I need some help, I’am thinking which would be better to analyse the thermal comfort, is it UTCI comfort map or PMV comfort map?.
I did some excersise but couldn’t solve it.
I first opened the “comfort_mapping” script from samples folder. As this script uses PMV comfort map, I dropped onto de canvas the UTCI component, to compare both results, connecting to it the same inputs PMV comfort map had connected too.
UTCI output (from UTCI comfort map component) and temperature output (from PMV comfort map component) connected to Read thermal matrix component, showed very similar results between both.
By the other hand, when I connected TCP, HSP and CSP outputs from both UTCI comfort map and PMV comfort map, to ‘_values’ input from spatial heatmap component, they showed very different results.
This makes me think:
why this big difference between the TSP, HSP and CSP outcomes?
which one (UTCI comfort map or PMV comfort map) would you recommend to analyze the thermal comfort of an indoor room (that has contact to exterior)?
@AbrahamYezioro I had that same idea. But why there is a UTCI comfort map component in Honeybee to evaluate indoors?. By the orher hand, if you can evluate indoors with PMV (using HVAC), how could you evaluate indoors comfort without HVAC?.
The idea is that you should usually be using this UTCI recipe only for outdoor sensor grids. All of the thermal mapping components are smart enough to figure out whether a given sensor point is inside the Rooms or outside. When on the outside, many of the comfort model inputs come directly from the EPW (eg. the air temperature). We’ll also use the E+ outdoor surface temperatures to compute longwave MRT instead of the indoor ones and we use the sky temperature to account for longwave radiant exchange with the sky.
This is a case where you should probably be using the Adaptive Comfort Map recipe. The adaptive comfort model was specifically developed for naturally ventilated buildings without air conditioning systems.