Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Thermal comfort study in naturally ventilated school classrooms in T

composite climate of India
Aradhana Jindal
MM School of Architecture, MM University, Sadopur-Ambala, Haryana, 134007, India
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal (Sonepat) 131039

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A field study was carried out during monsoon and winter seasons of 2015–16 to investigate the thermal en-
Thermal comfort vironment and thermal comfort in naturally ventilated (NV) indoor environment of classrooms of a Government
Schools residential school located in composite climatic zone of Ambala, India. A total of 640 responses from 130 stu-
Naturally ventilated classrooms dents in the age group between 10 and 18 years belonging to rural background were collected. An indoor
Adaptive thermal comfort
operative temperature of 27.1°C was recorded as neutral temperature. The slope of the regression line plotted
between thermal sensation and indoor operative temperature was found to be 0.056/°C which varies con-
siderably from earlier similar studies on classrooms across tropics. It has been found that the students feel
comfortable within operative temperature range of 15.3–33.7 °C for 80% acceptability. This range exceeds be-
yond the comfort temperature range as specified by Indian and international standards for adult population. The
results show that the heat tolerance of the students is quite high. In India, till so far there are no thermal comfort
standards for school classrooms in any of the climatic zones. The findings of this study should provide guidelines
for India specific thermal comfort standards for schools for the efficient use of energy.

1. Introduction
ASHRAE Standard 55 defines thermal comfort as that condition of
mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment and is as-
sessed by subjective evaluation. The thermal comfort of occupants in a
given environment depends on various psychological, physiological and
behavioural factors. The same thermal environment may be perceived
differently by different people or different people may perceive same
thermal comfort at different thermal environments [1]. The schools
offer same thermal environment to students coming from different
socio-economic backgrounds. In naturally ventilated classrooms, the
students either adapt themselves to the environment by getting exposed
to that for a longer period of time or by having control over the use of
fans, window openings, clothing etc. As per study by Humphreys [2] if a
change occurs so as to produce discomfort, people react in ways which
tend to restore their comfort.
India is a huge country with economic, cultural and climatic di-
versity. Keeping in view the economic diversity of the country, there are
private and Government schools for children belonging to different
segments of economic background. In India there are over 1.4 million
schools [3] out of which 55% are Government schools making the
Government the major provider of school education [4]. In India, in the
school environment, it is not possible to change the clothing during
summer and monsoon seasons as students have school dress code which
E-mail address: aradhanajin13@gmail.com.
they have to follow strictly. It is only during winters that they can add
more layers of clothing insulation like school blazer or thermal inner-
wear to prevent the heat loss out of the body.
Incidentally, so far in India, no study on thermal comfort and
thermal sensation of school children (in any age group) to their sur-
rounding thermal environment of the classrooms located in any of the
climatic zones has been done; though there are few studies on thermal
comfort in university classrooms [5–8], hostels [9], residential build-
ings and offices [10–16].
The field study which has been done in naturally ventilated class-
rooms of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), a Government re-
sidential senior secondary school located in composite climatic zone
(explained in detail in section 2.1) of India is an effort to explore the
thermal adaptation of students in the age group of 10–18 years to their
immediate indoor thermal environment. Since target group of the stu-
dents studying in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNV) across India is
rural children [17] who reside in the same school complex, hence the
study focuses on their extent of adaptation to their immediate sur-
rounding thermal environment.
Therefore, the following are the objectives of the field study:
• To investigate the thermal environment variables and collect ques-
tionnaire data.
• To determine range of comfort temperature and neutral temperature

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.051
Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 24 May 2018; Accepted 26 May 2018
Available online 26 May 2018
0360-1323/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Jindal
for the studied sample.
• Compare the results with the adult based national and international
adaptive thermal comfort standards.
1.1. Thermal comfort standards
There are two models of thermal comfort being used in international
standards (ASHRAE standard 55–2017); heat balance model (labora-
tory based) developed by Fanger [18] in 1970 (also called as PMV/PPD
model) and Adaptive thermal comfort model [1]. The first model is best
suitable for air conditioned buildings in which the occupants have no
control over their immediate surroundings whereas in the later one, the
interaction between the occupant and immediate naturally ventilated
surroundings is dynamic and the occupant's behavioural, physiological
and psychological adaptations are wider compared to conditioned
buildings [19]. Fanger's PPD/PMV model ignores the outside tem-
perature (Tout), an important factor in defining thermal comfort.
Researchers all over the world have conducted field studies in
naturally ventilated buildings. The database of 21,000 samples col-
lected from buildings worldwide was analysed and the results were
incorporated in the ASHRAE 55–2004 standard as the adaptive comfort
model. The adaptive model of thermal comfort is a linear regression
equation that relates indoor comfort temperature directly to outdoor air
temperature in Eq. (1).
Tc = 0.31Tpma(out) + 17.8 (1)
Where Tc is indoor comfort temperature (°C); Tpma(out) is prevailing
mean outdoor dry bulb temp (°C). Fig. 1 shows Adaptive thermal
comfort chart as per ASHRAE 55–2017. This model is applicable only
for occupant-controlled naturally conditioned spaces that meet all of
the following criteria: (a) There is no mechanical cooling system in-
stalled. No heating system is in operation; (b) Metabolic rates ranging
from 1.0 to 1.3 met; and (c) Occupants are free to adapt their clothing
to the indoor and/or outdoor thermal conditions within a range at least
as wide as 0.5–1.0 clo.
There are two regulatory bodies for building construction in India,
National Building Code (NBC) and Energy Conservation Building Code
(ECBC) which have laid down thermal comfort standards. For naturally
ventilated buildings, National Building Code of India prescribes the
thermal comfort for summers between TSI (Tropical Summer Index)
values [20] of 25 °C and 30 °C with optimum condition at 27.5 °C under
Fig. 1. Adaptive thermal comfort chart according to ASHRAE standard
55–2017.
35
Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
section 5.2.3.1.2 in part 8 of National Building Code (2016) [21] re-
gardless of their climatic location. NBC 2016 also prescribes Indian
Model of Adaptive Thermal Comfort (IMAC) developed under Indian
climatic conditions. As per the model, for naturally ventilated build-
ings, the following equation (Eq. (2)) has been given:
Top = 0.54Tout+12.83 (2)
Where Top is Indoor operative temperature (neutral temperature) in °C;
Tout is 30 days Outdoor running mean temperature in °C.
The 90% acceptability range for the India specific adaptive models
for naturally ventilated buildings is ± 2.38 °C.
This model was developed after carrying out adaptive thermal
comfort studies in 16 office buildings in three seasons (representative of
five climatic zones of India) and five cities. The Energy Conservation
Building Code (ECBC) has given the reference of natural ventilation
guidelines given in NBC for compliance in the buildings. Hence, none of
the codes recommends any thermal comfort standards for naturally
ventilated classrooms located in any climatic zones of India.
1.2. Previous thermal comfort studies in classrooms
In the last decades, several studies on thermal comfort in classrooms
have been performed by the researchers all over the world. Table 1
gives a list of studies being done on thermal comfort in classrooms
(from kindergarten to university) across the world in the last 20 years.
It also shows neutral temperature (the temperature within middle ca-
tegory of the thermal sensation vote, tsv at which maximum numbers of
participants are expected to vote) for each study. Since the thermal
response of the participants varies as per the climate of the region and
adaptation over a period of time, hence the neutral temperature is as
low as 20.5 °C in the study done by Teli et al. [22] in the cool climate of
UK to as high as 30.2 °C and 30.9 °C in the studies done by Pellegrino
et al. [5] and Tariq [23] respectively in the tropical regions of South
East Asia. Teli et al. [22] conducted thermal comfort studies in tem-
perate climate of UK primary classrooms on children between 7 and 11
age group during spring season and concluded that children have a
different thermal perception than adults. This study is similar to the
study by Humphreys [24] which shows that in comparison with adults,
children are less sensitive to temperature changes. In the study, the
mean thermal sensation of the children was 4 °C lower than the PMV
model.
Several similarities can be found in almost all thermal comfort
studies irrespective of climatic region, demographic differences etc. The
research studies done by Pellegrino et al. [5], Mishra et al. [7], Mus-
tapha et al. [25], Tariq et al. [23], Kwok [26] in tropical climatic zones
and by Hwang et al. [27], Yao et al. [28], Liang et al. [29] and Baruah
et al. [6] in sub-tropical zones show high degree of adaptation and
acclimatization of the students to the climate of tropics. Study by Wong
and Khoo [30] has demonstrated that predictions of Fanger's PMV/PPD
model [18] underestimate the actual thermal sensation of the children
and show great discrepancies between the PMV/PPD predictions and
actual thermal sensation of the children. Adaptive thermal comfort
Studies conducted by de Dear et al. [31] in Australian school classrooms
found the indoor operative temperature of 22.5 °C as students' neutral
and preferred temperature. Since the study was done in nine schools
located in three distinct sub-tropical climate zone, it was found that the
students in locations exposed to wider weather variations showed
greater thermal adaptability than those in more equable weather con-
ditions. Thermal comfort studies by Zhang et al. [32] on school children
in the sub-tropical climate of China concluded that neutral temperature
was at about 21.5 °C and the slope of the regression line relating tsv
with operative temperature was 0.0448/°C, which is quite lower than
that found in other similar thermal comfort studies. Adaptive thermal
 A. Jindal

Table 1
Previous thermal comfort research on classrooms in schools/universities.
Researcher(s) Country Climate Season of field study Age group Sample size Vent. type Comfort temperature range (°C) Neutral temperature (°C)

Kwok, 1998 [26] Hawaii, USA Tropical Winter and summer High school 3544 NV+AC 22–29.5 NV = 26.8
AC = 27.4
Wong & Khoo, 2003 [30] Singapore Tropical Summer 13–17 506 NV 27.1–29.3 28.8
Hwang et al., 2006 [27] Taiwan Sub-Tropical Winters of 2003 & 2004 University 1294 NV+AC NV = 21.1–29.8 NV = 26.2
AC = 24.2–29.3 AC = 25.6
Zhang et al. (2007) [32] China Sub-Tropical Spring University 1273 NV 21.5–24.8 21.5
Hwang et al., 2009 [33] Taiwan Sub-Tropical Autumn and winter 11–17 1614 NV+AC 17.6–30 NV = 29.1
AC = 22.7
Al-Rashidi et al., 2009 [34] Kuwait Desert Winter 11–17 336 MM ———————————— Girls: 22
Boys: 21
Yao et al., 2010 [28] China Sub-Tropical All seasons University 3621 NV+AC 16–30 22.8
Jung et al., 2011 [35] Korea Oceanic- Temperate Spring and autumn University 962 NV 17–25 22

36
Teli et al., 2012 [22] UK Temperate Spring 7–11 1300 NV 20–24 20.5
Pellegrino et al., 2012 [5] Kolkata, India Tropical Summer University 100 NV 24.9–32.5 30.9
Liang et al., 2012 [29] Taiwan Sub-Tropical Autumn Primary and High School 3754 NV 22.4–29.2 22.4 (winters)
29.2 (summers)
Baruah et al., 2014 [6] Tezpur, India Sub-Tropical Winter and summer University 228 NV 22–23.5 (winters) Not calculated
27.3–30.7 (summers)
Tariq, 2014 [23] Bangladesh Tropical Summer and monsoon University 100 NV 27.9–32.6 30.2
Yun et al., 2014 [36] Korea Sub-Tropical Summer Kindergarten 119 NV 23–26 22.1
de Dear et al., 2015 [31] Australia Sub-Tropical Summer Primary & High school 2850 MM 19.5–26.6 22.5
Mishra et al., 2015 [7] Kharagpur, India Tropical Autumn and spring University 444 NV 22.1–31.5 29
Haddad et al., 2016 [37] Iran Desert All seasons 10–12 1605 NV 22–25 22.3
Liu et al., 2016 [38] China Sub-Tropical Winter 13–15 763 NV+HS 15–20 15
Wang et al., 2016 [39] China Sub-Tropical Autumn, Winter and Spring University 30 NV+HS 16–22.4 18
Singh et al., 2018 [8] Jaipur, India Composite Summers University 900 NV 21.8–32.1 29.8

Note: NV-Naturally ventilated; AC-Air conditioned; MM-Mixed mode; HS-Heating mode.

Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
A. Jindal
comfort studies done by Singh et al. [8] in naturally ventilated class-
rooms of three university buildings of Jaipur (located in composite
climate of India) show 80% of the students voting within comfort band
( ± 1 thermal sensation). The study shows good agreement with pre-
dictions from similar adaptive models developed by researchers across
the world.
2. Methodology
Real-time thermal comfort investigations were carried out in
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya located in Village Kaulan, Dist. Ambala,
Haryana (India) between August 2015 and February 2016.
2.1. The climate of Ambala
Ambala is located on latitude of 30.37° N and longitude of 76.77°E
in the northern part of India. The climate of Ambala can be classified as
hot-summer monsoon climate with dry winter (Cwg), as per Koppen-
Geiger climate classification and composite as per Indian National
Building Code (BIS, 2016). The composite climate is composed of
mainly three seasons; summer, monsoon and winter. The summers in
composite zone are quite harsh with clear sky and high intensity of
solar radiation. May and June are the hottest months with hot and dust
laden winds. July, August and September are warm and humid with
heavy rains. In monsoon season, the solar intensity is low with pre-
dominantly diffused solar radiation. Around 70% rainfall is received
during July-September and the remaining rainfall is received during
December-February. With the departure of the monsoon it gradually
becomes comfortable in autumn, followed by a short winter with the
cloudy and wet as well as sunny periods. The maximum daytime tem-
perature in summers is in the range of 32–43 °C, and night time values
are from 27 °C to 32 °C. In winter, the values are between 10 and 25 °C
during the day and 4–10 °C at night [40]. The average annual tem-
perature in Ambala is 24.5 °C. The rainfall here averages 919 mm. The
relative humidity is about 20–25% in dry periods and 55–95% in wet
periods. Precipitation in this zone varies between 500 and 1300 mm per
year. This region receives strong winds during monsoon season from
the south-east and dry cold winds from the north-east during winters
[41]. Fig. 2 shows max., min., avg. temperature (°C); average rainfall
(mm); average relative humidity (%) and mean wind speed (km/hr) of
Fig. 2. Graphs showing max., min., average temperature (°C); average rainfall (mm); average relative humidity (%) and mean wind speed (km/hr) of each month of
Ambala (Source: Climatological normals, Indian Meteorological Department, Ambala).
37
Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
each month of Ambala. As per the graphs, the months of May and June
receive maximum solar radiation thereby making both the months the
hottest months and month of July receives maximum precipitation.
2.2. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV)
JNV Ambala is located in beautiful and serene suburbs of Ambala in
the village, Kaulan, approximately 7 km from the main city. The school
complex is spread in 13 acres, designed and executed on site by Central
Public Works Department (CPWD), India. It started functioning in the
year 2005. The U shape school building (Fig. 3a) which is oriented
towards the west side is a typical RCC frame structure with 230 mm
thick brick infill walls and 600 mm wide overhangs (Fig. 3b) over
openable windows. The walls are cement plastered and finished with
distemper paints from inside and grit wash finish from outside. Roofing
consists of 125 mm thick RCC slab with 75 mm thick earth insulation
terraced with 40 mm thick brick tiles. Windows/ventilators frames and
shutters (Fig. 3e) are made of mild steel (z section) with 4 mm thick
plate glass. U values of various building components are given in
Table 2.
There are ventilators (Fig. 3f) on the wall opposite to the windows
in all the classrooms to facilitate ventilation during summer months.
The single loaded corridors keep the classrooms and other spaces well
ventilated especially during monsoon season.
Also since the school is located in the rural area with agricultural
fields around, hence the school site is quite windy. The field study has
been done during the monsoon (Aug–Oct) and winter season (Jan–Feb)
only because in India, JNV schools remain closed during May and June
(Hot-Dry period) for summer vacations in composite, monsoon and hot-
dry climatic zones.
2.3. Instruments used for the survey
Table 3 demonstrates the details of the weather instruments used to
measure indoor and outdoor air variables. Four Onset HOBO data
loggers (Fig. 4a) were installed on the tripods (Fig. 4b) to continuously
measure indoor temperature, relative humidity and globe temperature.
One HOBO data logger was placed inside a louvered wooden box on the
roof in the shaded area for taking the outside temperature readings. Air
velocity was measured with Omega RH87 Multifunctional
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Fig. 3. (a) View of the school from in-

side the courtyard; (b) Outside view of
the school showing 600 mm wide pro-
jection over the windows; (c) School
children wearing winter school uni-
form; (d) School children wearing
summer school uniform; (e) Inside view
of the classroom showing windows and
fans; (f) View of the classroom showing
ventilators on the wall opposite to the
windows.

Table 2
U values of building components.
Source: IS:3792–1978 (Reaffirmed, 1999)
Building Specifications
components
Brick wall 230 mm thick, cement plastered on both the
sides
Single glazed 4 mm glass in mild steel frame
window
Roof 40 mm thick brick tiles +75 mm thick earth
insulation + 125 mm thick RCC roof (cement
plastered from inside)
Environmental Meter (Fig. 4c). For recording the readings of globe
temperature, external sensor (connected to the external port of data
loggers) was placed inside the hollow copper sphere of 150 mm dia-
meter coated with matt black paint (Fig. 4d).
2.4. Subjects, scales, survey questionnaire and measurement of indoor and
outdoor climatic data
The respondents are middle school and senior secondary students in
the age group of 10–18 years. The surveys have been conducted during
school working hours between 8:30 am-1:45 pm. In addition to field
measurements, subjective thermal responses of the students through
questionnaire surveys were also recorded.
The instruments were positioned inside the classrooms just at the
start of class period (40 min duration) and the questionnaire surveys as
well as on-spot field measurements were taken 20 min after the start of
the class so as for the students to settle fully and globe thermometer to
reach thermal equilibrium [42]. Before start of the questionnaire
survey, students were presented a brief description of the survey; ex-
plained its purpose and importance of their responses. A pilot survey in
the form of a story telling was conducted to check the responses of the
students. It was only after the students understood as how the answers
are to be given, the final surveys were started. The questionnaire con-
U value sisted of three sections; first section gathered students' demographics,
(W/m2K) clothing and activity; second section consisted of students' thermal re-
sponses on ASHRAE and McIntyre scale; third section consisted of cli-
2.13
matic variables measured on-spot at the time of taking survey. The
5.23 environmental variables measured are Ti (indoor dry bulb tempera-
ture), Tg (globe temperature), Va (air velocity), RH (relative humidity)
2.31 and Tout (outdoor temperature). Personal variables measured are
clothing insulation, activity level (met value), age and gender. Clothing
insulation value varies from 0.47 (summer clothing junior girls) to 1.72
(winter clothing senior girls). Since at the time of taking the surveys,
the students were sitting and studying, hence a met value of 1.0 has
been taken which corresponds to sitting with reading/writing work
[43]. There are four fans in each classroom which were running at the
time of the questionnaire survey during monsoon season.
Thermal sensation of the subjects has been measured on ASHRAE
scale, tsv [1], having thermal sensation values from cold (−3) to hot
(+3). Thermal preferences of the subjects have been measured on
McIntyre scale, tpv [44] (Table 4). The surveys are longitudinal in
nature. The longitudinal survey has been adopted to collect data from
same subjects over a number of times in an acaedmic year (2015–16) so
as to investigate the consistency of thermal responses of individual
subjects. The school building is in U-shape with the west entrance or-
ientation and classrooms are located in north, west and south direc-
tions. Stratified sampling, therefore, is chosen to account for effect of
north, west and south orientations and different exposures to outside
environment on the thermal comfort variables inside each classroom.
For the field measurements and questionnaire surveys, four classrooms
have been chosen, two of which are located on ground floor (north and
south orientation) and two are on first floor (north and west orienta-
tion) (Fig. 5). The area of each classroom is 43 sqm.

Table 3
Instruments used in the field survey.
S.No. Instruments Parameter(s) to be Range Resolution Accuracy
measured

1 Onset HOBO U12-012 Air Temperature −20 to 70 °C 0.03 °C ± 0.35 °C from 0 °C to 50 °C

Data Logger Relative Humidity 5%–95% ± 2.5% from 10% to 90% RH typical; ± 5% below 10% and above 90% typical
2 Omega RH87 Multifunctional Air Velocity 0.5–20 m/s 0.1 m/s ± 3%
Environmental Meter
3 External sensor connected Globe Temperature −40 to 100 °C 0.03° @25 °C ± 0.25 °C@25 °C
with Data Logger in air

38
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Fig. 4. Weather instruments used in the field survey (a) HOBO data logger; (b) Tripod stand; (c) Omega RH87 Multifunctional Environmental Meter; (d) Matt black
painted hollow copper globe.

Table 4
ASHRAE thermal sensation scale (tsv) and thermal preference scale (tpv).
ASHRAE Thermal sensation scale, tsv

Cold Cool Slightly cool Neutral Slightly warm Warm Hot

−3 −2 −1 0 +1 +2 +3

Thermal preference scale (McIntyre scale), tpv

need warmer no change need cooler

Fig. 5. Plans of JNV School showing classrooms selected for placing instruments.

Onset HOBO data loggers were placed on tripods at the height of

1.1 m [45] in the centre of each room (Fig. 6) following class II pro-
tocols (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning
Engineers Inc., 2013; ISO 7730, 2005). The data loggers have recorded
readings at an interval of 15 min.
At the time of doing field survey during the monsoon season, the
windows were open so as to facilitate cross ventilation. During the
winter season, the students kept the windows closed so as to avoid cold
winds.

3. Results and discussions

Fig. 6. Placement of HOBO data logger in the classroom. Entire data from HOBO data loggers has been transferred to
HOBOware, proprietary software in the computer. The data thus col-
Table 5 lected is transferred to the Excel spreadsheet, organised and subse-
Values of A as a function of Va. quently analysed into cross tabulation and regression graphs by both
Excel and Minitab statistical software. CBE thermal comfort tool, an
Va < 0.2 m/s 0.2–0.6 m/s 0.6–1.0 m/s
online web-based graphical user interface was used to calculate per-
A 0.5 0.6 0.7 centage of subjects falling under the adaptive comfort range using
adaptive comfort model with increased air speed according to ASHRAE
Standard 55–2017 and also to calculate PMV and PPD. The operative

39
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Table 6 of uniform being worn by the students varies between 0.47 and 1.72
Statistical summary of classroom visits. with a mean value of 0.82. A value of 0.47 corresponds to junior girls'
Date Classroom code Number of visits Male Female Sample size summer uniform (half sleeves cotton shirt and skirt) while a value of
1.72 corresponds to the senior girls' winter uniform (full sleeves cotton
18.8.15 CR1 1 12 2 106 shirt, salwar, sweater and blazer). The Average Mean Vote
CR2 1 15 14
(AMV = 0.036) for the combined seasons falls between neutral sen-
CR3 1 18 11
CR4 1 24 10
sation (0) and slightly warm (+1). Mean of the Predicted Mean Vote
10.9.15 CR1 5 15 22 126 (PMV) is 0.35 which is warmer than AMV by 0.31 units. It shows
CR2 3 22 20 overprediction of thermal sensation of the subjects by PMV model. PPD
CR3 4 18 9 index predicts 38.1% of Mean Percentage Dissatisfaction (PPD) among
CR4 4 12 8
the subjects while as per Table 8, only 5.2% students were dissatisfied
19.9.15 CR1 3 6 6 51
CR2 3 6 9 in the entire data set in the thermal questionnaire survey.
CR3 3 6 6 Table 8 provides a cross tabulation of subjects' responses on the
CR4 3 9 3 thermal sensation scale as a function of Indoor operative temperature
3.10.15 CR1 4 20 18 145
(Top) binned at 0.5 °C interval. It shows that during winters, 54.7% of
CR2 4 24 18
CR3 3 10 5
the students voted in the central ‘neutral’ band whereas during mon-
CR4 4 34 16 soon season, the students voted for almost the same percentage (55.8%)
23.1.16 CR1 2 48 21 69 on the ‘neutral’ sensation. 90.6% of the students have voted in between
3.2.16 CR1 1 9 0 83 the comfort range (−1 to +1) during winters whereas the adaptability
CR3 2 46 28
of students during monsoon season is greater than winters as response
6.2.16 CR2 2 30 30 60
of 97% students was within thermal comfort zone. During both the
seasons, 94.8% students were within the thermal comfort range. In all,
temperature was calculated by using the following formula (Eq. (3)) maximum number of 355 (55.5%) subjects voted for ‘Neutral’ sensation
[3]: while 140 (21.9%) students voted for ‘slightly cool’ and 112 (17.5%)
students voted for ‘slightly warm’ thermal sensation.
to = Ata+(1-A)tr (3) The results show that the students adapted themselves very well in
where to = operative temperature; ta = average air temperature and both the seasons by using the adaptive measures like fans, opening/
tr = mean radiant temperature. closing the windows, putting on more layers of clothing insulation
during winters etc.
A is selected from Table 5 as a function of the average air speed Va. Fig. 7 shows distribution of subjects' thermal preference votes in
relation to TSVs. As the subjects didn't vote on cold (−3) and hot (+3)
scale during the questionnaire survey, hence the graph shows the
3.1. Thermal comfort: climatic variables, indices and subjective responses thermal sensation vote from cool (−2) to warm (+2) scale only on the
x axis.
A total of 640 responses from 130 students were collected during At ‘slightly cool’ thermal sensation, 60% of the subjects are com-
August, September, October (monsoon season), January and February fortable and don't want any change in the same. Only 40% subjects
(winter season). Table 6 shows statistical summary of classroom visits preferred warmer climatic environment. As the sensation moves from
to collect samples of field survey during the above period. ‘slightly cool’ to ‘slightly warm’, the subjects preferred to be cool. At
Ti recorded during the questionnaire survey measures from 13.2 to ‘neutral’ sensation, 12% of the subjects reported to be cooler while 82%
33.1 °C. RH ranges from 55.5% to 81.9%. Tg varies in between 13 and didn't want any change. At both ‘slightly warm’ and ‘warm’ sensation,
33.2 °C. Va ranges from 0 to 0.8 m/s. Tout is measured in between 8.4 more than 90% of the subjects preferred cooler environment though
and 34.8 °C. The monthly average outdoor temperatures of August, percentage of subjects at ‘slightly warm’ and ‘warm’ sensation is 17.5%
September, October, January and February are 29 °C, 29.23 °C, 26.3 °C, and 1.7% respectively of the total votes.
12.9 °C and 17.5 °C respectively.
Table 7 lists mean, maximum, minimum and standard deviation 3.2. Thermal comfort: PMV vs AMV
(SD) of each parameter for monsoon, winters and both the seasons. For
combined seasons, the indoor operative temperature, Top fluctuates in Fig. 8 shows regression of mean values of PMV (predicted mean
between 13.05 and 33.13 °C with a mean value of 25.7 °C and standard sensation vote) and AMV (actual mean sensation vote) on indoor op-
deviation of 6.57. RH is measured in between 55.5 and 81.9% with a erative temperature (Top) binned by 1 °C interval for monsoon season.
mean value of 71.4% and SD of 7.24. The clo value of the different sets It shows difference between mean thermal sensation of the students

Table 7
Statistical summary of classroom climatic variables and thermal comfort indices.
Parameters Monsoon season (Aug, Sep and Oct) Winter season (Jan and Feb) Both the seasons

Mean Max. Min. SD Mean Max. Min. SD Mean Max. Min. SD

Top (°C) 27.67 33.13 26.16 1.61 16.77 19.7 13.05 2.4 25.7 33.13 13.05 6.57
RH (%) 72.66 81.4 55.5 5.85 68.87 81.9 58 8.64 71.4 81.9 55.50 7.24
clo value 0.57 0.70 0.47 0.078 1.23 1.72 0.94 0.29 0.82 1.72 0.47 0.34
AMV 0.12 1.75 −0.85 0.59 −0.49 0.033 −1.43 0.47 0.036 1.75 −1.43 0.60
PMV 1.12 2.22 −0.69 0.62 −1.22 −0.87 −2.78 0.85 0.35 2.22 −2.78 1.31
PPD (%) 36.78 86 5 23.76 40.76 98 5 32.3 38.1 98 5 26.68

Note: Top: Indoor operative temperature; RH: Relative Humidity; clo value: Total clothing insulation; AMV: Average Mean Vote; PMV: Predicted Mean Vote, PPD:
Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied.

40
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Table 8
Cross tabulation of indoor operative temperature (Top) and thermal sensation votes (tsv).

and mean predicted votes as the indoor operative temperature in- overestimating the students' thermal sensation. Between 31 and 34 °C,
creases. During monsoon season (Fig. 8) AMV and PMV graphs are well the AMV graph is steady which shows that the students are adapted to
matched when operative temperature was within 26–28 °C. After op- higher temperatures very well as compared to the lower temperatures
erative temperature exceeds 28 °C, PMV graph rises up steadily, (below 28 °C) when they feel slightly cool. The difference in the cooler

41
A. Jindal
Fig. 7. Cross tabulation of thermal sensation vote, tsv and thermal preference
vote, tpv.
Fig. 8. Actual (AMV) and predicted (PMV) mean thermal sensation in relation
to indoor operative temperature with standard error bars during monsoon
season.
Fig. 9. Actual (AMV) and predicted (PMV) mean thermal sensation in relation
to indoor operative temperature with standard error bars during winter season.
sensation of AMV values show that since the physiological variations
and psychological effects are not taken into account in Fanger PMV/
PPD model [18], hence the model overpredicts the thermal sensation of
the subjects in naturally ventilated buildings.
The winter graphs of AMV and PMV in Fig. 9 show marked differ-
ence in the cooling sensation of the students. The PMV model over-
predicts the cooling sensation as between 13 and 19 °C, it predicts
42
Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
cooler sensation than students' actual sensation. Beyond 19 °C tem-
perature, both the graphs show a steady increase towards warm sen-
sation but PMV still shows cooler sensation than AMV by 0.5 °C. As the
temperature increases, the AMV shows shift towards the neutral sen-
sation while PMV still predicts sensation of the subjects on the cooler
side.
3.3. Neutral temperature and thermal comfort range
The ‘neutral or comfort temperature’ is the operative temperature at
which an average person will be thermally neutral or comfortable. A
person in comfort is taken to be one who is ‘slightly cool’, ‘neutral’ or
‘slightly warm’ on the ASHRAE scale- ASHRAE standard 55.
Fig. 10 shows linear regression between concurrent operative tem-
perature (Top) and tsv (thermal sensation vote) with lines of 95% con-
fidence level.
The regression model between two variables (tsv and Top) is estab-
lished in the following equations (Eqs. (4)–(6)):
tsv = 0.056Top-1.53, R2 = 0.22 (for combined data) (4)
2
tsv = 0.19Top-5.54, R = 0.18 (for monsoon season) (5)
tsv = 0.18Top-3.52, R2 = 0.36 (for winter season) (6)
The intersection of regression line with neutral or ‘0’ thermal sen-
sation gives neutral temperature of the studied sample of population.
The neutral temperature thus obtained for the entire sample is 27.1 °C
which is slightly higher than 26.8 °C obtained in similar studies being
done by Kwok [26] on the high school students in tropical climate of
Hawaii (USA) during summers and winters. In Kwok's studies, the max.
and min. operative temperatures recorded during summers and winters
are 30.4 °C & 26.5 °C and 27.6 °C & 23.1 °C respectively. The neutral
temperature is higher than neutral temperature of 22.5 °C calculated in
similar study by de Dear [31] carried out in Australian school on pri-
mary and high school students. This shows high adaptation of JNV
students to their surrounding thermal environment.
The neutral temperatures have been determined for monsoon and
winters months also which are 29.5 °C and 19.4 °C respectively. The
neutral temperature of monsoon months shows conformity to neutral
temperatures of 29 °C and 29.8 °C obtained in studies done by Mishra
et al. [7] and Singh et al. [8] respectively in Indian university class
rooms during summers.
The low slope of the best fit line shows quite high adaptation of the
students with a sensitivity of 0.056 thermal sensation units per °C in-
door operative temperature. The relationship between tsv and Top is
statistically significant (p < 0.001). The regression between tsv and Top
has a small R2 (coefficient of determination) value which shows un-
predictable human behaviour in the form of large variations in sub-
jective responses. Zhang et al. [32] in similar study in university
classrooms in subtropical climate of China calculated the slope of the
regression line as 0.0448/°C. The shallow slope shows adaptation and
tolerance of students. It also shows that the students in tropical and sub-
tropical zones get adapted to high temperatures in naturally ventilated
environment and whenever a change occurs which causes discomfort,
they resort to adaptive measures to restore the comfort back. As per
Nicol et al. [46], the reduction of the regression coefficient at higher
standard deviation of temperature (6.57) can be ascribed to the effects
of adaptive actions.
The comfort range for the said population of the students surveyed
has been calculated for combined seasons (monsoon and winter season)
by plotting polynomial regression (Fig. 11) between percentage of
subjects who reported comfortable (−1 to +1 on ASHRAE scale) and
indoor operative temperature. The graph yields a thermal comfort
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Fig. 10. Regression between Indoor operative temperature and thermal sensation with lines of 95% confidence level for (a) combined seasons (b) monsoon season (c)
winter season.

range of 15.3–33.7°C temperature for combined seasons (monsoon and

winter season) for 80% acceptability. The thermal comfort range of
15.3-33.7°C temperature for combined seasons conforms to the similar
studies being done by Zhang et al. [32] who calculated thermal comfort
range of 17.6–30.0 °C for the students in the age group of 11–17.

3.4. Comparison with national and international thermal comfort standards

Fig. 11. Regression between percentage of subjects voting within central tsv
and corresponding indoor operative temperature (Top) for combined seasons.
The results of the research have been compared with ASHRAE 55-
2017 adaptive thermal comfort model (Eq (1)) and NBC 2016-IMAC
model (Eq (2)) in Table 9. The equations of ASHRAE 55-2017 adaptive
thermal comfort model and NBC 2016-IMAC model yielded neutral
temperatures for the prevailing mean outdoor temperatures of mon-
soon, winter and combined seasons of the study. The entire sample's
linear regression analysis calculated the neutral temperature as 27.1 °C
which is generally warmer than expected for adults under the same
thermal environmental conditions based on NBC 2016 (Indian model of
adaptive thermal comfort). This temperature is also warmer than ex-
pected for adults based on ASHRAE 55–2017 (Adaptive thermal com-
fort model). The table shows neutrality obtained in JNV study as higher
in monsoon and lower in the winters as compared to both the national
and international models. This indicates that the outdoor climate in-
fluences the thermal adaptation by the occupants in Indian schools

43
A. Jindal Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46

Table 9
Comparison of Neutral temperature obtained in JNV study with NBC 2016 (IMAC model) and ASHRAE 55–2017 (Adaptive thermal comfort model).
Season Mean Tpma (out) Neutral Temperature, Tn (°C)
in °C
JNV study ASHRAE 55–2017 (Adaptive NBC 2016 (IMAC model)
thermal comfort model) Tn = 0.54Tout+12.83
Tc = 0.31Tpma(out) + 17.8

Monsoon 29.2 29.5 26.85 28.59

Winters 13.1 19.4 21.86 19.90
Combined seasons 22.3 27.1 24.71 24.87

Note: Tpma (out) is prevailing mean outdoor temperature of 30 sequential days prior to the day of the survey.

Table 10
Linear regression models, neutral temperature, coefficient of determination,
and comfort temperature by using Griffith method.
Season Sample size Regression model R2 Tn (°C) Griffith method,
Tcomf (°C)

Monsoon 428 tsv = O.19Top-5.54 0.18 29.5 29.9

Winter 212 tsv = 0.18Top-3.52 0.36 19.4 17.7
Combined 640 tsv = 0.056Top-1.53 0.22 27.1 25.9

Where Tcomf is the comfort temperature (°C), Top is indoor operative

Fig. 12. Regression of mean PMV on Indoor operative temperature.
more than predicted by the ASHRAE-55 adaptive model and IMAC
model (which is based on thermal comfort study on adult population in
Indian offices).
3.5. Regression of mean PMV on indoor operative temperature
Regression of mean PMV for each set of visit on indoor operative
temperature (Fig. 12) yielded following equation (Eq. (7)):
MPMV = 0.19Top- 4.58
Neutral temperature was calculated as 24.1°C for the entire sample
data with PMV Comfort range (−1 to +1) between 18.93 and 29.36°C.
This range is quite narrow as compared to the comfort range of
15.3–33.7°C obtained by regression of thermal sensation of students on
indoor operative temperature. It shows that the students studying in
naturally ventilated environment are adapted to wider range of tem-
peratures as compared to those in air conditioned environment.
3.6. Calculation of comfort temperature by using Griffith method
temperature, tsv is thermal sensation vote and G (K−1) is the Griffith's
constant or Griffith's slope.
The Griffith's slope is essentially the relationship between comfort
and temperature assuming no adaptation took place. A slope of 0.5 has
been taken as Griffith constant (G) as per the findings of Humphreys
et al. [47] and Nicol et al. [46]. Nicol says that low slope of the re-
gression equation at higher standard deviation of temperature is due to
adaptation by the respondents and this error in regression coefficient
will occur even at the maximum levels and so it is safe to assume that
the Griffith's slope will be greater than 0.4. By using the above equa-
tion, comfort temperature for the entire sample data has been calcu-
lated as 25.9 °C. This temperature is less than neutral temperature,
27.1 °C obtained from Eq. (4). This shows that behavioural adaptation
changes the regression coefficients, thereby raising the comfort tem-
perature during summers and lowering it during winters.
Table 10 shows linear regression models, coefficient of determina-
(7) tion (R2), neutral temperature calculated by Eqs. (4)–(6) and comfort
temperature calculated with Griffith method. The findings show that
there is less difference (0.4) between neutral temperature (Tn) and
comfort temperature calculated by Griffith equation for monsoon
season. This shows conformity of comfort temperature by Griffith
method with the neutral temperature based on students' thermal sen-
sation. The higher winter neutral temperature (Tn) shows that students
are more sensitive to cool sensation as compared to warm sensation.
This is again due to the summer and monsoon seasons being much
longer than the winters in composite climate of India. Due to the longer
period of the summers, students get adapted to high temperatures.

As per Griffith, the mean comfort temperature for the entire sample
of the data is different from that obtained from subjects' actual thermal
sensation. This is due to the adaptation of the students to their sur-
rounding thermal surroundings over a period of time which lowers the
regression coefficients and therefore the estimate of comfort tempera-
tures. The equation (Eq. (8)) for calculating the comfort temperature
using Griffith method is:
T comf = Top-tsv/G
3.7. Compliance with ASHRAE 55–2017 on adaptive thermal comfort chart
Fig. 13 shows indoor operative temperature plotted on adaptive
chart as per ASHRAE 55–2017 standards. The adaptive chart shows
80% and 90% acceptability limits of operative temperature. The chart
shows that prevailing mean outdoor temperatures above 33.5 °C or
below 10 °C are not covered by Standard-55. The prevailing outdoor
temperatures during the field study period are falling within the above
(8)
limits. Since during the study period, the average air velocity has been

44
A. Jindal
Fig. 13. Indoor operative temperature plotted on ASHRAE 55-2017 adaptive
chart.
measured in between 0.0 and 0.8 m/s, hence the chart shows wider
comfort limits at elevated air speed. The figure shows number of hours
falling beyond the acceptable operative temperature limits. Out of 54
visits made during the school timings, 78% values of indoor operative
temperature fall within 80% acceptability limits and 22% fall outside
the comfort range even after increasing the comfort limit by 1.2 °C at
elevated air speed. The results show that inspite of 22% values of indoor
operative temperature falling beyond the acceptable lower and upper
limits of the adaptive thermal comfort chart, only 5.2% students are
dissatisfied with their thermal environment. Hence, the results of the
study do not conform to the ASHRAE 55–2017 standards and show
wider acceptability of the thermal environment by the JNV students.
4. Conclusion
Thermal comfort studies were conducted during monsoon and
winters months during 2015–16 in JNV School Ambala by surveying
the subjective assessment of 130 students between age group of 10–18
on thermal sensation and thermal preference scale through 640 ques-
tionnaires. Simultaneously the climatic variables were also measured to
correspond to the subjects' thermal perception. The analytical study
shows comparison between subjects' thermal sensation and preference,
derivation of thermal neutrality, comfort range and comparison of the
results with national and international thermal comfort standards. The
following are the key conclusions of the study:
• The entire sample's linear regression analysis calculated the neutral
temperature as 27.1 °C which is generally warmer than expected for
adults under the same thermal environmental conditions based on
NBC 2016 (Indian model of adaptive thermal comfort).
• The comfort range of studied sample of both the seasons is
15.3–33.7 °C.
•
The results also show that PMV/PPD model fails to predict the
thermal sensation of the students in naturally ventilated classrooms
and shows maximum percentage of subjects (38.1%) dissatisfied
with the surrounding indoor environmental conditions whereas on
the basis of the questionnaire survey, 55.5% subjects reported
‘neutral’ sensation and thermal sensation of 94.8% of the subjects
was within the comfort band (−1 to +1).
• JNV school children demonstrated considerable adaptability to in-
door temperature variations due to adaptive measures like running
of fans and adequate cross ventilation through windows and the
ventilators during monsoon season and putting on more layers of
clothing insulation during winter season.
• Since ASHRAE 55-2017 adaptive thermal comfort model and NBC
2016 Indian Model of Adaptive comfort are based on large samples
of the adult population responses in thermal environment of the
offices, the present study on JNV School (Government school) needs
45
Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
to be expanded by including more such schools located in different
climatic regions of India to present a more accurate and wider
perspective of the temperature neutrality and thermal comfort
range.
The study is a stepping stone in the field of adaptive thermal com-
fort in the schools in the composite climatic region of India and will
pioneer further research for schools in this region in the coming times.
Since Government is a major provider of school education in India, the
results of the study will be useful in incorporating passive features in
the school buildings to make them thermally comfortable round the
year by using minimum amount of energy in the buildings, thereby
making them sustainable.
5. Limitations
There were certain limitations in the methodology adopted for re-
search design. Since the thermal responses of large majority of the
students in each classroom at measured temperatures were within
thermal comfort range indicating a general level of thermal comfort,
hence the proposed methodology of placing only one data logger in the
centre of the room for taking climatic measurements, does not in-
validate the results of the study.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on research being conducted by the author as
part of PhD under supervision of Prof. (Dr.) Chitrarekha Kabre at
Department of Architecture, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology, Murthal, Sonipat (Haryana). The author ac-
knowledges the support of MM University management in providing
instruments and JNV School Ambala for giving permission to set up
instruments and facilitating questionnaire survey.
References
[1] ASHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 55-2017, Atlanta, GA 30329.
[2] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal
comfort, ASHARE Transactions 104 (1) (1998) 991–1004.
[3] Planning Commission, Government of India, Data book compiled for use of plan-
ning commission, http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/data_2312/
DatabookDec2014%20230.pdf, (2014) , Accessed date: 4 March 2017.
[4] Department of educational surveys and data processing, NCERT, New Delhi,
Seventh all India school education survey, http://www.ncert.nic.in/programmes/
education_survey/pdfs/Schools_Physical_Ancillary_Facilities.pdf, (2006) , Accessed
date: 21 March 2017.
[5] M. Pellegrino, M. Simonetti, L. Fournier, A field survey in Calcutta: architectural
issues, thermal comfort and adaptive mechanisms in hot humid climates, In: The
Changing Context of comfort in an Unpredictable World, Cumberland Lodge,
Windsor, UK, 12–15 April 2012. London: Network for comfort and Energy Use in
Buildings.
[6] P. Baruah, M.K. Singh, S. Mahapatra, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated
classrooms, In: PLEA 2014, 30th Conference, Sustainable Habitats for Developing
Societies, Ahmadabad, 16–18 December.
[7] A. Mishra, M. Ramgopal, Field studies on human thermal comfort - an overview,
Build. Environ. 64 (2013) 94–106.
[8] M. Singh, S. Kumar, R. Ooka, H. Rijal, G. Gupta, Status of thermal comfort in
naturally ventilated classrooms during the summer season in the composite climate
of India, Build. Environ. 128 (2018) 287–304.
[9] S. Dhaka, J. Mathur, A. Wagner, G.D. Agarwal, V. Garg, Evaluation of thermal
environmental conditions and thermal perception at naturally ventilated hostels of
undergraduate students in composite climate, Build. Environ. 66 (2013) 42–53.
[10] E. Rajasekar, A. Ramachandraiah, Adaptive comfort and thermal expectations – a
subjective evaluation in hot humid climate, Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to
Change: New Thinking on comfort Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, April 2010,
pp. 9–11.
[11] M. Indraganti, Using the adaptive model of thermal comfort for obtaining indoor
neutral temperature: findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India, Build.
Environ. 45 (3) (2010) 519–536.
[12] A. Udaykumar, E. Rajasekar, R. Venkateswaran, Thermal comfort characteristics in
naturally ventilated residential apartments in a hot-dry climate of India, Indoor
Built Environ. 21 (1) (2013) 101–115.
[13] E. Rajasekar, R. Soumya, R. Venkateswaran, Challenges in designing for comfort-
comfort and energy use characterization in residential apartments, Proceedings of
A. Jindal
Conference: Counting the Cost of comfort in a Changing World Cumberland Lodge,
Windsor, UK, April 2014, pp. 10–13.
[14] S. Dhaka, J. Mathur, G. Brager, A. Honnekeri, Assessment of thermal environmental
conditions and quantification of thermal adaptation in naturally ventilated build-
ings in composite climate of India, Build. Environ. 86 (2015) 17–28.
[15] S. Manu, Y. Shukla, R. Rawal, L.E. Thomas, R.de Dear, Field studies of thermal
comfort across multiple climate zones for the subcontinent: India Model for
Adaptive Comfort (IMAC), Build. Environ. 98 (2016) 55–70.
[16] S. Kumar, M.K. Singh, V. Loftness, J. Mathur, S. Mathur, Thermal comfort assess-
ment and characteristics of occupant's behaviour in naturally ventilated buildings in
composite climate of India, Energy for sustainable development 33 (2016)
108–121.
[17] Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of human resource develop-
ment, government of India, Navodaya Vidyalaya samiti, http://www.mhrd.gov.in/
nvs, (2016) , Accessed date: 23 March 2017.
[18] P.O. Fanger, Thermal comfort, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[19] F.R. d’A. Alfano, E. Ianniello, B.I. Palella, PMV-ppd and acceptability in naturally
ventilated schools, Build. Environ. 67 (2013) 129–137.
[20] M.R. Sharma, S. Ali, Tropical summer index—a study of thermal comfort in indian
subjects, Build. Environ. 21 (1986) 11–24.
[21] BIS, National Building Code of India 2016, (2016) New Delhi, India.
[22] D. Teli, M.F. Jentsch, P.A.B. James, Naturally ventilated classrooms: an assessment
of existing comfort models for predicting the thermal sensation and preference of
primary school children, Energy Build. 53 (0) (2012) 166–182.
[23] T. Tariq, Perception of indoor temperature of naturally ventilated classroom en-
vironments during warm periods in a Tropical City, In: PLEA 2014, 30th
Conference, Sustainable Habitats for Developing Societies, Ahmadabad, 16–18
December.
[24] M.A. Humphreys, A study of the thermal comfort of primary school children in
summer, Build. Environ. 12 (4) (1977) 231–139.
[25] A. Mustapha, S.M. Ayop, M.K. Ahmad, F. Ismai, A thermal comfort study in natu-
rally ventilated school building in Malaysia, Built Environment Journal 5 (2) (2008)
66–82.
[26] A.G. Kwok, Thermal comfort in tropical classrooms, Build. Eng. 104 (1B) (1998)
1031–1050.
[27] R.L. Hwang, T.P. Lin, N.J. Kuo, Field experiments on thermal comfort in school
classrooms in Taiwan, Energy Build. 38 (1) (2006) 53–62.
[28] R.M. Yao, J. Liu, B. Z.Li, Occupants' adaptive responses and perception of thermal
environment in naturally conditioned classrooms, Appl. Energy 87 (2010)
1015–1022.
[29] H.H. Liang, T.P. Lin, R.L. Wang, Linking occupants' thermal perception and building
thermal performance in naturally ventilated school buildings, Appl. Energy 94
(2012) 355–363.
46
Building and Environment 142 (2018) 34–46
[30] N.H. Wong, S.S. Khoo, Thermal comfort in the classrooms in the tropics, Energy
Build. 35 (4) (2003) 337–351.
[31] R. de Dear, J. Kim, C. Candido, Adaptive thermal comfort in Australian classrooms,
Build. Res. Inf. 43 (3) (2015) 383–398 G. Zhang, C. Zheng, W. Yang, Q. Zhang, D.
Moschandreas, Thermal comfort Investigation of naturally ventilated classrooms in
a sub-tropical region, Indoor & Built Environment. 16(2) (2007) 148–158.
[32] R.L. Hwang, T.P. Lin, C.P. Chen, N.J. Kuo, Investigating the adaptive model of
thermal comfort for naturally ventilated school buildings in Taiwan, Int. J.
Biometeorol. 53 (2) (2009) 189–200.
[33] K.L Al-Rashidi, D.L Loveday, N.K Al-Mutawa, Investigating the Applicability of
different thermal comfort models in Kuwait classrooms operated in hybrid air-
conditioning mode, In: Sep’09, First International Conference in Sustainability in
Energy and Buildings, Brighton and Hove, UK, 347–356.
[34] G.J. Jung, S.K. Song, Y.C. Ahn, G.S. Oh, Y.B. Im, Experimental research on thermal
comfort in the university classroom of regular semesters in Korea, J. Mech. Sci.
Technol. 25 (2) (2011) 503–512.
[35] H. Yun, I. Nam, J. Kim, J. Yang, K. Lee, J. Sohn, A field study of thermal comfort for
kindergarten children in Korea: an assessment of existing models and preferences of
children, Build. Environ. 75 (2014) 182–189.
[36] S. Haddad, P. Osmond, S. King, Revisiting thermal comfort models in Iranian
classrooms during the warm season, Build. Res. Inf. 45 (4) (2016) 457–473.
[37] Y. Liu, J. Jiang, D. Wang, J. Liu, The indoor thermal environment of rural school
classrooms in North-western China, Indoor Built Environ. 0 (2016) 1–18.
[38] Z. Wang, H. Ning, X. Zhang, Y. Ji, Human thermal adaptation based on university
students in China's severe cold area, Science and Technology for the Built
Environment 23 (3) (2016) 413–420.
[39] Government of India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Climate and
Buildings, In: Solar energy. www.mnre.gov.in/solar-energy/ch2.pdf (accessed 23
March 2017).
[40] Climate-dataorg, Climate of Ambala. www.en.climate-data.org/location/19415/
(accessed 23 March 2017).
[41] D.A. McIntyre, Design requirements for a comfortable environment, in: K. Cena,
J.A. Clark (Eds.), Bioengineering: Thermal Physiology and Comfort, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 157–168.
[42] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals, (2013) (Atlanta United States).
[43] D.A. McIntyre, Chamber Studies-Reductio ad absurdum, Energy Build. 5 (1982)
89–96.
[44] ISO, Ergonomics of the thermal Environment – Instruments for Measuring Physical
Quantities, ISO 7726, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
1978.
[45] F. Nicol, M. Humphreys, S. Roaf, Adaptive thermal comfort- Principles and Practice,
first ed., Routledge, NY, 2012.