the Network of Comfort and Energy Use

19
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

(NCEUB) for his support in our inquiry to NCEUB on table 3, Dr Ricardo Forgiarini Rupp from
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil and Nelson Brito from University of
Coimbra for their amendments to table 3, the reviewers for their valuable and constructive
comments.
Runa T. Hellwig would like to thank the Obelske Familiefond, Denmark for supporting
this work. Marcel Schweiker’s participation was supported by the project "Thermal comfort
and pain" funded by the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Joon-Ho Choi
appreciates technical assistance from Ms. Zhihe Wang, a student of the School of
Architecture at the University of Southern California in the U.S. Rodrigo Mora was
supported by the Green Value Strategies Fund, BCIT. Zhaojun Wang was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51278142).

20
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Declaration of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this
publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that
could have influenced its outcome.

We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors
and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are
not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has
been approved by all of us.

We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual

property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication,
including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing
we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning
intellectual property.

We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has
involved either experimental animals or human patients has been conducted with the
ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged
within the manuscript.

We understand that the Corresponding Author, Runa T. Hellwig, is the sole contact
for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with
the office). She is responsible for communicating with the other authors about
progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we
have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the
Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from

21
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

8. References
Al-Atrash, F.Z. (2018). Adaptive thermal comfort and personal control over office indoor environment in a
Mediterranean hot summer climate – the case of Amman, Jordan. (Dissertation). Karlsruhe Institute for
Technology (KIT). DOI: 10.5445/IR/1000088485
Amin, R., Teli, D. and James, P. (2018). Exploring the Link between Thermal Experience and Adaptation to a
New Climate. Future Cities and Environment, 4(1), p.9. http://doi.org/10.5334/fce.5
Arens, E., M. Humphreys, R. de Dear, and H. Zhang (2009). Are ‘Class A’ temperature requirements realistic or
desirable? Building and Environment 45(1), 4-10. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.03.014
Ashrae (2004) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55- Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Ashrae (2017) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55- Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Auliciems, A. (1969a). Effects of weather on indoor thermal comfort. International journal of biometeorology.
Springer, 13(2), pp. 147–162.
Auliciems, A. (1969b). Some group differences in thermal comfort. Heat. Vent. Engr, 42, pp. 562–564.
Auliciems, A. (1981a) ‘Psycho-physiological criteria for global thermal zones of building design’, Int J
Biometeorol. Springer, 26, pp. 69–86.
Auliciems, A. (1981b). Towards a psychophysiological model of thermal perception. International Journal of
Biometeorology, 25, pp. 109–122.
Baker, N. and Standeven, M. (1997). A behavioural approach to thermal comfort assessment. International
Journal of Solar Energy, 19, 21–35. doi:10.1080/01425919708914
Barbadilla-Martín E., Guadix Martín J., Salmerón Lissén J.M., Sánchez Ramos J. and Álvarez Domínguez S.
(2018). Assessment of thermal comfort and energy savings in a field study on adaptive comfort with
application for mixed mode offices. Energy and Buildings, vol. 167 p.p. 281-289.
BNB. (2015). Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen (BNB), Bürogebäude (Assessment System for Sustainable
Building, Office Buildings), Version 2015, in German. Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und
Heimat (Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community). Retrieved May 29 2019, from
https://www.bnb-nachhaltigesbauen.de/bewertungssystem/bnb-buerogebaeude/bnb-bn-
2015/kriterien-bnb-buero-und-verwaltungsgebaeude-neubau.html
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards (2017). National Building Code of India. New Dehli.
Bischof, W., Brasche, S., Kruppa, B., & Bullinger, M. (2002). Do Building-Related Complaints Reflect
Expectations? In Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002 (pp. 461–465). Monterey, CA, USA.
Boerstra A.C., Van Hoof J. and Van Weele A.M. (2015). A new hybrid thermal comfort guideline for the
Netherlands: background and development AU - Boerstra, A.C. Architectural Science Review, vol. 58 (1),
p.p. 24-34
Boerstra A.C. (2016). Personal control over indoor climate in offices: impact on comfort, health and
productivity. PhD thesis. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. Available via:
https://research.tue.nl/files/31668559/20160908_Boerstra.pdf
Bonfigli C., Chorafa M., Diamond S., Eliades C., Mylona A., Taylor B. and Virk D. (2017). TM59: Design
methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes. London: CIBSE.
Bordass, W.; Leaman, A. (1997). Future buildings and their services. Strategic considerations for designers and
clients. Buildings Research and Information, 25, 4, 190-195.
Brager G.S. (2006). Mixed-mode cooling. ASHRAE Journal, 48, 30-37.
Brager G.S. and De Dear R.J. (1998). Thermal Adaptation in the Built Environment: A Literature Review. Energy
and Buildings, vol. 27 (1), p.p. 83-96.
Brager, G. and Baker, L. (2008): Occupant Satisfaction in Mixed-Mode Buildings. Proceedings of Conference: Air
Conditioning and the Low Carbon Cooling Challenge, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 27-29 July 2008.

22
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

London: Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, http://nceub.org.uk., 18 pp,
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40k1s1vd, last accessed 28 May 2019.
Brager, G. S. and de Dear, R. J. (2003). Historical and cultural influences on comfort expectations. Buildings,
culture and environment: Informing local and global practices. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 177–201.
Brown, Z. and Cole, R.J. (2008). Engaging Occupants in Green Building Performance: Addressing the Knowledge
Gap, 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Bull, R. and Janda, K.B. (2018). Beyond feedback: introducing the ‘engagement gap’ in organizational energy
management, Building Research & Information, 46:3, 300-315, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1366748
Cândido, C., de Dear, R. and Lamberts, R. (2011). Combined thermal acceptability and air movement
assessments in a hot humid climate. Building and Environment, 46(2), pp. 379–385. doi:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.07.032.
Cao B, Zhu Y, Ouyang Q, et al. (2011). Field study of human thermal comfort and thermal adaptability during
the summer and winter in Beijing. Energy and Buildings, 43(5), pp. 1051-1056.
CEN (2007) EN 15251:2007 Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy
performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics.
Brussels: CEN (European Committee for Standardization)
CEN (2019). prEN 16798 Energy performance of buildings - Part 1: Indoor environmental input parameters for
design and assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
environment, lighting and acoustics. (preliminary)
Chiesa, G., Grosso, M., Pearlmutter, D., and Ray, S. (2017). Advances in adaptive comfort modelling and
passive/hybrid cooling of buildings, Editorial, Energy and Buildings, 148, pp. 211-217.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.012
CIBSE (2000). Mixed-mode ventilation: CIBSE AM13: 2000, The Chartered Institution of Building Services
Engineers, London, UK.
CIBSE (2015) Guide A-Environmental design. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.
Construction and Planning Agency (2018): Building Technical Regulations. Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan,
R.O.C.. #298-299, #308-312.
de Carli, M. et al. (2007). People’s clothing behaviour according to external weather and indoor environment.
Building and Environment, 42(12), pp. 3965–3973. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.038.
de Dear, R. J., Brager, G. S. and Cooper, D. (1997). Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and
Preference. Final Report on ASHRAE Research Project 884. Macquarie University Sydney.
Deuble, M. P., & de Dear, R. J. (2012a). Mixed-mode buildings: A double standard in occupants’ comfort
expectations. Building and Environment, 54, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.021
Deuble, M. P., & de Dear, R. J. (2012b). Green occupants for green buildings: The missing link? Building and
Environment, 56, 21–27. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.029
Duval, C. L., Charles, K. E. and Veitch, J. A. (2002) ‘Open-plan office density and environmental satisfaction’,
NRC Publications Archive.
EBC Executive Committee Support Services (Ed) (2018): Annex 69: Strategy and Practice of Adaptive Thermal
Comfort in Low Energy Buildings. Factsheet of Activities within the Energy in Buildings and Communities
programme of the International Energy Agency. AECOM Ltd,
http://www.ecbcs.org/projects/project?AnnexID=69, last visited 28/01/2018.
Fountain, M., Brager, G. S. and de Dear, R. J. (1996). Expectations of indoor climate control, Energy and
Buildings, 24(3), pp. 179–182. doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7788(96)00988-7.
Gokarakonda, S., van Treeck, Ch., Rawal, R. (2019): Influence of building design and control parameters on the
potential of mixed-mode buildings in India. Building and Environment, 148, pp 157-172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.043

23
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Gram-Hanssen, K (2013). Efficient technologies or user behaviour, which is the more important when reducing
households' energy consumption? Energy Efficiency, bind 6, nr. 3, s. 447-457. doi: 10.1007/s12053-012-
9184-4
Gruber, E.; Erhorn, H.; Reichert, J. (1989). Chancen und Risiken der Solararchitektur: Solarhäuser Landstuhl.
Köln, Verlag TÜV Rheinland. ISBN: 3-88585-676-X
Haldi, F. and Robinson, D. (2009). Interactions with window openings by office occupants. Building and
Environment. Elsevier Ltd, 44(12), pp. 2378–2395. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.03.025.
Hansen A.R., Gram-Hanssen, K., Knudsen, H.N. (2018). How building design and technologies influence heat-
related habits Building Research & Information, 46:1, 83-98,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1335477
Hanssen, M. J. W., Hoeks, J., Brans, B., van der Lans, A. A. J. J., Schaart, G., van den Driessche, J. J., Jörgensen
J.A., Boekschoten M.V., Hesselink M.K., Havekes B., Kersten S., Mottaghy F.M., van Marken Lichtenbelt
W.D., Schrauwen, P. (2015). Short-term cold acclimation improves insulin sensitivity in patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nature Medicine, 21(8), 863–865. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3891
Hedge, A. et al. (1989). Indoor Air Quality Work-related illness in offices: A proposed model of the “sick
building syndrome”. Environment International, 15(1), pp. 143–158. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(89)90020-2.
Heiselberg, P. (Ed.) (2002). Principles of hybrid ventilation. Results from EA Energy Conservation in Buildings
and Community Systems ProgrammeAnnex 35: Hybrid Ventilation in New and Retrofitted Office
Buildings. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, ISSN 1395-7953 R0207
Hellwig, R.T. (2005). Thermische Behaglichkeit – Unterschiede zwischen frei und mechanisch belüfteten
Bürogebäuden aus Nutzersicht. (Thermal comfort - natural ventilation versus air-conditioning in office
buildings from the occupant's point of view). Doctoral Thesis, University of Technology Munich,
November 2005. 179 pp https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/601018 last accessed 28 May 2019
Hellwig, R. T. (2015). Perceived control in indoor environments: a conceptual approach. Building Research &
Information, 43(3), pp. 302–315. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1004150.
Hellwig, R.T. (2018). Revisiting overheating indoors. Proceedings of 10th Windsor Conference: Rethinking
Comfort Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 12-15 April 2018. London: Network for Comfort and Energy
Use in Buildings, http://nceub.org.uk, paper 0116, www.windsorconference.
Hellwig, R.T.; Boerstra, A. (2018). Personal Control over indoor climate disentangled. Part 2. Federation of
European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations REHVA Journal, 4, August 2018, 20-23,
Last accessed: 28 May 2019, https://www.rehva.eu//knowledge-base/rehva-journal/detail/04-
2018?chapter=55
Hellwig, R.T.; Boerstra, A. (2017). Personal Control over indoor climate disentangled. Part 1. Federation of
European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations REHVA Journal, 3, June 2017, 23-26.
Last accessed 28 May 2018 https://www.rehva.eu/publications-and-resources/rehva-
journal/2017/032017.html
Henze, G.P., Pfafferott, J., Herkel, S., and Felsmann, C. (2007). Impact of adaptive comfort criteria and heat
waves on optimal building thermal mass control, Energy and Buildings, 39, 221-235.
Hori, S. (1995). Adaptation to heat, Japanese Journal of Physiology, 45, pp. 921–946.
Houghten, F. C., & Yagloglou, C. P. (1923). Determination of the comfort zone. J ASHVE, 29, 361–384.
Houghten, F. C., & Yagloglou, C. P. (1923). Determining lines of equal comfort. J ASHVE, 29, 163–176.
Humphreys, M. A. (1976). Field studies of thermal comfort compared and applied. Journal of the Institution of
Heating and Ventilating Engineers, 44, pp. 5–27.
Humphreys, M. A. (1978). Outdoor temperatures and comfort indoors. Batiment International, Building
Research and Practice. Taylor & Francis, 6(2), p. 92.
Humphreys, M. A., Nicol, J. F. (1998). Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE
Transactions 104(1):991-1004

24
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Humphreys M., Nicol F. and Roaf S. (2016). Adaptive Thermal Comfort: Foundations and Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Humphreys, M. A., Nicol, J. F. (2018). Chapter 10: Principles of adaptive thermal comfort. In: Kubato et al. (ed.)
2018: Sustainable houses and living in the hot-humid climates of Asia. Springer nature Singapore, pp
103-113.
IEA EBC Annex 66. Definition and simulation of occupant behavior in buildings. https://annex66.org/ last
accessed 28 May 2019.
IEA EBC Annex 79. Occupant-Centric Building Design and Operation. http://annex79.iea-ebc.org/ last accessed
28 May 2019
Johnson, C. A. (1974). Privacy as personal control. In D. H.Carson (Ed.), Man–environment interactions:
Selected papers presented at EDRA 5 (Vol. 6, pp. 83–100). Washington, DC: Environmental Design
Research Association.
Kalz, D. E., Pfafferott J.U. (2010). Comparative Evaluation of Natural Ventilated and Mechanical Cooled Non-
Residential Buildings in Germany: Thermal Comfort in Summer. Adapting to Change: New Thinking on
Comfort. NCEUB. Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Building. pp
21.
Karyono, T.H. (2018). Chapter 21: Behavioural Changes may affect changes in comfort temperature of
Indonesian people. In: Kubato et al. (ed.) 2018: Sustainable houses and living in the hot-humid climates
of Asia. Springer nature Singapore, pp 219-224
Kazanci, O. B., Coakley, D., & Olesen, B. W. (2019). A Review of Adaptive Thermal Comfort Implementation in
International Thermal Comfort Standards. In Press: Proceedings of 2019 ASHRAE Annual Conference.
Kansas City: ASHRAE.
Kingma, B. R. et al. (2011). Increased systolic blood pressure after mild cold and rewarming: relation to cold-
induced thermogenesis and age. Acta physiologica (Oxford, England). England, 203(4), pp. 419–427. doi:
10.1111/j.1748-1716.2011.02336.x.
Korsavi S., Montazami A. and Brusey J. (2018). Developing a design framework to facilitate adaptive
behaviours. Energy and Buildings, vol. 179 p.p. 360-373.
Kubato, T.; Rijal H.B.; Takgutchi, H. (ed.) 2018. Sustainable houses and living in the hot-humid climates of Asia.
Springer nature Singapore
Kwok, A.G.; Grondzik, W. (2018). The green studio handbook: Environmental strategies for schematic design.
rd
3 edition, New York, Routledge, eBook ISBN 9781315624327,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624327
ISO (2017). ISO 17772-1: Energy performance of buildings - Indoor environmental quality. Part 1: Indoor
environmental input parameters for the design and assessment of energy performance in buildings.
Geneva: ISO.
Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (2006). Productivity in Buildings: the “killer” variables, in Creating a Productive
Workplace, 2nd Ed., D. Clements-Croome, Ed., Taylor & Francis.
Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2007). Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Building Research and
Information, 35(6), 662–673. doi:10.1080/09613210701529518
Li B., Yao R., Wang Q. and Pan Y. (2014) An introduction to the Chinese Evaluation Standard for the indoor
thermal environment. Energy and Buildings, vol. 82 p.p. 27-36
Li B, Du C, Yao R, et al. (2018). ‘Indoor thermal environments in Chinese residential buildings responding to the
diversity of climates’, Applied Thermal Engineering, 77(7), pp. 192-196. 129, PP. 693-708.
Luo, M., Cao, B., Damiens, J., Lin, B., and Zhu, Y. (2015 ). Evaluating thermal comfort in mixed-mode buildings:
A field study in a subtropical climate, Building and Environment, 88, pp. 46-54.
Luo M., de Dear R., Ji W., Lin B., Ouyang Q., Zhu Y. (2016) The Dynamics of Thermal Comfort Expectations,
Building and Environment, 95, pp 322-329, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.07.015

25
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Manu S.; Brager, G.; Rawal, R.; Geronazzo, A.; Kumar, D. (2019). Performance evaluation of climate responsive
buildings in India - Case studies from cooling dominated climate zones. Building and Environment, 148,
pp 136-156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.063
Manu S., Shukla Y., Rawal R., Thomas L.E. and De Dear R. (2016). Field studies of thermal comfort across
multiple climate zones for the subcontinent: India Model for Adaptive Comfort (IMAC). Building and
Environment, vol. 98 p.p. 55-70
Manzano-Agugliaro F., Montoya F.G., Sabio-Ortega A., and Garcia-Cruz A. (2015). Review of bioclimatic
architecture strategies for achieving thermal comfort. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Elsevier, Vol. 49, pp. 736-755
Marquardt, C. J. G., Veitch, J. A. and Charles, K. E. (2002). Environmental satisfaction with open-plan office
furniture design and layout. Institute for Research in Construction.
Martek, I.; Hosseini, M. R.; Shrestha, A.; Edwards, D.J.; Seaton, S.; Costin, G. (2019). End-user engagement:
The missing link of sustainability transition for Australian residential buildings, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 224, , pp. 697-708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.277
McCartney K.J. and Nicol F. (2002). Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe. Energy and Buildings,
vol. 34 (6), p.p. 623-635
Nicol, F. (2001). Characterising Occupant Behaviour in Buildings: Towards a Stochastic Model of Occupant Use
of Windows, Lights, Blinds heaters and fans. in Proceedings of the Seventh International IBPSA
Conference, Rio 2. International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 1073–1078. Available
at: http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2001/BS01_1073_1078.pdf.
Nicol, F. and Humphreys, M. A. (1973). Thermal comfort as part of a self-regulating system. Building Research
and Practice, 1 (3), pp. 174–179.
Nicol J.F. and Wilson M. (2011). A critique of European Standard EN 15251: strengths, weaknesses and lessons
for future standards. Building Research & Information, vol. 39 (2), p.p. 183 — 193.
Nicol F. (2013) TM52: The limits of thermal comfort: avoiding overheating in European buildings. London:
CIBSE.
Nicol, F. and Humphreys, M. A. (2018). Chapter 20: Principles of adaptive behaviours. In: Kubato, T. et al. (ed.)
2018: Sustainable houses and living in the hot-humid climates of Asia. Springer nature Singapore, pp
209-217.
Ning H, Wang Z, Ji Y (2016). Thermal history and adaptation: Does a long-term indoor thermal exposure impact
human thermal adaptability?, Applied Energy 2016, 183, pp. 22-30.
Paciuk, M. (1990). The role of personal control of the environment in thermal comfort and satisfaction at the
workplace. Environmental Design Research Association, 21, pp. 303–312.
Pallubinsky, H. et al. (2017). The effect of warmth acclimation on behaviour, thermophysiology and
perception. Building Research & Information. Routledge, 45(7), pp. 800–807. doi:
10.1080/09613218.2017.1278652.
Schiavon, S. and Lee, K. H. (2013). Dynamic predictive clothing insulation models based on outdoor air and
indoor operative temperatures. Building and Environment, 59(0), pp. 250–260. doi:
10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.08.024.
Schrauwen, P. and van Marken Lichtenbelt, W.D. (2016). Combatting type 2 diabetes by turning up the heat.
Diabetologia 59: 2269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-016-4068-3
Schweiker, M., Carlucci, S., Andersen, R.K., Dong, B. and O’Brien, W. (2018). Occupancy and Occupants’
Actions. In: A. Wagner, W. O’Brien and B. Dong, eds., Exploring Occupant Behavior in Buildings.
Springer, pp.7–38.
Schweiker, M. and Wagner, A. (2015). A framework for an adaptive thermal heat balance model (ATHB).
Building and Environment. Elsevier Ltd, 94(Part 1), pp. 252–262.
Schweiker, M. and Wagner, A. (2016). The effect of occupancy on perceived control, neutral temperature, and
behavioral patterns. Energy and Buildings. Elsevier Ltd, 117, pp. 246–259. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.051.

26
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Schweiker, M. et al. (2012). Development and validation of a methodology to challenge the adaptive comfort
model. Building and Environment, 49(1), pp. 336–347.
Schweiker, M. et al. (2018). Drivers of diversity in human thermal perception – A review for holistic comfort
models. Temperature. Taylor & Francis, pp. 1–35. doi: 10.1080/23328940.2018.1534490.
Strengers, Y. (2008). Comfort expectations: the impact of demand-management strategies in Australia.
Building Research & Information. Routledge, 36(4), pp. 381–391. doi: 10.1080/09613210802087648.
Taylor, N. A. S. (2014). Human heat adaptation. Comprehensive Physiology. United States, 4(1), pp. 325–365.
doi: 10.1002/cphy.c130022.
Teli D., Gauthier S., Aragon V., Bourikas L., James P. and Bahaj A. (2016). Thermal adaptation to high indoor
temperatures during winter in two UK social housing tower blocks. Paper presented at 9th Windsor
Conference: Making Comfort Relevant. 07 - 10 Apr 2016. Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK.
Toe, D.H.C. (2018). Development of an Adaptive Thermal Comfort Equation for Naturally Ventilated Buildings
in Hot and Humid Climates. In: Kubato et al. (ed.) 2018: Sustainable houses and living in the hot-humid
climates of Asia. Springer nature Singapore, pp 145-154.
van der Linden A.C., Boerstra A.C., Raue A.K., Kurvers S.R. and De Dear R.J. (2006). Adaptive temperature
limits: A new guideline in The Netherlands: A new approach for the assessment of building performance
with respect to thermal indoor climate. Energy and Buildings, vol. 38 (1), p.p. 8-17
van Hoof J. (2008). Forty years of Fanger’s model of thermal comfort: comfort for all? Indoor Air, vol. 18 (3),
p.p. 182-201.
van Marken Lichtenbelt, W. D. et al. (2009). Cold-Activated Brown Adipose Tissue in Healthy Men. New
England Journal of Medicine. Massachusetts Medical Society, 360(15), pp. 1500–1508. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa0808718.
van Marken Lichtenbelt, W.; Kingma, B.; van der Lans, A.; Schellen, L. (2014). Cold exposure--an approach to
increasing energy expenditure in humans. Trends Endocrinol Metab., 25(4):165-7. doi:
10.1016/j.tem.2014.01.001.
Wagner, A. and Schakib-Ekbatan, K. (2011). User satisfaction as a measure of workplace quality in the office. in
Schittich, C. (ed.) Work Environments: Design in Physical Space, Mobility, Communication. Basel:
Birkhäuser Architektur, pp. 54–57.
Wang Z, Zhang L, Zhao J, et al. (2010). Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated residential buildings in Harbin.
Energy and Buildings, 42(12), pp. 2406-2415.
Wang Z, Li A, Ren J, et al. (2014). Thermal adaptation and thermal environment in university classrooms and
offices in Harbin. Energy and Buildings, 77(7), pp. 192-196.
Wang Z., Ji Y., Ren J. (2017). Thermal adaptation in overheated residential buildings in severe cold area in
China. Energy and Buildings. 146(7), pp. 322-332
Wang Z., Ji Y., Su X. (2018). Influence of outdoor and indoor microclimate on human thermal adaptation in
winter in the severe cold area, China. Building and Environment. 133, pp. 91-102
Yang L., Yan H. and Lam J.C. (2014). Thermal comfort and building energy consumption implications – A
review. Applied Energy, vol. 115 p.p. 164-173.
Zhai, Z.J., Previtali, J.M. (2010). Ancient vernacular architecture: characteristics categorization and energy
performance evaluation, Energy and Buildings, 42, 3, pp 357-365,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.10.002
H. Zhang, E. Arens, Y. Zhai (2015). A review of the corrective power of personal comfort systems in non-neutral
ambient environments, Building and Environment 91 (2015) 15–41.
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.013

27
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Tables and Figures

Captions

Table 1. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current international standards for different
building operation modes.

Table 2. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current national standards for different building
operation modes.

Table 3. Conceivable adaptive actions or responses to warmer or cooler than previously experienced
environments; adopted from Humphreys and Nicol, 1998; Nicol and Humphreys, 2018, Schweiker et al. 2016;
Taylor 2014, van Marken Lichtenbelt et al. 2014, further inspiration from R.F. Rupp and N. Brito see
acknowledgement, and adjusted, re-arranged and amended by the authors. Adaptive actions are seen as
predominantly conscious behaviour; adaptive responses (in italic letters) are seen as predominantly
autonomous unconscious physiological reactions of the body.

Figure 1: Proposed framework for adopting the adaptive principles in planning and operation of buildings. For
the “Adaptive responses/actions” refer to Table 3.

28
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Table 1. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current international standards for different
building operation modes

Standard Building operation mode

Free-running Mixed-mode Conditioned
ASHRAE Standard 55 (2017)
Term - Occupant-controlled naturally - Not defined - Any space
conditioned spaces
Model - Adaptive model - Heat balance model
Criteria - No mechanical cooling system - Applicable for all buildings
installed - No specific criteria defined
- No heating system in
operation
- Near sedentary physical
activities with metabolic rates
ranging from 1.0 – 1.3 met
- Avoid strict clothing policies
inside the building
- Prevailing mean outdoor
temperature is:
10°C<Trm<33.5°C
- Operable windows to the
outdoors operated by the
occupants
- Mechanical ventilation with
unconditioned air may be
utilized in addition to
operating windows
ISO 17772-1 (2017)/ prEN 16798 [superseding EN 15251 (2007)]
Term - Buildings without mechanical - Not defined - Heated and/or mechanically
cooling cooled buildings
Model - Adaptive model - Heat balance model and - Heat balance model
adaptive model seasonally
alternating
Criteria - No mechanical cooling or - Common planning practice: - Applicable for all buildings
heating in operation combining the heat balance - No specific criteria defined
- Operable windows or model for the heating period
comparable facade and the adaptive approach for
components operated by the the non-heating period, e.g. in
occupants German sustainability
certification systems
- Mechanical ventilation with
unconditioned air may be
utilized in addition to
operating windows
- Other low-energy methods of
personal control such as fans,
shutters, night ventilation etc.
- Near sedentary physical

29
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

activities with metabolic rates

ranging from 1.0 – 1.3 met
- Avoid strict clothing policies
inside the building
- Running mean outdoor
temperature is:
10°C<Trm<30°C

30
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Table 2. Terms, thermal comfort models and criteria used in current national standards for different building
operation modes

Standard Building operation mode

Free-running Mixed-mode Conditioned
Dutch ISSO 74
Term - Not defined - Alpha - Beta
Model - Heat balance model (heating) - Heat balance model (heating),
and adaptive model (non- adaptive model (transition),
heating) seasonally heat balance model (cooling)
alternating
Criteria - Criteria set through the use of - Criteria: set through the use
a flowchart of a flowchart
- With occupant control - Without or low occupant
- Free-running conditions in control
non-heating period with - Spaces/zones heated in
operable windows and other winter or actively cooled
adaptive opportunities spaces, cooling clearly
- Non-strict clothing policy perceivable by occupants

- Actively cooled spaces,

cooling not clearly perceivable
by occupants
Chinese GB/T50785-2012
Term - Free-running buildings - Not defined - Heated or cooled spaces
Model - Two options: a) adaptive - Heat balance model
models for different climate
zones or
- b) adaptive predicted mean
vote (aPMV)
Criteria - The adaptive model can be - When using centralised air
used for two groups of conditioning, the outdoor air
climate zones:1) severe cold volume should comply with
area and cold area, 2) hot the relevant national
summer - cold winter, hot standards
summer - warm winter, and
temperate area
- Adaptive predicted mean vote
(aPMV) conditions are
available for climate zones
according to 1) and 2) as well
- Proper natural ventilation
measures should be used
- Mechanical ventilation/fans
can be used but no heating or
cooling devices
(National Code) National Building Code 2017 India, Energy Conservation Building Code 2017 India based on
Indian IMAC
(Voluntary Program) GRIHA – Green Building Rating System based on Indian IMAC

31
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Term - Naturally ventilated (NV) - Mixed mode - Air-conditioned (AC)

Model - Adaptive model for NV - Adaptive model for mixed - Heat balance model based on
buildings based on Indian data mode buildings based on ASHRAE St. 55
Indian data
Criteria - No mechanical cooling or air- - AC is operated only during - AC always in operation
conditioning systems installed extreme outdoor conditions
- Ceiling fans and operable
windows available

32
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

Table 3. Conceivable adaptive actions or responses to warmer or cooler than previously experienced
environments; adopted from Humphreys and Nicol, 1998; Nicol and Humphreys, 2018, Schweiker et al. 2016;
Taylor 2014, van Marken Lichtenbelt et al. 2014, further inspiration from R.F. Rupp and N. Brito (see
acknowledgement) and adjusted, re-arranged and amended by the authors. Adaptive actions are seen as
predominantly conscious behaviour; adaptive responses (in italic letters) are seen as predominantly
autonomous, unconscious physiological reactions of the body

categories of adaptive actions/ responses to adaptive actions/ responses to warmer than

adaptive actions cooler than previously previously experienced environment
or responses experienced environment
regulating the rate - increasing the level of activity - reducing the level of activity
of internal heat - relaxing, exposing oneself to - relaxing, slowing down one’s life
generation become acclimatised (non- - relaxing, exposing oneself to become
shivering thermogenesis) acclimatised (reduced internal heat production,
- eating a high-caloric or hot earlier on-set of vasodilation)
meal - adopting siesta-routine (matching level of
- increasing muscle tension activity to diurnal temperature course)
- drinking a warm beverage - eating less or low caloric food
- rubbing hands - having cold food
- shivering thermogenesis (quite
extreme and not conceivable)
regulating the rate - vasoconstriction - vasodilation
of body heat loss - adding clothing or blankets - taking off some clothing
- curling up or cuddling up - adopting an open posture
- selecting different clothing - opening a window for getting a breeze
material - leaning against a cool wall (high thermal
- closing doors and windows inertia)
(reducing air movement) - sitting on a stone bench in the shadow
- exposing oneself to the sun - sweating
- sitting close to a heat source - relaxing, exposing oneself to become
(masonry heater, fire, acclimatised (increased sweat rate,
radiator) redistribution of sweat, lowered sweat on-set
- relaxing, exposing oneself to temperature)
become acclimatised - drinking more (stay hydrated)
- having a warm bath or shower - drinking a cup of tea (induces sweating more
- sleeping in family group with than compensating for its heat)
the bodies pushed up against - drinking cold beverages
each other - using a hand fan
- having a cool shower (water at room
temperature)
- having a bath in the sea or a lake
regulating the - insulating the loft or wall - opening a window
thermal cavities (long-term effect) - switching off heat emitting equipment not
environment - improving the windows and needed
doors (long-term effect) - activating shading in front of a window
- closing windows or doors - using night time ventilation
- letting the sun enter indoors - adding shading for walls
- adjusting or turning the - wetting the floor
thermostat on or lighting a - ventilating the attic space
fire - switching on a fan
- notifying the facility - adjusting thermostat or turning on the air-
management conditioner
- notifying the facility management
selecting a - finding a warmer spot in the - finding a cool spot in the house

33
 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀

different thermal house or going to bed - sitting under a tree

environment - visiting a friend or going to - going for a swim
the library - sleeping outdoors under clear sky e.g. on the
- building a better house (long- roof top
term way of finding a warmer - sleeping in the basement
spot) - visiting a friend or a shopping centre (hoping
- emigrating for a cooler temperature)
- building a better house, e.g. making use of
thermal mass or an appropriate window to
wall ratio (long-term way of finding a cooler
spot)
- emigrating
modifying one’s - letting the mind adjust so that - letting the mind adjust so that it becomes used
psychological it becomes used to cooler to warmer environments
perception environments
- holding a warm cup of tea
(alliesthesia)

34