2011 3rd International Symposium & Exhibition in Sustainable Energy & Environment, 1-3 June 2011, Melaka, Malaysia

Thermal Comfort in Air-Conditioned Learning

Environment
Siti Rohana Mohd Yatim#1, Meor Ahmad Mustaqim Meor Mohd Zain#2,
Fairus Muhamad Darus*3, Zitty Sarah Ismail*4
#
Faculty of Health Science, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 42300 Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
1
sitirohana@salam.uitm.edu.my
2
meormustaqim@gmail.com
*
Faculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
3
fairusmd@salam.uitm.edu.my
4
zittysarah_ismail2003@yahoo.com

Abstract —This paper appraises the thermal comfort condition of
in air conditioned learning environment of the new learning
campus in Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam. The
physical measurement and survey questionnaires have been
thoroughly measured among the occupants (235 respondents) in
four air conditioned classrooms along with four lecture theatres.
The result shows relative humidity and air velocity are within the
recommended limit while operative temperature for both
classrooms and lecture theatres were below recommended limit.
The calculated Prediction Mean Vote (PMV) - Predicted
Percentage Dissatisfied (PPD) indices computed merely 29% has
shown dissatisfaction towards learning environments. In addition,
computed Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV) for classroom divulges
that people remarked the learning environment for classroom
and lecture theatre to be ‘slightly cool’. However, the mean value
of thermal comfort based on Predictive Mean Vote (PMV) for
classroom was -0.05, which indicate ‘neutral’ condition, whereas
PMV value for lecture theatres was -0.62 which is ‘slightly cool’.
Therefore, those findings show calculated thermal states have not
necessarily correlate to occupant’s desired thermal state.
Keywords— Thermal comfort, PMV-PPD, TSV, classroom,
lecture theatre.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Thermal comfort is an important aspect in the
establishment of comfort in a building. In Malaysia, education
systems are very imperative though sometimes encountered
transitions in the recent years. Many new buildings are being
constructed or renovated in the programs of expansion of the
campus. It also includes the installation of windows, wall, and
ventilation systems such as an air conditioner in those
buildings in order to provide thermal comfortable condition in
classrooms, and in campus.
The tropical climate in Malaysia is hot and humid with
average temperatures between 23.7ºC to 31.3ºC throughout a
day with the highest maximum recorded as 36.9ºC and the
average relative humidity between 67% to 95% and this may
have an adverse impact on occupant comfort indoor [1], [2].
There is increasing concern over the quality of the indoor
environment as the standard of living improves in society.
This is of paramount importance for buildings in the tropics
where air-conditioning of the indoor environment is not
uncommon [3].
Thermal condition in learning environment has to be
considered carefully not only because of the high occupant
density in lecture theatres or classrooms but also the negative
influences that an unsatisfactory thermal environment has on
learning and performance [4], [5]. Thermal discomfort such as
overheated or too cold classrooms can be associated to
physical stress (thermal stress) and therefore be responsible
for illnesses and poor performance of the students [6]. In fact,
students have to spend lots of time listening and
understanding lessons, remaining sitting at their desk without
have a change to modifying and adjusting their activity level
or the functioning parameters of the air-conditioned systems
or to open/close the windows according to the thermal
environment during the lesson time [5].
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the thermal
comfort in classrooms and lecture theatres by applying
objective measurement and subjective assessment. The
predicted mean vote (PMV) index, predicted percentage
dissatisfied (PPD) index and comfortable temperature are
calculated and compared to the results from subjective
assessment of thermal comfort in the air-conditioned learning
environment.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Sites
This study was conducted in selected lecture theatres and
classrooms in the building of Faculty of Health Sciences
(FSK), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Puncak Alam
Campus. Four (4) classrooms (BK4, BK 31, BK 37 and BK 50)
and four (4) lecture theatres (DK 3, DK 4, DK 5 and DK 6)
were selected in this study.
Those classrooms are located at FSK 6 block and
comprised of twelve bulb of fluorescent lights and reflectors
and also four units of split air-conditioning at the ceiling. The
size of these classrooms is 74 m2. Meanwhile Lecture theatres
were situated at FSK 7 block with a total area of 118 m2 each.
Each lecture theatre has of twelve bulbs of fluorescent light
and reflectors and also eight units of split air-conditioning at
the ceiling. The size of the classrooms and lecture theatres are
uniform and represents the learning environment in UiTM
Puncak Alam campus. Figure 1 and 2 shows the layout plan of
the classroom and the lecture theatre.

978-1-4577-0342-3/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE 194

 of thermal comfort they experience and the clothes they wore
were also collected by this administrative questionnaire. The
questionnaire of the thermal comfort judgments vote of
respondents was based on the seven points psycho-physical
thermal comfort scale of ASHRAE.

C. Field measurement
Measurements were carried out using QUESTemp° 36
where it was placed 1.1 m from the ground at the centre of the
classrooms and lecture theatre. For lecture theatre, the
measurements were taken periodically at the front, centre and
back. Simultaneous measurements of air temperature (Ta),
mean radiant temperature (Tmrt), air velocity (v) and relative
humidity (Rh) were continuously made for 2 hours with 10
minutes interval because each class typically was of 2 hours in
duration.

Fig. 1: Floor plan of classroom

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Field measurement
Measured values of thermal comfort parameters are tabulated
in Table I. Operative temperature (Tn) is a weighted mean of
the air temperature and the mean radiant temperature, the
weights being in proportion to the convective and the radiant
heat-transfer coefficients of the clothed human body.

TABLE I
OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE, RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND AIR VELOCITY IN
CLASSROOM AND LECTURE THEATRE

Parameter Classroom Lecture Theatre

Mean Ranges Mean Ranges
± SD ± SD
Operative 22.0 20.7 – 23.1 21.2 19.3 – 24.1
Temperature ± 1.1 ± 2.2
(oC)

Relative 70.8 66.4 – 78.8 72.1 61.3 – 79.0

Humidity ± 6.9 ± 7.9
(%)

Air Velocity 0.20 ± 0.20 0.3 ± 0.2 – 0.4

(m/s) 0.0 0.1
Fig. 2: Floor plan of lecture theatre
Note: SD – Standard deviation

B. Subjective assessment
A questionnaire survey was conducted during the period of
the physical measurements. Total respondents involved in this
survey were 235 (62 male and 173 female) with average age
of 18 to 27 age years old. The average numbers of students
were 20 to 30 students and 30 to 50 students for classroom
and lecture theatre respectively. The questionnaire used in this
study was adopted from Cheong, et al. [3]. Prior to the survey,
the subjects would have been seated at their chairs for
approximately 30 min to 1 hour and they were briefed to
answer the questionnaire booklet at least 30 minutes after they
entered the class. The judgment of respondents about the level
The mean operative temperature for classrooms was 22.0
o
C with the range between 20.7 oC – 23.1 oC. While, the mean
operative temperature for lecture theatres were 21.2 oC with
the range between 19.3oC – 23.7 oC. For the air-conditioned
buildings, the ASHRAE Standards 55 [7] recommended range
was 23oC – 26oC. In this study, the mean operative
temperature for both classrooms and lecture theatre were no
within the suggested ranges.
The mean relative humidity for classrooms and lecture
theatres was 70.8 % and 72.1 % with the range between
66.4 % – 78.8 % and 61.3 % - 79.0% respectively. Air
velocity seems to be almost consistent in all classrooms. In the

195
lecture theatres, the mean air velocity was 0.3 m/s with the
range between 0.2 m/s – 0.4 m/s

B. Subjective assessment
Figure 3, 4 and 5 showed the frequency distribution of
subjective response on temperature, humidity and air
movement for both classroom and lecture theatre by occupants.
Figure 3 shows that the respondents have voted bias towards
the ‘slightly warm’ and ‘warm’ of the 7-point scale for
classroom and lecture theatre respectively. There were 76%
individuals claimed that temperature in classroom is ‘slightly
warm’, ‘warm’ and ‘hot’, while 66% individuals responded
similar vote for lecture theatre. The ASHRAE Standard 55 [7]
specified that an acceptable thermal environment should have Fig. 4: Distribution on subjective response on humidity
80% of occupants voted for the central three categories
(slightly cool, neutral, and slightly warm). In this study, only
60.0% and 64% voted within the central three categories
showing that both learning environment were not in thermal
acceptable conditions. These may due to different thermal
sensations among occupants even in the same environment.
These findings show not all occupants were satisfied with
indoor thermal environment even though all surveyed
locations were equipped with air-condition to provide
comfortable learning environment.
Figure 4 shows the frequency distribution of subjective
response on humidity by occupants. Majority of the occupants
agreed that the humidity level in their air-conditioned learning
environment was at acceptable level, with 62% individuals at
classroom and 48% at lecture theatre voted in just right
segment. Fig. 5: Distribution on subjective response on air movement
Figure 5 shows the frequency distribution of subjective
response on air movement to be slightly skewed towards the
left of the 7-point scale. Majority of the occupants felt the air
movement in their air-conditioned learning environment was
at acceptable level, with 48% individuals (classroom) and
52% individual (lecture theatre) voted in just right segment.
The distribution of the subjective responses on overall
thermal comfort is shown in Figure 6. The distribution is
skewed towards the ‘comfortable’ regions on the 4-point
scale. Half of the occupants felt comfortable with 54%
(classroom) and 53% (lecture theatre) individuals voted in the
comfortable segment. Meanwhile, about 2% occupants for
both learning environment felt uncomfortable.

Fig. 6: Distribution of subjective response on overall thermal comfort.

C. Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) and Predicted Percentage

Dissatisfied (PPD)
Table II shows mean vote of PMV, PPD and TSV for both
classrooms and lecture theatres was -0.05 and -0.62; 7.96 and
20.7; -1.16 and -0.96 respectively.

Fig. 3: Distribution on subjective response on temperature

196
 TABLE III
PREDICTED MEAN VOTE (PMV) AND PREDICTED PERCENTAGE DISSATISFIED
(PPD)
PMV PPD (%) TSV
Mean -0.05 7.96 -1.16
Classroom
SD 0.37 4.26 0.90
Mean -0.62 20.75 -0.96
Lecture
theatre
SD 0.62 16.29 1.25
Note: SD – Standard deviation
According to ISO 7730, the comfort range was taken to be
the conditions when the PMV has the values between –1 and
+1. The mean PMV for classroom was -0.05 and the mean
PPD was 7.96. These indicate that the classroom is observed
close to ‘neutral’ condition and that approximately 8% of the
occupants are expected to express dissatisfaction with the
classroom environment. While, the mean PMV and PPD for
lecture theatre were -0.62 and 20.75 respectively. These
indicate that the lecture theatre is observed close to ‘slightly
cool’ condition and that approximately 21% of the occupants
are expected to express dissatisfaction with the lecture theatre
environment.
Table II also shows the occupant’s perception on level of
thermal comfort based on Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV). The
mean TSV for classroom was -1.16 while for lecture theatre,
the mean TSV was -0.96. These indicate the occupants
experienced the slightly cool condition in both learning
environment. However, the mean value of thermal comfort
based on Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) for classroom was -
0.05, which indicate the condition was ‘neutral’. While, PMV
value for lecture theatre was -0.62, which indicated the
condition was close to ‘slightly cool’. Only the lecture theatres
show a close agreement when comparing with calculated
values (PMV) to the subjective assessment (TSV). These
findings show that calculated thermal states do not always
correlate to occupant’s preferred thermal state. Previous
studies also have concluded that there is a significant bias
between PMV and the field result [8], [9], [10].
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Providing comfortable learning environment is essential
because it can affect teaching and learning process. Poor
thermal comfort can be associated to thermal stress and may
be responsible for illnesses and poor performance of the
students. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the
thermal comfort in classrooms and lecture theatres by
applying objective measurement and subjective assessment.
The result have shown that the operative temperature for
both classroom and lecture theatre were not within the
suggested ranges by ASHRAE standard [7].
The subjective assessment by occupants also indicated that
they were not satisfied with indoor thermal condition for both
learning environment. However, the majority of the
respondents found that the relative humidity and air velocity
that they have experienced to be acceptable. The study also
showed that calculate thermal state does not correlate to the
occupant’s preferred thermal state.
The data and information obtained in this study were based
on a short period of three week study and may not true to
reflection of the sentiments of the entire student population.
Therefore, it is suggested to extend this study with larger
sample size and also to other classrooms and lecture theatres
which were not covered in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank management of Faculty of
Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA for the
permission and support given.
REFERENCES
[1] Hussein, I. and A. Rahman, M.H. (2009). Field study of thermal
comfort in Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol. 1:
pp.134 – 152.
[2] Kwong, Q.J. and Adam, N.M. (2010). Thermal comfort in enclosed lift
lobby of tropical educational institution. Thammasat Int. J. Sc. Tech..
15(3): pp.8 – 18.
[3] Cheong, K.W.D., Djunaedy, E., Chua, Y.L., Tham, K.W., Sekhar, S.C.,
Wong, N.H., & Ullah, M.B. (2003). Thermal Comfort Study of an Air-
Conditioned Lecture Theatre in the Tropics. Building and Environment,
pp.63 – 73.
[4] Wong, N.H. and Khoo, S.S. (2003). Thermal comfort in classroom in
tropic. Energy and Building. vol 35 : pp.337–351
[5] Corgnati, S.P., Filippi, M. and Viazzo, S. (2007). Perception of the
thermal environment in high school and university classrooms:
Subjective preferences and thermal comfort. Building and
Environment. vol 42: pp.951–959.
[6] Kruger, E.L. and Zannin, P.H.T. (2004). Acoustic, thermal and
luminous comfort in classrooms. Building and Environment. vol 39:
pp.1055 – 1063.
[7] America Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) 2004. ASHRAE Standard 55. Thermal
Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy.
[8] Santosa, Mas, “Climatic Factors and Their Influence on the Design of
Buildings in A Hot Humid Country, with Special Reference to
Indonesia”, Thesis. Department of Architecture University of
Queensland, Australia, 1986.
[9] Karyono, T. H. (1999). Arsitektur Kemampaman Pendidikan
Kenyamanan dan Penghematan Energi. Jakarta: Catur Libra Optima.
[10] Sugini, “The Effectiveness of the PMV Model in Predicting the Quality
of Thermal Comfort in Learning Environments in a Warm Humid
Ctropical Zone”, PhD Thesis, Department of Architecture of Gadjah
Mada University, Indonesia, 2004.
[11] Humphreys, M. A. and Nicol, J. F. (2002). The Validity of ISO-PMV
for Predicting Comfort Votes in Every-day Thermal Environments.
Journal Energy and Buildings, vol 34, pp.667-684, Elsevier Science.
197