## 3 Results
### Template-Based Thermal Comfort Analysis without Cooling
#### 3.3.2 Analysis of Adaptive Comfort  
With increasing indoor temperatures due to the lack of cooling, adaptive comfort measures may better represent the actual thermal sensation of occupants. For the evaluation of adaptive thermal comfort we apply the adaptive comfort metrics according to DIN EN 15251 [59] (withdrawn) and DIN EN 16798-1 [60]. As mentioned in Section 2.1, DIN EN 15251 is implemented and available in EnergyPlus, but DIN EN 16798-1 is not. Thus, we combine their results to highlight the differences between these two standards. For the analysis of the acceptable operative temperature, the main difference for DIN EN 16798-1 is that the acceptable lower bound of the operative temperature per category is decreased by 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C compared to DIN EN 15251. The upper boundaries are not changed. Both standards include three categories regarding the level of expectation towards thermal comfort within the room, ranging from Category I (high level of expectation) to Category III (low level of expectation). In Figure 13, the operative indoor temperature (vertical axis) is plotted over the running mean outdoor temperature (horizontal axis) within the outdoor temperature range of 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C for thermal zone \"Living\". Each scattered point in the diagram is colored according to its category in DIN EN 15251. The dashed lines visualize the upper and lower thresholds of the DIN EN 16798-1 categories. For the baseline weather, the operative temperatures are in the lower categories of DIN EN 15251, while with the reduced thresholds in DIN EN 16798-1, the operative temperatures mostly vary within the  
Figure 12: 24 h mean PMV values for thermal zone “Kitchen” for TMYx (2007–2021) and SSP5-8.5 (2080). ranges of Category I and II. For this baseline weather scenario, only a very limited amount of time crosses the upper band of Category I. The range of the mean outdoor temperature is mostly below 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C. For The SSP5-8.5 (2080) scenario in the right plot, operative indoor temperatures are widely spread over the mean outdoor temperature range, and the upper thresholds of the Categories are often crossed; some operative temperatures are even beyond the upper threshold of Category III. Figure 14 displays the adaptive comfort according to DIN EN 15251 and DIN EN 16798-1 for the kitchen zone. Compared to Figure 13, the indoor operative temperatures are higher in general, which is due to the high internal loads of kitchen equipment. For the weather data of TMYx (2007-2021), the operative temperatures are balanced between the thresholds of the categories of DIN EN 16798-1, while for the SSP5-8.5 scenario, again, even the upper band of Category III is exceeded multiple times. As described for Figure 12, natural cooling is not sufficient in this scenario to even keep a low standard of thermal comfort. For adaptive comfort diagrams for \"Living_2\" (Figure A7), \"Bedroom\" (Figure A8), and \"Single office\" (Figure A9) see the appendix. The thermal zones of the bathroom and traffic area do not show enough occupancy according to the standards to be applicable to the adaptive comfort analysis. We additionally evaluate the percentage of time within the individual thermal comfort categories for each thermal zone (Figure 15). All percentages of the TMYx (2007-2021) data refer on the total number of 4728 hours within the applicable range of the DIN EN 16798-1 (running outdoor temperature between 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C) and 6744 hours for the SSP5-8.5 (2080) scenario, neglecting the actual occupancy time for this evaluation. The evaluation shows that for the base scenario, we have most of the time inside Categories I and II (in Category III: only 1 % for the kitchen and 2 % for traffic area), while we have in the SSP5-8.5 scenario between 0-10 % in Category III and even between 0-4 % worse than Category III.