In most countries, PMV is the reference index for the assessment of thermal comfort conditions in mechanically conditioned environments. It is also the basis to settle input values of the operative temperature for heating and cooling load calculations, sizing of equipment, and energy calculations according to EN 16798-1 and 16798-2 Standards. Over the years, great effort has been spent to study the reliability of PMV, whereas few investigations were addressed to its calculation. To study this issue, the most significant apps devoted to its calculation have been compared with a reference software compliant with EN ISO 7730 and the well-known ASHRAE Thermal Comfort Tool. It has been revealed that only few apps consider all six variables responsible for the thermal comfort. Relative air velocity is not considered by ASHRAE Thermal Comfort Tool and, finally, the correction of basic insulation values due to body movements introduced by EN ISO 7730 and EN ISO 9920 Standards has only been considered in one case. This implies that most software and apps for the calculation of PMV index should be used with special care, especially by unexperienced users. This applies to both research and application fields.

Energy consumption calculations and thermal comfort conditions assessment are crucial issues in building simulations when using Building Energy Performance Simulation (BEPS) tools. The available software has been separately validated under different boundaries and operating conditions. Consequently, the predicted output of the same building simulated with two separate software can disagree. This issue is relevant not only for research purposes but also for professionals who need to compare the energy performance of the same building with different simulation engines. This work aims at contributing to the field in two ways. Above all, it clarifies the preparation of the building model and the correct definition of input data and boundary conditions when different software are used (IDA ICE and Design Builder/Energy Plus). In addition, it compares the output (energy and indoor temperatures) of two BEPS for the same building (in different configurations) exposed to the same weather conditions. The study shows that the two most significant differences are represented by the temperature values, while the energy predictions agree.

Indoor built environments’ design and management require a holistic approach inspired by ergonomic principles and sustainability criteria. This is especially in case of renovation of existing buildings where any kind of intervention requires the direct feedback of occupants. This work deals with two aspects of these issues, often studied separately: the quality of interior spaces, in terms of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), and the quality of the architecture in terms of orientation and wayfinding. A methodology focused on the subjective evaluation of the IEQ giving relevance to users and their fruition needs is also proposed. Main findings from a specific subjective investigation carried out at the Fisciano Campus of the University of Salerno (Italy) demonstrate that the subjective approach is a valuable tool to make more sustainable intervention strategies. In this way, all multidisciplinary skills can be synergically involved in improving the livability of a complex reality as University Campuses are.