Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Progress in thermal comfort studies in classrooms over last 50 years

and way forward
Manoj Kumar Singh a,b,c,∗, Ryozo Ooka c, Hom B Rijal d, Sanjay Kumar e, Anuj Kumar f,
Sadhan Mahapatra g
a
Joint International Research Laboratory of Green Buildings and Built Environments (Ministry of Education), Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
b
National Center for International Research of Low-carbon and Green Buildings, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
c
Department of Human and Social Systems, Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1, Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan
d
Faculty of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, 3-3-1 Ushikubo-nishi, Tsuzuki-ku, Yokohama 224-8551, Japan
e
Mechanical Engineering Department, Dr. B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, Punjab 144011, India
f
Efficiency of Building, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India
g
Department of Energy, Tezpur University, Tezpur 784028, Assam, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A classroom thermal environment quality has an important role in a student’s life as it influences stu-
Received 3 December 2018 dent’s performance and well-being. It is well known that at each educational stage, curricula demands
Revised 15 January 2019
different activities, different learning approaches and systematic thinking, requiring increasing levels of
Accepted 25 January 2019
concentration. With increasing awareness about energy efficiency in buildings and indoor environment
Available online 4 February 2019
quality, somehow more emphasis is being given to energy efficiency. The absence of any standard or ref-
Keywords: erence document relating to the design appropriate classrooms based on educational stages is worsening
Classrooms the situation. In this context, present study is done to find out the progress in classrooms based thermal
Adaptive thermal comfort comfort studies over last fifty years. Total 93 research articles selected from Scopus database were con-
Naturally ventilated sidered for this study. It was found that at each educational stage in the studied schools, students were
Primary school highly unsatisfied with the prevailing indoor thermal environment and preferred cooler temperature than
Secondary school
the existing indoor thermal environment. Primary school students were least sensitive to outdoor tem-
University classrooms
perature changes. There are relatively few published articles published on thermal comfort in classrooms.
Based on reported findings, no consistent temperature change was found necessary to record a shift of
one thermal sensation vote by students at different educational stages in classroom. Identical behaviour
was observed for classrooms operated under different operation modes. Moreover this study provides ro-
bust evidence that there is a need for separate set of different guidelines or standards for students of
different ages in different stages of their education. This study also proposed adaptive comfort equations
to estimate the indoor comfort temperature in classrooms at different educational stages.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction spend a considerable amount of their waking hours in a class-

1.1. Overview
Educational buildings are the special types of buildings with the
prime objective to provide a conducive environment to promote
teaching and learning [1–4]. It is widely recognised that educa-
tional systems across the world involve different stages of learn-
ing where student spend different amounts of time depending on
his/her age [1–7]. Students between the age of 2–26 years old,
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mksinghtu@gmail.com (M.K. Singh).
room (approximate age from kindergarten to university) [2–7]. In
the classroom a student also needs to concentrate to the high-
est levels as he/she is continuously learning new topics, improving
his/her skills and capacity of systematic thinking [6–8]. The better
he/she learns these traits the better understanding he/she devel-
ops, which plays a crucial role in his/her life. Educational buildings
and especially the classrooms, should have the characteristics that
provide a stimulating environment to enhance the learning pro-
cess [2,9–11]. Many studies published since 1960 s suggest a strong
correlation between classroom thermal environment and air qual-
ity within classrooms and student’s performance and well-being
[3,12–14].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.01.051
0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
150 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
More recently the teaching and learning approaches and
strategies applied in classrooms is evolving around the increasing
role and use of ICT (Internet and communication technologies)
systems at various stages in education system [3,15–20]. With
so many changes at play, it is now important to categorize the
indoor environment conditions within classrooms at the different
educational stages [3,17,18]. Higher up the education stages, the
increasing use of computers is resulting in a revolution in the
conventional teaching spaces once dominated by teachers standing
beside blackboards [3,16,17]. With the growing dependence of
classroom on technology comes increasing energy consumption
associated with both the operation and maintenance of buildings
Absence of standards that deal specifically with indoor ther-
mal environment of educational buildings and classrooms for stu-
dents of different ages in different stages of their education is com-
pelling the designers and architects to use the existing standards
such as ISO-7730, EN15251 and ASHRAE 55 as reference documents
[21–30]. A review of the related literature indicates that architects
and engineers are treating the design of educational buildings like
that of any other public buildings [3,15,30–33]. It is well known
to the thermal comfort research community that the database of
ASHRAE-55, ISO 7730 and CEN 15251 standard mainly contain data
collected during comfort studies done on healthy adults in pub-
lic buildings across the world [25–27,28]. Several studies done in
air-conditioned and free running classrooms concluded that there
are high levels of dissatisfaction reported by students towards the
prevailing thermal environments of the classrooms [13,34–42]. It
is very interesting to note that this trend is prevalent not only
in the classrooms of developing countries but also in the devel-
oped countries [13,34–42]. The reason for this is that the reference
standards against which the comfort experienced by students are
typically gauged were historically formulated for steady state office
environment where clothing and activity levels were deemed to
be fixed as was the density of occupants in spaces (occupants/m2 )
[13,36–42]. Moreover, use of personal computers and laptops in-
creasing the heat generation in the classroom. All this contribute
to the mismatch between preferred and design thermal environ-
ment and indoor air quality (IAQ) [33,43–45].
1.2. Objective of the study
At each stage of schooling (kindergarten, elementary school,
primary school, secondary school, senior secondary school/high
school and university) teaching and objectives are set to facilitate
the learning by students of certain skill sets [3,13,36–42]. Based
on the skill set requirements at each stage of schooling, lessons
to boost systematic thinking and the physical activity of students
have been devised accordingly [13,36–42]. In many cases, stu-
dents are required to adopt uniforms are from the elementary to
high school stages. These uniforms are typically specified and de-
signed by adults who do not wear them and have a little working
grasp of activity related metabolic rates and experiences [46–48].
There appears to be little or no scientific understanding applied to
the selection of uniforms, which reflects the clear disconnect be-
tween the experiences, requirements and aspirations of students
and those of the adults who dictate the dress codes and environ-
ments they occupy at school [5,49–52]. Despite a number of stud-
ies carried out to establish a link between student’s performance
indoor environment quality (IEQ) and IAQ, there remains a con-
siderable gap in the basic information and understanding neces-
sary to draw correct conclusions on best ways forward in the chal-
lenge of designing ‘optimally Fit for Purpose’ teaching and learning
spaces, behaviour and clothing and furnishing infra-structures in
the rapidly evolving landscapes of classroom practices [33,44,50].
The more obvious gaps in the information available to good de-
signers include:
(a) What is the status of thermal comfort and preferences of stu-
dents in primary school, secondary school and university class-
rooms operated under NV/FR and air-conditioned mode?
(b) Depending upon climate, do students perform better in air-
conditioned or naturally ventilated or mixed mode operated
classrooms and if so which ones?
(c) How to test the performance of students (should the evaluation
be spread over months or weeks)?
(d) How to normalize the test procedure to judge the performance
of students (because different students may perform better in
different tasks depending upon their interest and motivation)?
This paper is divided into different sections based on the differ-
ent stages of student schooling (primary school, secondary school
and university students) and tries to explore the answers to the
gaps in the information mentioned above. Data relating to comfort
parameters, schooling stage, classroom operation mode (NV/FR,
mixed mode and air-conditioned) and sample sizes are extracted
from the articles and analyzed to draw conclusions on research
trends, thermal comfort and preferences in classrooms operated
under NV/FR and air-conditioned mode and regression equations
of published articles based on mode of operation of classrooms
at each level. Finally, the authors proposed adaptive comfort equa-
tions, highlight the gaps in the classroom comfort studies and pro-
pose a way forward for the identification of improved and system-
atic performance-based criteria that include also indicators for the
wellbeing of students.
2. Thermal comfort assessment approaches
The definition of thermal comfort a condition of mind, which
expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment” indicates the
subjective nature of thermal comfort [26,27]. Most accepted way
to define the thermal comfort conditions for a group of sub-
jects (sample size) in field or in laboratory is to carry out sub-
jective evaluation by recording subject’s thermal feelings, pref-
erences, physical and personal comfort variables and statistically
relate them to arrive at some quantity which will be acceptable
to 80% of the sample size [26,27]. Thermal comfort studies done
over the years suggest that the diversity in climate, geographical
location, built environments and subjects have a strong influence
on the acceptable thermal comfort conditions for that climate, ge-
ographical location and built environment [53–60]. This has also
encouraged scientists and researchers to carry out thermal com-
fort research in different parts of the world, covering different cli-
mates and built environments applying heat balance approach and
adaptive model [21,22,25,59–70]. Based on approach to evaluate
thermal comfort in a built environment, presently following two
schools of thought exists.
2.1. Heat balance model
Comfort standards such as ASHRAE 55, ISO 7730 and CEN 15251
predominantly rely on heat balance approach [25–27]. The basis
of heat balance approach was the extensive study done by Fanger
in a controlled laboratory environment on healthy adult subjects
[53,64]. He established PMV-PPD methodology based on heat bal-
ance model [53,64]. Later when this was applied to field studies
where the environment was not controlled or semi-controlled, it
was found that the results deviate widely [12,23,71–76]. The rea-
son for this deviation lies in the assumption that while deriving
PMV-PPD model it was assumed that thermal state of mind is a
function of physics of body’s thermal balance with its immediate
environment with usual physiological response [23,53,64,75]. This
model further assumes that all the subjects across the world will
respond in an identical or similar way in all the buildings and in
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
all the climates [23,53,64,75]. PMV-PPD methodology was devel-
oped for a controlled environment but when applied to the dy-
namic environment in which occupants have long exposure the
results deviate widely [23,59,64,75]. This led thermal comfort re-
searchers to question the applicability of PMV-PPD model to the
dynamic or free running built environment [23,59,64,75]. The rea-
son for deviation is attributed to the parameters such as socio-
cultural, climatic and contextual dimensions of comfort thus deny-
ing thermal adaptation [54,56]. PMV-PPD model does take care of
adaptation through activity and clothing but its proportion is very
less in overall estimation [54,56]. To overcome this discrepancy dy-
namic model were also proposed to increase the accuracy of the
PMV-PPD methodology by addition of a correction factor related
to adaptation [64,71]. But this was criticized again because its ba-
sis was again thermal load [64–66,68]. Human thermal load model
fails to predict sensation expressed corresponding to high and low
temperature i.e. away from neutrality. The proportion of error in-
creases as the subjects votes away from neutrality [21,59,64–66].
Reason for this error is the parameters such as metabolic rate,
clothing pattern and prevailing climate which impact the adap-
tation thus making the above factors interdependent and region-
specific [21,54,65,66].
Accuracy in the estimation of clo and metabolic plays a cru-
cial role in the application of PMV-PPD model in school settings.
Havenith et al. [77] in their study concluded that clothing insula-
tion is a function of body motion and air movement around the
body. Body motion and air movement impact the clothing insula-
tion hugely and it must be given due consideration while evaluat-
ing thermal environment using PMV-PPD methodology. For light
work and airspeed up to 0.2 m/s, the error is negligible but at
higher metabolic rate and airspeed more than 0.5 m/s, the error
proportion increase to a large extent which cannot be ignored.
Havenith et al. [77] also concluded that precise metabolic rate esti-
mation is very important for the accuracy of PMV-PPD model. Ac-
cording to ISO 7730, designing of high, medium and low-quality
thermal environment requires the accuracy of PMV better than 0.3
of scale units. But a mere 15% error in the estimation of metabolic
rate (Which is quite possible, to be introduced in the case of
school children because metabolic estimation assumes; for male
body mass 70 kg, body surface area 1.8 m2 ; for female body mass
60 kg, body surface area 1.6 m2 ) crosses the upper limit(0.3 scale
units) of accuracy of PMV.
2.2. Adaptive model
In late 80’s when PMV and PPD methodology were applied to
the field where the indoor environment was dynamic or partially
controlled it came to light that the corresponding indices that as-
sess thermal comfort fail to explain the deviations observed dur-
ing field experiments involving transient conditions [54–56]. This
lead to the development of a new school of thought where con-
textual nature of environment and adaptation of subjects to the
prevailing thermal environment (which is inherent in nature to
humans) given due consideration in evaluating a thermal environ-
ment to define comfort [21,59,64–68,78]. The assumption behind
the adaptive approach is “if a change produces discomfort people re-
acts in a way which tends to restore their comfort” [21,59,64–68,79].
This assumption makes the occupant active in a built environment
as they take action that modifies the thermal environment or ad-
justs themselves to restore comfort [21,59,64–68]. The flexibility
and extent of adaptation are governed by three types of adapta-
tion [59,71,73].
(a) Behavioural adaptation: Action taken by subjects consciously
and unconsciously which in turn change the heat and mass
fluxes of the body. It works on three levels such as personal,
technological and cultural.
151
(b) Physiological adaptation: It is responsible for the change in sub-
jects due to long-term exposure e.g. like prevailing climate has
an impact on occupants itself. It is again of two types such as
general and acclimatization.
(c) Psychological adaptation: It is a result of subjects past expe-
rience and is impacted by ones socio-economic and socio-
cultural setup. It is largely driven by expectation and percep-
tion.
A large number of studies put forth the evidence of adaptation
(combined effect of above three phenomena) taking place in the
built environment and significantly in naturally ventilated build-
ings [59,65,69,74,79]. It is important to note that all the above
three types of adaptation taking place together and it is very dif-
ficult to estimate the impact of the individual type of adaptation
[71,73]. Now the latest versions of standards ASHRAE 55, and CEN
15251 have incorporated the adaptive comfort models [25–27].
3. Methodology of the study
To carry out this study Scopus database is searched with key-
word “thermal comfort study in classrooms”. Total 93 research ar-
ticles appeared, out of which there are four review articles on
“educational buildings” but specific to the classroom (Fig. 1). The
present study gives detail insight of the thermal comfort studies
done in classrooms across the world. To analyze the results in de-
tail the research articles are broadly classified into three major cat-
egories.
(a) Kindergarten, elementary and primary school classrooms: Stud-
ies done in these classrooms are clubbed together and in this
study, it is referred as “primary school classroom” for analysis.
(b) Secondary, senior secondary and high school classrooms: Stud-
ies done in these classrooms are merged together and referred
as “secondary school classroom” for analysis.
(c) University classroom
The basis of this classification is presented in Table 1. Also if
a particular study considered primary and secondary schools as
their study area and in sample size than the particular research
article is counted under both primary and secondary school class-
room study. A similar approach is also adopted for the research
that considered secondary and university classroom as their study
area. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the classrooms ex-
tracted from 93 research articles, at different educational stages
in different parts of the world. From the table, we can see that
the functionality and density of the classrooms are quite differ-
ent at different stages of schooling starting kindergarten. To know
the share of classroom thermal comfort studies in overall thermal
comfort studies, Scopus database was searched again with a key-
word “Thermal comfort”. It returned 18,888 articles (Fig. 2). De-
tailed analysis of this search and correspond numbers are done in
later sections.
In the context of different educational stages, 93 research ar-
ticles are again subcategorized based on the operation mode of
classrooms in the respective studies. Different operation mode of
classrooms are considered with following definitions
(i) Naturally Ventilated (NV): A Classroom is constructed to op-
erate under free running (FR) condition 12 months a year
and same is considered under the study period.
(ii) Free running (FR): A classroom is constructed primarily to
operate the heating system (HS) or cooling system (CS) but
during the study period either HS or CS was switched off.
(iii) Heating system (HS): A classroom is constructed with the
heating system and during the study period heating system
was switched on.
152 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174

Fig. 1. Number of paper published over the years in classroom thermal comfort (accessed on 11th October 2018).

Table 1
Characteristics of classrooms at different levels of education.

Classrooms at different levels of education

Parameters
Kindergarten Elementary/Primary Secondary/Sr. Secondary University

Occupants Children Children Children Adults

Age group 3-6 7-11 12-18 19-26
(Approximately)
Density High Depending on class and Depending on class and Depending on class and
sometimes very high sometimes very high sometimes very high
Furniture Furniture not always Desk and benches. Each is Desk and benches. Each is Desk and benches. Each is
occupied by 1/2/3 students occupied by 1/2/3 students occupied by 1/2 students
Classroom types Learning + play Lecture Lecture + laboratory Lecture + laboratory
Duration of 3-8 4-6 6-7 Students visit rooms for lecture
Occupancy and occupy the room of 1 or 2
(hours) hours. per lecture continuously.
So students experience transient
thermal environment almost all
the time
Layout of class No specific layout Lecture rooms/Lecture theaters. Lecture rooms/Lecture theaters. Lecture rooms/Lecture theaters.
Students sit in rows Students sit in rows Students sit in rows
Indoor No Control. As judged by adults No Control. As judged by adults Partial control. Some controls in Some control in NV and in (CS+
environmental for both NV and (CS+ HS) for both NV and (CS+ HS) NV but no control in (CS+ HS) HS)
control
Lighting Day lighting + artificial lighting Day lighting + artificial lighting Day lighting + artificial lighting Day lighting + artificial lighting
Activities Very active as teaching involves Attending lectures with light Sitting and attend Sitting and attend
physical activity activities lectures + Laboratory needs light lectures + Laboratory needs light
to medium activity to medium activity
Clothing Clothing as judged by parents or Restricted clothing and had to Restricted clothing and had to No specific dress code, Free to
elders follow dress code follow dress code adjust
Use of ICT Almost no use Less ( demonstration purpose) High (Lectures) Very high (lectures, Laboratory)

AC: Air conditioned (HS + CS); NV: Naturally ventilated, ICT: Internet and communication technology.

(iv) Cooling system (CS): A classroom is constructed with the
cooling system and during the study period cooling system
was switched on.
(v) Air-condition (AC): A classroom is constructed with heating
and cooling system and during the study period either of the
systems was switched on.
For the above-mentioned classifications, data such as sample
size, time of the survey, geographic location, climate, operation
mode of classrooms, comfort temperature, average clothing level,
indoor air velocity and average outdoor temperature etc. were ex-
tracted from the research articles and listed in the form of tables.
Presentation of data in the tabular form is necessary to carry out
the analysis. To analyse the data, it was decided to consider NV/FR
classrooms and air-conditioned classrooms and club the studies
accordingly for primary school, secondary school and university
classrooms. It was found that in some of the research papers out-
door temperature data were not mentioned so online weather data
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Fig. 2. Number of documents on Scopus scientific database when search with keywords “Thermal comfort, Adaptive thermal comfort and thermal comfort in Classroom”
(accessed on 11th October 2018).
source (mentioned in the reference list) was used to extract the
data for the period in which the study was done [80]. In this study,
the proposed regression equations and adaptive thermal comfort
models were analyzed in categories based on operation modes
of classrooms. It was found that very few studies have proposed
adaptive thermal comfort equations. Finally, a comparative analy-
sis was carried out by plotting the comfort temperatures proposed
in the studies on ASHRAE −55 2015 and CEN −15251 standards
[25–27].
4. Thermal comfort in primary school classrooms
4.1. NV/FR classrooms
Free running classrooms are present in almost all the coun-
tries. Classrooms of the countries located in cold climates operate
under free running mode in spring and autumn season. In trop-
ical countries (South Asian countries) classrooms are constructed
to operate in free running mode throughout the year. This section
discusses the findings of the studies done in classrooms that are
operating in free-running mode. Tables 2 and 3 present the ex-
cerpts from the articles that considered primary school classroom
as their study area. In United Kingdom study in a free running
primary school classroom was started by Humphreys [39,40]. This
study found that children were little less sensitive to temperature
change as the mean width of central three sensations is 4.7 °C
whereas for adults it is about 4 °C. Also, the standard deviation is
double the value for adults for the change of one thermal sensation
to other. Almost two and a half decade later when adaptive ther-
mal comfort principal got well established in assessing the thermal
comfort in built environment several studies were carried out to
test its applicability along with PMV methodology simultaneously.
Teli et al. [19,51,81,82] in their Hampshire and Southampton study
found that PMV method underestimates thermal sensation for chil-
153
dren. Similar to PMV, adaptive limits underestimate the thermal
sensation and predict higher comfort temperature. Results of this
study suggest that children prefer much lower temperature than
an adult. They also concluded that adjustment in PMV and adap-
tive model is required to be applied to school children else chances
of reporting discrepancy will be higher [19,51,81].
A study carried out by Mors et al. [83] states that reason for
PMV and adaptive methodology underestimating the actual ther-
mal environment is related to the higher activity level of young
children, external environmental parameters influence, minimal
clothing adaptation and also number of different activity embed-
ded in their curricula. Mean clothing insulation of students in
primary school’s changes most during mid-season with no sig-
nificant difference between male and female students. Linking
indoor temperature to learning performance of children’s Liu et al.
[84] in their study found that overall learning performance is high-
est when indoor temperature is 1 °C lower than comfort temper-
ature. They found that primary school’s classrooms air tempera-
ture should be kept a few degrees lower than office buildings to
improve thermal comfort [85–87]. Finally, Yun et al. [34] in their
study found no difference in thermal sensation between girls and
boys were found but girls were more sensitive to higher tempera-
ture than boys.
Studies were also carried out to link the building envelope, IAQ,
visual comfort to thermal comfort. Lee et al. [7], Teli et al. [19] and
Hwang et al. [88] found that lightweight junior school building
showed that children were more sensitive to higher temperature
and prefer cooler thermal sensation. Also in summer months’ stu-
dents are twice more sensitive to change in temperature than
winter [9,19,88]. IEQ complaints have an adverse effect on learn-
ing performance. In medium-weight schools with the cooler over-
all thermal environment has little impact on overall thermal sen-
sitivity [9,19,88]. Comparison of lightweight and medium weight
school showed general agreement on student’s warm thermal
 154
Table 2
Excerpts from previous thermal comfort studies done in primary school classrooms in different parts of world.

Operation type at Age

S. No. Reference Country/Location Climate Time of survey time of study (Years) Sample Size description

No of S/C M F

1 Auliciems A., 1975 [39] Queensland, Australia Sub-tropical May to Aug 1973 HS 8 -11 4P, 3S NA NA

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
2 Humphreys, 1977 [40] London, UK Temperate Sum 1971, 1972 FR 7–9 5S, 17C 149 113
3 Conceição and Lúcio, 2008 [95] Algarve region, South of Portugal Mediterranean Jan 2004 HS + CS NA 1S, 21C NA NA
4 Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis, 2008 [93] Kozani, Greece Mediterranean Sept 2006 to May 2007 HS + FR NA 21S, 152C NA NA
5 Hwang et al., 2009 [88] Central, Taiwan Sub-tropical Sept 2005 to Jan 2006 NV 10 – 11 14S, 48C 791 823
6 Zeiler and Boxem, 2009 [94] 14 cities, Netherlands Temperate Jan to Mar 2004 HS 9-10 14S, 14C NA NA
7 Mors et al., 2011 [83] Eindhoven, Netherlands Temperate Win, Spr, Sum 2010 NV 9 – 11 3S, 3C NA NA
8 Giuli et al., 2012 [9] Venice, Italy Mediterranean Apr to May 2009, May 2010 NV 9-11 7S, 28C NA NA
9 Liang et al., 2012 [35] Taichung, Taiwan Sub-tropical Sept 2005 to Feb 2006 NV 10 – 11 14S, 48C 791 823
10 Teli D et al., 2012 [51] Hampshire, England, UK Temperate Mar to Aug 2011 NV 7-11 1S, 8C 624 676
11 Al-Rashidi et al., 2012 [43] Kuwait Desert Mar, May 2010 FR + CS 6-10 3S, 10C NA NA
12 Teli D et al., 2013 [81] Southampton, UK Temperate Apr to July 2011 FR 7-11 1S, 8C 631 683
13 Barrett et al., 2013 [46] Salford, Manchester, UK Temperate Academic Year 2010-2011 FR + HS + CS 7-11 7S, 34C NA NA
14 Teli et al., 2014 [19] Southampton, UK Temperate Jun to Jul 2012 FR 7-11 2S, 11C NA NA
15 Yun et al., 2014 [34] Seoul, Korea Temperate Apr to Jun 2013 FR 4-6 10K 59 60
16 Gao et al., 2014 [17] Copenhagen, Denmark Temperate May to Jun 2012; Nov to Dec 2012 HS + CS 10-11 3S, 4C 77 86
17 Turunena et al., 2014 [11] Finland cold temperate May to Aug 2007 HS + CS 12 353S NA NA
18 Huang et al., 2015 [24] Central Taiwan Sub-tropical May, June, Sept and Oct 2013 NV NA 1S, 3C NA NA
19 Barrett et al., 2015 [96] Salford, Manchester, UK Temperate Academic Year 2011-2012, 2012 - 2013 FR + HS + CS 3-11 27S, 53C NA NA
20 de Dear et al., 2015 [5] Sydney, Australia Sub-tropical Sum 2013 NV + HS + CS + EC 10 - 11 9S NA NA
21 Guili et al., 2015 [49] Padua, Italy Mediterranean Feb to June 2011 FR + HS 9-11 3 S, 8C NA NA
22 Nam et al., 2015 [50] Seoul, Korea Temperate Jun 2013-May 2014 HS + CS 4-6 85K 493 501
23 Huang and Hwang 2016 [32] Central Taiwan Sub-tropical Apr to Jun and Sept to Nov FR + CS 9-11 NA NA NA
24 Hadad et al., 2016 [90] Shiraz, Iran Hot and Dry Aut, Win and Warm 2012 - 2013 HS + EC + FR 10 - 11 4S, 58C 788 817
25 Liu et al., 2016 [84] Weinan and Wuwei, China Sub-tropical Nov and Dec 2014. FR 10-11 9S, 22C 366 397
26 Martinez-Molina et al., 2017 [31] Villar del Arzobispo, Valencia, Spain Mediterranean Oct to Dec 2015 FR + HS 6-7 1S NA NA
27 Trebilcock et al., 2017 [89] Santiago, Chile Mediterranean Jul-Aug 2013 and Nov -Dec 2014 FR 9-10 12S NA NA
28 Stazia et al., 2017 [15] Ancona, Italy Mediterranean Jan 2013, Mar to Apr 2015 HS 10-11 20S NA NA
29 Haddad et al., 2019 [85] Iran Hot and Dry Aut, Win and Spr 2012 - 2013 NV 10 - 12 4S, 58C 788 817
30 Montazami et al., 2017a [86] West Midlands, UK Temperate June and July of 2014 and 2015 NV 8-11 8S, 27C NA NA
31 Teli et al., 2017 [82] Southampton, UK Temperate 2011 to 2015 NV NA 2S, 43C NA NA
32 Montazami et al., 2017b [87] West Midlands, UK Temperate June and July of 2014 and 2015 NV 8-11 8S, 27C NA NA
33 Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] Sydney, Australia Sub-tropical March 2012 and March 2013 NV + CS 10-15 12S NA NA
34 Bluyssen et al., 2018 [97] Netherlands Temperate Apr to May 2017 FR + HS + CS 8-12 21S, 54C 577 568

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc : Comfort temperature; Tn : Neutral temperature; FR: Free running; Top : Operative temperature; NA: Not available;
Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum: Summer; Aut: Autumn; S: School; C: Classroom; K: Kindergarten; M: Male; F: Female.
Table 3
Thermal comfort parameters proposed in studies on primary school classrooms.

Average clothing Air velocity Average outdoor temp

S. No. Reference Operation type Subjects type (clo) (m/s) Activity(met) (°C) Tc range (°C) Tn (°C)

1 Auliciems A., 1975 [39] HS P+S NA NA NA 19.8 20.5 – 26 24.2

2 Humphreys, 1977 [40] FR P 0.9 0.2 NA NA 17 – 23 19 – 21
3 Conceição and Lúcio, 2008 [95] HS + CS S NA NA NA NA NA NA
4 Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis, HS + FR N+E NA NA NA NA NA NA
2008 [93]
5 Hwang et al., 2009 [88] NV P+S Sum = 0.3; NA NA 15 – 34 17.6 – 30 22.7 – 29.1
Win = 0.6

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
6 Zeiler and Boxem, 2009 [94] HS P 0.97 0.05 1.2 5 °C 24 24
7 Mors et al., 2011 [83] NV P Sum = 0.3; 1-5 1.2 24 15 – 25 NA
Win = 0.9
8 Giuli et al., 2012 [9] NV P NA NA NA 15.3 20.5 – 25.9 NA
9 Liang et al., 2012 [35] NV P+S NA 0.6 – 0.9 1-1.3 25 22.4 – 29.2 22.7 – 29.1
10 Teli D et al., 2012 [51] NV P 1 0.1 1.2 10.6 – 16.7 20 – 24 20.8
11 Al-Rashidi et al., 2012 [43] FR + CS E NA NA NA NA NA NA
12 Teli D et al., 2013 [81] FR P 0.5 0.9 1 10.6 – 16.7 20 – 24 20.8
13 Barrett et al., 2013 [46] FR + HS + CS P NA NA NA NA NA NA
14 Teli et al., 2014 [19] FR P 0.5 – 0.7 0.1 1 10.6 – 16.7 20.6 – 22.8 NA
15 Yun et al., 2014 [34] FR K F = 0.28 – 0.48; 0.085 1 Apr = 23.1; Jun = 25.9 23 – 26 NA
M = 0.28 – 0.49
16 Gao et al., 2014 [17] MM E NA NA NA Sum = 2.5 – 30.5; NA NA
Win = – 7.3 – 10.9
17 Turunena et al., 2014 [11] HS + CS E NA NA NA NA NA NA
18 Huang et al., 2015 [24] NV E NA 0.8 NA 24 26 – 28 26
19 Barrett et al., 2015 [96] FR + HS + CS P+M+H NA NA NA NA NA NA
20 de Dear et al., 2015 [5] NV + HS + CS + EC P+S 0.45 0.07 2.1 22.2 19.5 – 26.6 22.5 (Top )
21 Guili et al., 2015 [49] FR + HS P 0.75 0.1 1.2 15.3 20.5 – 25.9 NA
22 Nam et al., 2015 [50] MM K Sum = 0.29; 0.07 1 Spr = 15.9; 20.7 – 25.5 Spr = 21.34;
Win = 0.81 Sum = 27.4; Sum = 25.5;
Aut = 12.3; Win = 1.2 Aut = 22.5;
Win = 20.7
23 Huang and Hwang 2016 [32] FR + CS E+J NA NA NA 15 – 30 NA 28
24 Hadad et al., 2016 [90] HS + EC + FR P 0.7 0.2 1.2 27.3 22 – 25 22.3
25 Liu et al., 2016 [84] FR P+S 1.6 0.49 1 Nov = 8.1; Dec = – 2.2 15 – 20 15
26 Martinez-Molina et al., 2017 [31] FR + HS P M = 0.34; F = 0.32 0.1 2 16 NA NA
27 Trebilcock et al., 2017 [89] FR P 1 NA 1 Spr = 13 – 29.5; Win = 14.7 – 15.6; NA
Win = 3.9 – 14.9 Spr 22.5 – 23.1
28 Stazia et al., 2017 [15] HS P NA NA NA NA NA NA
29 Haddad et al., 2019 [85] NV P 0.7 0.2 1.3 26.8 22 °C - 25 °C 23.2
30 Montazami et al., 2017a [86] NV P NA NA 1.2 27 20-24 22
31 Teli et al., 2017 [82] NV P NA NA NA 15.4 22.6 22.6
32 Montazami et al., 2017b [87] NV P NA NA 1.2 27 20-24 22
33 Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] NV + CS P+S 0.48 NA NA 21.3 NA 24.4
34 Bluyssen et al., 2018 [97] FR + HS + CS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc : Comfort temperature; ET: Effective temperature; Top : Operative temperature; NA: Not available; Ta : Air tempera-
ture; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; Tom : Mean monthly outdoor temperature; MSV: Mean sensation vote; Tin : Indoor air temperature; Trm : Running mean temperature over two days; TSVm : Mean thermal sensation vote; PMV:
Predicted mean vote; Y: Probit of the percentage, Tin : Indoor air temperature; P: Primary school; E: Elementary school; K: Kindergarten; MM: Mixed mode; S: Secondary school; H: High school: J: Junior school; M: Male; F:
Female; Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum: Summer; Aut: Autumn.

155
156 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
sensation, interpersonal variation and adaptive behaviour [9,19,88].
Present thermal comfort criteria underestimate the pupil’s thermal
sensation during summer.
As the awareness about the energy consumption and energy ef-
ficiency is rising, some countries have extended the building certi-
fication program to educational buildings. To see the effect of this
extension in Taiwan, Huang et al. [24] study found that the class-
rooms thermal comfort and academic performance have improved
with no overheating. They also concluded that increase of indoor
air velocity with the installation of ceiling fans has large potential
in the reduction of heating perception [24]. In case of NV build-
ings, its design aspects such as local environment, orientation, lay-
out, vegetation, using rooftop insulation, and shading play a criti-
cal role in the regulation of indoor thermal environment [35]. This
study also finds that students were more sensitive to solar heat
gain through a window in summer compared to that of winter
[35].
An interesting finding was reported by Trebilcock et al.
[89] where they found that students from highly vulnerable
schools voted for a lower comfort temperature in winter than
those from less vulnerable realities, thereby implying that there
is a strong relation between comfort temperature and the socio-
economic background of school children in this context. The study
observed high correlation between winter season comfort temper-
ature and vulnerability index developed for each school conclud-
ing that students from deprived environments show adaptation to
lower temperature. Pupils overall thermal comfort not always re-
lated to their thermal state [89]. Additionally, these results lead to
a reflection on students being denied the right to comfort in their
schools [89].
4.2. AC classrooms
The basis of this section is also Tables 2 and 3. This section
summarizes the conclusions of the studies done in primary class-
rooms listed in Tables 2 and 3 which are operated under cooling
and heating mode during the study period. Like Section 4.1 class-
rooms even under heating mode resulted in quite low neutral
temperatures compared to adults [39,90]. Auliciems [39] study on
primary and secondary school children in the winter season of
Brisbane, Australia concluded that neutral temperature for both
primary and secondary school stands at 19.8 °C which is low com-
pared to UK schools. But the range of comfort temperature is quite
similar for both Australian and UK schools considered under this
study [39]. Reason for this is attributed to the difference of cloth-
ing and degree of thermal acclimatization. Hadad et al. [85,90] in
his study also seconded conclusion drawn by Auliciems and found
that students have warmer sensation than expected [39,90]. Com-
fort temperature during survey period derived from regression
analysis is lower than predicted by PMV model [39,90]. It was
found that in summertime the clothing level of children is high
and needs to be relooked to provide better comfort in classrooms
[91]. de Dear et al. [5] and Kim and de Dear [92] study on Aus-
tralian school classrooms concluded that neutral operative temper-
ature is same as preferred temperature and an average change of
4.1 °C in operative temperature will lead to shifting in one thermal
sensation on ASHRAE 7-point sensation scale [5]. This study indi-
cated that a span of 7 °C is observed for primary school in a range
of comfort temperature and both upper and lower limit is 1.5 °C
lower than that of adult [5]. This study also linked the adaptability
of schools to outdoor climate variability. The more the variability
the more is adaptation and vice versa [5].
The relationship between of clothing level, the metabolic ac-
tivity of kindergarten and primary school children are shown by
Nam et al. [50] in their study. The study pointed out that cloth-
ing change of kindergarten children is also dependent on the
thermal sensation of adults as kindergarten children are not in-
dependent for clothing. In the case of children, the changes
in metabolic rates were larger than those of adults and their
metabolic rates ranged from 0.84 to 4.08 met because some classes
were implemented in sitting positions in indoor environments and
other classes with large amounts of activities, such as gymnastics,
sports activities, and recreation (seated, heavy limb movement,
and walking) were also implemented [50]. Season difference in
children’s comfortable temperatures was identified as being lower
than those of adults by approximately 0.5 °C in the summer and
by approximately 3.3 °C in the winter, indicating that children have
different thermal awareness from adults [50].
Linking indoor air quality and thermal comfort is also an im-
portant aspect in primary education level classrooms. Often it was
found that the density of students (students per square meter) is
3–4 times higher compared to an office environment [43,93,94].
The high density of students and poor ventilation leads to high
concentration of CO2 (above 40 0 0 ppm) in classrooms. The study
also finds that classrooms with split AC units have no option to
take fresh air at regular interval [43]. For such kind of classrooms
installation of air handling unit (AHU) is necessary or must have
breaks between two lectures to ventilate the classrooms with fresh
air [43]. From the literature survey, it is evident that IAQ and IEQ
affect the performance of children in schools and IAQ and IEQ are
directly related to ventilation type and rate. Stazia et al. [15], Gao
et al. [17], and Huang et al. [32] in their study concluded that
in air-conditioned classroom with automatically operable windows
with an exhaust fan was perceived to be significantly better than
in the mechanically and manually ventilated classroom in both the
FR and heating season. Turunena et al. [11] study was carried out
to find the relation between IAQ, academic performance and well-
being of students. Most common problem reported by students in
spring semester were fatigue, stuffy nose, headache [11]. Most fre-
quent symptoms reported were wheezing, cough with wheezing
and fever over 37 °C. The most daily inconvenience in classrooms
was noise, poor air quality, high indoor air temperature and dust
[11]. So it can be concluded that air-conditioning management is
the most effective mechanism to enhance thermal comfort in the
air-conditioned classrooms [11].
With rising awareness on the nexus between thermal com-
fort, energy consumption, and health, proper design of class-
rooms is the only solution to be looked at. Guili et al. [49] and
Conceição and Lúcio [95] concluded that classrooms orientation
and position of windows on walls plays important role in IEQ.
Incoming solar radiation from a south-facing window in win-
ter may improve the indoor thermal environment but in sum-
mer it may deteriorate. Barrett et al. [46,96] used three design
principals of naturalness, individualization and three design ele-
ments “Environment-Human-Performance” and carried out stim-
ulation developed ten design parameters. Multi-level regression
analysis resulted in seven 7 key design features (light, temper-
ature, air quality, ownership, flexibility, complexity, and colour)
that predict pupils progress. Out of three factors “naturalness”
weights about 50% impact on the learning process. The study also
concludes that combined effect of all three factors can improve
learning by 16% among students and lay emphasis to shift fo-
cus in designing classrooms from individualization to functional
requirement [97]. In Europe age of buildings is a major concern
as they were constructed when no heating and cooling regula-
tions were in place. So to make these building meet the today’s
energy requirement they need major renovations. Same is true
for educational buildings and classrooms. Martinez-Molina et al.
[31] found a difference between pupils’ and teachers’ subjective
opinions, with the children displaying a higher and more-difficult-
to-reach threshold for indoor thermal comfort. They also con-
cluded that correct assessment of indoor environment is the key to
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
renovation these buildings and protecting the existing building’s
heritage values.
5. Thermal comfort in secondary school classrooms
5.1. NV/FR classrooms
Secondary school’s classrooms are occupied by students of age
group 12–18 years (approximately). At this age, students are in
a position to express their thermal sensation feeling and unlike
primary school students they can do the adjustment like open-
ing/closing of windows and switch on/off ceiling fans (Table 1).
Tables 4 and 5 list the studies that addressed thermal comfort
in secondary school classrooms, operating under NV/FR and air-
conditioned mode. Like primary schools here also students feel
comfortable at low temperatures compared to adults and mostly
preferred cool thermal sensation [37,38,42,92,98,99]. Study done in
UK school classrooms by Auliciems [37] and Humphreys [38] found
that summer season neutral temperature was 3.5 °C higher than
winter season. Also, the students who are wearing light clothing
are comfortable at a higher temperature (24.5 °C) compared to
those at higher clothing level (21.5 °C) [37,38]. Adaptation is a nat-
ural phenomenon in humans. Over a day almost negligible adap-
tation takes place and adaptation process completes over a weeks’
time and the ceiling of temperature change over a week should
not be more than 4 °C [37,38]. Thermal comfort studies carried
out in the summer season in warm and humid climate of Japan
found that students in classrooms found themselves comfortable
even outside the summer comfort boundaries but preferred cooler
sensation [100]. Linking of seasonal effect on thermal sensitive-
ness of students was brought forth by Hwang et al. [88]. They
found that in summer months’ students are twice more sensitive
to change in temperature than winter and their thermal percep-
tion was strongly affected by acclimatization. In case of naturally
ventilated classrooms, their design impacts IEQ [100]. Classrooms
orientation and position of windows on walls play a major role
in maintaining indoor environmental conditions. Liang et al. [35],
Puteha et al. [52], Pereira et al. [101], and Wargoci and Wayon
[102] reported that students were more sensitive to solar heat gain
through a window in summer compared to that of winter. They
found that IAQ regulations were not followed as they recorded
very high concentration of CO2 in the classrooms (usually above
1300 ppm). Katafygiotou and Serghides [48,103] studied thermal
comfort in the classrooms in three climatic zones of Cyprus. They
found that thermal comfort conditions are outside the acceptable
limits. They also related their findings with energy efficiency reg-
ulations and concluded that energy efficiency of schools in Cyprus
is poor and therefore the indoor quality conditions are also poor
and especially the thermal comfort.
Contribution to the learning process is an important role a
classroom should play. Classrooms thermal environment and its
link to learning performance are studied by Liu et al. [84] and
Wargoci and Wayon [104]. This study found that overall learning
performance is highest when the temperature in the classroom is
1 °C lower than comfort temperature. A similar finding was also
reported by Wargoci and Wayon [104] where they concluded that
lowering the temperature from 25 to 20 °C with outside increased
outside air supply improves both concentrations, logical thinking,
and speed of performing task in children.
5.2. AC classrooms
Thermal comfort studies in Reading, United Kingdom class-
rooms are started in 1969 by Auliciems [13]. Since then a lot of
studies are being done in different parts of the world (Tables 4
and 5). It is a general perception that air conditioning of built en-
157
vironment lead to the improvement of IEQ and IAQ. But from the
literature, it has come forth that it is not always true [7,20,33].
Proper monitoring and assessment are needed to achieve the de-
sired objective. Same holds true for air-conditioned classrooms. In
this context, Auliciems [13] in 1969 carried out the study to eval-
uate the optimum conditions and limits of thermal comfort in
secondary school’s classrooms and used Bedford scale for voting
and equivalent ASHRAE 7-point scale covering 23 classrooms of
19 schools in the winter season. This study concludes that com-
fort zone with 60% of children felt comfortable can only be es-
tablished and found satisfactory. This study also found that range
of comfortable temperature lies between 15−21 °C (60% of stu-
dents voted comfortable) with the neutral temperature at 17.1 °C
at still air. Auliciems [36] extended the study to analyze the ef-
fect of comfortable temperature ranges on the performance of stu-
dents and the relation among them. This study found that when
comfort requirement of a group of people doing a particular task
is known then optimum performance temperature for that group
could be established. Also if a group is doing continuous and repet-
itive work then the optimum temperature is located in “Comfort-
ably cool” conditions. A study in warm and humid concluded that
more than 75% of classrooms did not meet the comfort require-
ments according to ASHRAE 55 standard but a significant num-
ber of subjects find the conditions acceptable [41]. Air-conditioned
classrooms were cooling too much and students preferred 0.6 °C
warmer. Clothing adjustment was the prominent adaptive mech-
anism and more visible during the day [41]. A study conducted
by Pereira et al. [105] in classrooms related to air temperature in
the poorly insulated building envelope and found that classroom
air temperature was always out of comfort zone defined for Portu-
gal. Mumovic et al. [106] study concluded that hybrid ventilation
system is much more effective compared to mechanical ventilation
because it has good acoustics and reduces cold draught feeling sig-
nificantly. Wargoci and Wayon [6] and Almeida et al. [107] bring
in the issue of sustainability and energy efficiency of refurbished
classrooms through strategic investment. They also concluded that
present design considerations for both new classroom construction
and refurbishing, more emphasis is being given to energy saving
than adequate learning conditions [33,107]. They reported that ad-
equate learning condition can improve student’s performance by
30% so for new construction of school classrooms and to refurbish
it is required that we must set priority for providing an adequate
learning environment within a broad context of energy efficiency.
6. Thermal comfort in university classrooms
6.1. NV/FR classrooms
Students in naturally ventilated university classrooms are adults
in the age group of 19–26 years (Table 1). At this age student can
exercise greater degree of freedom in adaptive actions to control or
modify indoor thermal environments (Table 1). There are about 33
studies done so far on university classrooms operated under NV/FR
and air-conditioned mode to find thermal comfort status. Tables 6
and 7 list all those studies. A study carried out by Zhang et al.
[108] concluded that PMV/PPD model overestimates the thermal
sensation of students and the effect of humidity on thermal com-
fort is only visible at higher temperatures. In case of University
NV classrooms also, outdoor environmental conditions influences
the preferred thermal environment in classrooms. Corgnati et al.
[109,110] found that in winter warm environment was acceptable
to students. Baruah et al. [111] carried out questionnaire based
thermal comfort study during the spring season in warm and hu-
mid climate concluded that subjects did not feel extreme levels
of thermal discomfort. This study also brings forth the “adapta-
tion” into the picture and concludes that the comfort temperature
 158
Table 4
Excerpts from previous thermal comfort studies done in secondary school classrooms in different parts of world.

S. No. Reference Country/Location Climate Time of survey Operation type Age (Years) Sample Size description

No of S/C M F

1 Auliciems A., 1969 [13] Reading, UK Temperate Jan to Apr 1967; HS 12-16 19S, 23C 1297 1327
Oct 1967; Mar 1968
2 Auliciems A., 1972 [36] Reading, UK Temperate Jan to April 1967; HS 12-16 19S, 23C 1297 1327
Oct 1967; Mar 1968
3 Auliciems A., 1973 [37] Reading, UK Temperate May to Jun 1967 FR 12-16 14S 464 201

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
4 Humphreys M., 1973 [38] London, UK Temperate May-Jul 1970; Jun FR 12-13 3S, 758C NA NA
1971
5 Auliciems A., 1975 [39] Queensland, Australia Sub-tropical May to Aug 1973 HS 12 -17 4P, 3S NA NA
6 Kwok AG., 1997 [41] Hawaii, USA Tropical Sept-Oct 1995; NV + HS + CS 13-19 6 S, 29C 1735 1809
Jan-Feb 1996
7 Wong and Khoo, 2003 [42] Singapore Tropical August 2001 FR 13 – 18 1S; 15C 240 266
8 Kwok and Chun, 2003 [100] Tokyo and Yokohama, Japan Sub-tropical Jun to Sept 20 0 0 NV + HS + CS 13 – 51 2S, 3C 33 41
9 Wargoci and Wayon, 2007 [104] Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Cool-Temperate Summer 2004, FR 12 1S, 2C NA NA
2005
10 Wargoci and Wayon, 2007 [102] Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Cool-Temperate Summer 2004, FR 12 1S, 2C NA NA
2005
11 Corgnati et al., 2007 [109] Torino, Italy Mediterranean Jan to Apr 2002 HS 12 – 17 4S, 13C; 1U, 4C NA NA
12 Conceição and Lúcio, 2008 [95] Algarve region, South of Portugal Mediterranean Jan 2004 HS + CS NA 21C NA NA
13 Hwang et al., 2009 [88] Central, Taiwan Sub-tropical Sept 2005 to Jan NV 12 – 17 14S, 48C 791 823
2006
14 Al-Rashidi et al., 2009 [98] Kuwait Desert Nov 2005 CS 12 – 17 1S, 14C 167 169
15 Mumovic et al., 2009 [106] England and Wales, UK Temperate Heating season of NV+ MM + HS 12-16 9S, 18C NA NA
20 06-20 07
16 Liang et al., 2012 [35] Taichung, Taiwan Sub-tropical Sept 2005 to Feb NV 12 – 17 14S, 48C 791 823
2006
17 Puteha et al., 2012 [52] Malacca, Malaysia Tropical NA NV NA 3S NA NA
18 Wargoci and Wayon, 2013 [6] Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Temperate Summer 2004, CS 12 1S, 2C NA NA
2005
19 Katafygiotou & Serghides, 2014 [103] Neapolis Gymnasium, Limassol, Cyprus Mediterranean 2013 HS + CS NA 1S NA NA
20 Pereira et al., 2014 [101] Beja, Portugal Mediterranean April-May 2013 NV + FR 15.6 – 16.7 1S, 2C 20 25
21 Katafygiotou and Serghides, 2014 [48] Cyprus Mediterranean NA NA 12 – 17 9S NA NA
22 Almeida et al., 2015a [107] Northern Portugal Mediterranean Win, Spr, Sum FR + HS + CS NA 9S, 24C NA NA
23 Almeida et al., 2015b [33] Northern Portugal Mediterranean Mar to May 2015 FR + HS + CS NA 4C NA NA
24 Barrett et al., 2015 [96] Salford, Manchester, UK Temperate Academic Year FR + HS + CS 12 – 19 27S, 53C, NA NA
2011-2012,
2012-2013
25 de Dear et al., 2015 [5] Sydney, Australia Sub-tropical Sum 2013 NV + HS + CS + EC 12 – 18 9S NA NA
26 Pereira et al., 2015 [105] Coimbra, Central Portugal Mediterranean Feb to May 2010 HS + FR 20 1S, 1C NA NA
27 Liu et al., 2016 [84] Northwestern China Sub-tropical Nov and Dec 2014. FR 13 – 15 9S, 22C 366 397
28 Hamzah et al., 2018 [99] Indonesia Tropical Aug 2017 NV 11-18 8S, 48C 599 995
29 Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] Sydney, Australia Sub-tropical March 2012 and NV + CS 16-18 8S NA NA
March 2013
NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc: Comfort temperature; Tn: Neutral temperature; FR: Free running; Top: Operative temperature; NA: Not available;
Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum: Summer; Aut: Autumn; S: School; C: Classroom; K: Kindergarten; M: Male; F: Female.
Table 5
Thermal comfort parameters proposed in studies on secondary school classrooms.

Average clothing Average outdoor

S. No. Reference Operation type Subjects type (clo) Air velocity (m/s) Activity (met) temp (°C) Tc range (°C) Tn (°C)

1 Auliciems A., 1969 [13] HS S NA 0.05 – 0.1 NA 9.8 14.7 – 21.3 17.1
2 Auliciems A., 1972 [36] HS S NA 0.05 – 0.1 NA 9.8 14.7 – 21.3 17.1
3 Auliciems A., 1973 [37] FR S NA 0.07 NA 18 18.6 – 25.2 20.6
4 Humphreys M., 1973 [38] FR S 0.5 – 0.9 0.2 1.2 19.3 21.5 – 26 23
5 Auliciems A., 1975 [39] HS P+S NA NA NA 19.8 20.5 – 26 24.5
6 Kwok AG., 1997 [41] NV + HS + CS H NV = 0.38; NV = 0.36, AC = 0.15 1.2 AC = 27.3; 22 – 29.5 AC = 23.1; NV = 27.5
AC = 0.46 NV = 28.6

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
7 Wong and Khoo, 2003 [42] FR M+H 0.45 NA 1.2 28.8 27.1 – 29.3 28.2
8 Kwok and Chun, 2003 [100] NV + HS + CS M+H NV = 0.41; NV = 0.27, AC = 0.08 1.2 Sum = 27; Win = 4 23.6 – 26.9 NV = 26.9; AC = 24.2
AC = 0.33
9 Wargoci and Wayon, 2007 [104] FR S 0.6 0.13 1.7 16.6 21.6 – 24.9 20
10 Wargoci and Wayon, 2007 [102] FR S 0.6 0.15 1.7 16.6 21.6 – 24.6 20
11 Corgnati et al., 2007 [109] HS H+U 0.92 NA 1.2 5 20 – 26.9 24.6
12 Conceição and Lúcio, 2008 [95] HS + CS S NA NA NA NA NA NA
13 Hwang et al., 2009 [88] NV P+S Sum = 0.3; NA NA 15 – 34 17.6 – 30 22.7 – 29.1
Win = 0.6
14 Al-Rashidi et al., 2009 [98] CS M+H Boys = 1.17; 0.15 1.2 Max = 48 21.5 – 22.7 M = 21; F = 22
Girls = 0.95
15 Mumovic et al., 2009 [106] NV + MM + HS S 0.7 NA 1.2 NA Win = 19 – 21; NA
Sum = 21 – 25
16 Liang et al., 2012 [35] NV P+S NA 0.6-0.9 1-1.3 25 22.4 – 29.2 22.7 – 29.1
17 Puteha et al., 2012 [52] NV S NA NA NA NA NA NA
18 Wargoci and Wayon, 2013 [6] CS S 0.6 0.15 1.7 16.6 21.6 – 24.6 20
19 Katafygiotou & Serghides, 2014 [103] HS + CS S Sum = 0.61; NA 1.5 NA Win: 19 – 26; Spr: Win = AC = 20
Aut = 0.48; 21 – 27; Sum: 27 –
Win = 1.09; 35; Aut: 23 – 28
Spr = 0.4
20 Pereira et al., 2014 [101] NV + FR S 0.46 0.1 1.2 28.1 22.1 – 25.2 25.2
21 Katafygiotou and Serghides, 2014 [48] NA S 1 NA NA NA 21.5 – 25 NA
22 Almeida et al., 2015a [107] FR + HS + CS NA 0.8 1 1.15 Win = 9.5; 20 – 25 Win = 20; Sum = 25
Spr = 17.1;
Sum = 19.1
23 Almeida et al., 2015b [33] FR + HS + CS NA NA NA NA Win = 9.5; NA Win = 20; Sum = 25
Spr = 17.1;
Sum = 19.1
24 Barrett et al., 2015 [96] FR + HS + CS P+M+H NA NA NA NA NA NA
25 de Dear et al., 2015 [5] NV + HS + CS + EC P+S 0.45 0.07 2.1 22.2 19.5 – 26.6 22.5 Top
26 Pereira et al., 2015 [105] HS + FR S 0.9 0.1 1.2 – 1.5 9.5 – 15 20 – 24 20
27 Liu et al., 2016 [84] FR P+S 1.6 0.49 1 Nov = 8.1; 15 – 20 15
Dec = – 2.2
28 Hamzah et al., 2018 [99] NV S 0.69 0.15 1 27.5 28.5 28.5
29 Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] NV + CS P+S 0.48 NA NA 21.3 NA 24.4

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc : Comfort temperature; ET: Effective temperature; Top : Operative temperature; NA: Not available; Ta : Air tempera-
ture; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; Tom : Mean monthly outdoor temperature; MSV: Mean sensation vote; Tin : Indoor air temperature; Trm : Running mean temperature over two days; TSVm : Mean thermal sensation vote; PMV:
Predicted mean vote; Y: Probit of the percentage, Tin : Indoor air temperature; P: Primary school; MM: Mixed mode; S: Secondary school; H: High school: J: Junior school; M: Male; F: Female; Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum:
Summer; Aut: Autumn.

159
 160
Table 6
Excerpts from previous thermal comfort studies done in university classrooms in different parts of world.

S. No. Reference Country/Location Climate Time of survey Operation type Age (Years) Sample Size description

No of S/C Male Female

1 Krüger and Zanninb, 2004 [18] Parana, Brazil Sub-tropical Aug 20 0 0, Jan 20 01 NV NA 1U, 5C NA NA
2 Hwang R-L et al., 2006 [118] Centre and South, Taiwan Sub-tropical Sum 2003, Sum 2004 NV + CS NA 7U; 36C 531 763
3 Hu et al., 2006 [119] Wuhan, China Sub-tropical Jun to Sept and Dec to Feb NV + CS + HS 18-22 1U, 1L, 1C 141 45
4 Zhang et al., 2007 [108] Hunan University, China Sub-tropical Mar to Apr 2005 NV 20 2B, 25C NA NA

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
5 Corgnati et al., 2007 [109] Torino, Italy Mediterranean Jan to Oct 2002 HS 18 – 23 4S, 13C; 1U, NA NA
4C
6 Cheng et al., 2008 [121] Central Taiwan Sub-tropical Apr to Nov 2006 NV + CS 18-28 2SD, 152R 659 560
7 Corgnati et al., 2009 [110] Turin, Italy Mediterranean Sept & Oct 2006, May 2007 FR 17-23 1U, 2C NA NA
8 Buratti & Ricciardi 2009 [127] Perugia, Terni, Pavia and Italy Mediterranean Nov to Dec 2004, Feb, Mar & May 2005 HS + CS 21-23 3U, 3C NA NA
9 Yao et al., 2010 [112] Chongqing, China Sub-tropical Mar 2005 to May 2006 FR 18-40 1U, 5C 2302 1319
10 Liu et al., 2011 [128] Tohoku, Japan Sub-tropical Jan 2010 and Aug 2010 HS + FR NA 1U, 1C NA NA
11 Jung et al., 2011 [126] Busan, South Korea Temperate Mar to Jun 2009, Sept to Dec 2009 HS + CS + FR 24.3 1U, 1C 670 292
12 Cao et al., 2011 [122] Beijing, China Sub-tropical Jun-Aug 2009; Nov-Dec 2007; Dec 2008 HS + CS 18 – 25 NA 138 68
13 Maki and Shukuya, 2008 [131] Yokohama, Japan Sub-tropical May-Jun 2008 HS + CS NA 2 NA NA
14 Lee et al., 2012 [7] Hong-Kong Sub-tropical NA HS + CS 18 – 55 1U, 4C 231 81
15 Yang et al., 2013 [8] California, USA Sub-tropical Jan-Feb 2010, Nov-Dec 2010. HS + CS NA 1U, 6C 270 357
16 Choi et al., 2013 [47] Midwestern university, USA Sub-tropical 2008 HS + CS 18-54 OS 288 340
17 Barbhuiya and Barbhuiya, 2013 [132] Loughborough University, UK Temperate Dec 2011 to Mar 2012 HS NA 1U NA NA
18 Wang et al., 2014 [123] Harbin, China Sub-tropical Dec 2015-Jan 2015, Apr 2011 HS 19.7 – 35.5 1U, 39C, 345 143
28O
19 Mishra and Ramgopal 2014a [115] Kharagpur, India Tropical Jan to Apr 2013 NV 19 – 21 1U, 1L 116 5
20 Mishra and Ramgopal 2014b [10] Kharagpur, India Tropical Jan to Apr 2013 NV 19 – 21 1U, 1L 116 5
21 Baruah et al., 2014 [111] Tezpur, India Warm and humid Feb and May 2013 NV 20 – 26 1U, 6C 92 136
22 Mishra and Ramgopal 2015 [129] Kharagpur, India Tropical Aug to Oct 2013 NV + CS 19 – 21 3B, 8C NA NA
23 Serghides et al., 2015 [44] Limassol, Cyprus Mediterranean Win and Sum 2012, 2013 HS + CS NA NA 32 38
24 Fong et al., 2015 [45] Hong Kong Sub-tropical Climate chamber HS + CS 20 – 23 TC 24 24
25 Nico et al., 2015 [16] Bari, Italy Mediterranean NA FR NA 2C, 1U 56 70
26 Wang et al., 2016 [124] Harbin, China Sub-tropical Oct 2013 to Apr 2014 HS 20.2 1U, 5C, 11D 15 15
27 Vittal and Gnanasambandam., 2016 Tamilnadu, India W&H Dec 2014 and Jan 2015 NV 18 – 23 1U, 2C 102 74
[116]
28 Zaki et al., 2017 [120] Mara, My; Kyushu, Jp Jp = Sub-tropical; Jp = Feb to Mar 2013; My = Mar to May 2013 FR + CS 20 – 23 2 MU, 15C; Jp = 29;
My = Tropical 1 JU, 7C Jp = 420; My = 489
My = 490
29 Mishra et al., 2017 [130] Eindhoven, Netherlands Temperate March 2016 CS 18-20 1U, 2C 215 169
30 Castilla et al., 2017 [117] Spain Mediterranean NA NA 19-24 1U, 30C 490 428
31 Singh et al., 2018 [113] Rajasthan, India Tropical April, May, June 2015 NV 20.9 3U, 30C 729 171
32 Fanga et al., 2018 [125] Hong Kong Sub-tropical Aug to Oct 2015 AC 21.3 NA NA NA
33 Kumar et al., 2018 [114] Rajasthan, India Tropical April, May, June 2015 NV 20.9 3U, 30C 729 171

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc: Comfort temperature; Tn: Neutral temperature; FR: Free running; Top: Operative temperature; NA: Not available;
Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum: Summer; Aut: Autumn; S: School; C: Classroom; K: Kindergarten; M: Male; F: Female; My: Malaysia; Jp: Japan; CM: Cooling mode; MU: Malaysian University; JU: Japanese University; ASHRAE:
American society of heating, refrigeration and air conditioning engineers; CEN: Comité Europeo de Normalization.
Table 7
Thermal comfort parameters proposed in studies on university classroom.

Average Air velocity Activity

S. No. Reference Operation type Subjects type clothing (clo) (m/s) (met) Average outdoor temp (°C) Tc range (°C) Tn (°C)

1 Krüger and Zanninb, 2004 [18] NV U NA NA NA Sum = 21.3; Win = 15 15.5 – 31.5 NA
2 Hwang R-L et al., 2006 [118] NV + CS U 0.6 NA 1 NA NV = 21.1 – 29.8 (ET); NV = 26.3 (ET);
AC = 24.2 – 29.3 (ET) AC = 24.7 (ET)
3 Hu et al., 2006 [119] NV + CS + HS U Win = 1.8; Sum = 0.12; 1.1 Sum 32-33; Win 8-10 Lab (Sum = 26.6 – 28.6; Lab (Sum = 27.1,
Sum = 0.3 Dec = 0.13 Win = 15.7 – 18.3); Win = 17.2); C = 22
C = 18.4 – 26.1
4 Zhang et al., 2007 [108] NV U Sum = 0.65; 0.11 1.2 17.7 21.5 – 24.8 21.5
Win = 1.93
5 Corgnati et al., 2007 [109] HS HS + U 0.92 NA 1.2 5 20 – 26.9 24.6
6 Cheng et al., 2008 [121] NV + CS U 0.5 NA NA 25.8 NV = 25 – 28.2; AC = 26.1 25.4 Top
– 28.2

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
7 Corgnati et al., 2009 [110] FR U 0.55 NA 1.2 20.1 23.3 – 27.4 15 ET
8 Buratti & Ricciardi 2009 [127] HS + CS U Win = 1.3; 1.1 1.2 Win = 11.5; Sum = 21 21.6 – 25.6 23
Sum = 0.5
9 Yao et al., 2010 [112] FR U Win = 0.9; 0.5 1.1 Win = 0 – 10; Sum = 25 – 16 – 30 22.8
Sum = 0.5 30
10 Liu et al., 2011 [128] HS + FR U NA NA NA 0 NA NA
11 Jung et al., 2011 [126] HS + CS + FR U 0.72 0.04 1.2 7.3 – 23.3 17 – 25 22
12 Cao et al., 2011 [122] HS + CS U Sum = 0.56; Sum = 0.17; 1.1 Sum = 24.5 – 30; Win 2.5 23 – 26 Sum = 26.8;
Win = 1.3 Dec = 0.17 – 12.5 Win = 20.7
13 Maki and Shukuya, 2008 [131] HS + CS U NA NA NA NA 26 NA
14 Lee et al., 2012 [7] HS + CS U 1.3 0.52 1 NA 19.6 – 25.1 23.6 (TOP )
15 Yang et al., 2013 [8] HS + CS U NA NA NA NA NA NA
16 Choi et al., 2013 [47] HS + CS U NA NA NA NA NA NA
17 Barbhuiya and Barbhuiya, 2013 [132] HS U NA 0.1 NA Win = 7; Sum = 22 NA NA
18 Wang et al., 2014 [123] FR + HS U+O Win = 1.04; Win = 0.12; 1.2 Dec – Jan = – 19.7; 22 – 25 Win = 22.6;
Spr = 0.77 Spr = 0.16 Apr = 12.2 Spr = 21.7
19 Mishra and Ramgopal 2014a [115] NV U Win = 0.76; 0.6 1.6 14.5 20 – 31 26.5
Sum = 0.39
20 Mishra and Ramgopal 2014b [10] NV U Win = 0.76; 0.6 1.6 14.5 20 – 31 26.5
Sum = 0.39
21 Baruah et al., 2014 [111] NV U Win = 1.18; 0.1 1.1 Win = 21.9 to 24; Win = 22 – 23.5; 24.4
Sum = 0.56 Sum = 28.5 to 32 Sum = 27.3 – 30.7
22 Mishra and Ramgopal 2015 [129] NV + CS U NA 0.6 1.6 NA AC = 24 – 24.5; NV = 28 – NA
30
23 Serghides et al., 2015 [44] HS + CS U sum = 0.49; NA 1.3 Sum = 29.1; Win = 15.2 NA Sum = 31 – 33;
Win = 1.15 Win = 21 – 22
24 Fong et al., 2015 [45] HS + CS U NA NA NA NA NA NA
25 Nico et al., 2015 [16] FR U NA 0.1 M = 1; 14.05 C NA ASHRAE = 21;
F = 1.13 CEN = 22.6
26 Wang et al., 2016 [124] HS U 1.01 0.04 1.1 – 18 16 – 22.4 18
27 Vittal and Gnanasambandam, 2016 NV U 0.53 1.4 1.2 NA 26.9 – 30.8 29
[116]
28 Zaki et al., 2017 [120] FR + CS U 0.55 0.1 1.2 NA FR (Jp = 25.1; My = 25.6); My = 26.5; Jp = 26.3
CS(Jp = 26.2; My = 25.6)
29 Mishra et al., 2017 [130] CS U 0.77 0.2 1.2 5.9 NA NA
30 Castilla et al., 2017 [117] NA U NA NA NA NA NA NA
31 Singh et al., 2018 [113] NV U 0.4 0.6 1.2 34.9 29.8 26.5
32 Fanga et al., 2018 [125] AC U 0.42 NA NA 28 21.6-26.8 24.1
33 Kumar et al., 2018 [114] NV U 0.4 0.6 1.2 34.9 29.8 26.5

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; FR: Free running; Tc : Comfort temperature; ET: Effective temperature; Top : Operative temperature; NA: Not available; Ta : Air tempera-
ture; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; Tom : Mean monthly outdoor temperature; MSV: Mean sensation vote; Tin : Indoor air temperature; Trm : Running mean temperature over two days; TSVm : Mean thermal sensation vote; PMV:
Predicted mean vote; Y: Probit of the percentage, P: Primary school; MM: Mixed mode; S: Secondary school; H: High school: J: Junior school; M: Male; F: Female; Win: Winter; Spr: Spring; Sum: Summer; Aut: Autumn; My:
Malaysia; Jp: Japan; CM: Cooling mode; MU: Malaysian University; JU: Japanese University; O: Office.

161
162 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
range varies from 22 to 23.5 °C in winter months and 27.3–30.7 °C
in the summer month. It has been observed that there is a large
variation in the clothing pattern in both the seasons which jus-
tify the behavioural, physiological and psychological adaptation of
the respondent [112–114]. It was also found that the other adaptive
means like the use of fans, closing or openings of windows etc. are
used quite often [10,112–115].
Adaptive thermal comfort principal mentions about the linkage
between controls, adaptive actions, and thermal comfort. To study
this linkage Nico et al. [16] carried out a study and found that
increasing the microclimate control and flexibility of adaptive ac-
tions like changing clothing level and the opening of windows im-
prove the feeling of satisfaction about indoor environmental con-
ditions. The study also concludes that most of the objects recorded
cool thermal sensation and preferred a warmer climate in winter
and warm thermal sensation and preferred a cooler environment
in summer. Students in naturally conditioned classrooms are ther-
mally less sensitive compared air-conditioned buildings [116]. Also,
subjects in NV classrooms have a high tolerance of warmer tem-
perature conditions [112,116]. Studies done by Krüger and Zanninb
[18] and Castilla et al. [117] stated that there is a strong relation-
ship between factors such as acoustics, lighting level, and thermal
comfort.
6.2. AC classrooms
Research on thermal comfort assessment in university class-
rooms started a decade back (Tables 6 and 7). Hwang et al.
[118] study shows that air temperature, air movement and mean
radiant temperature have a significant influence on student’s ther-
mal sensation but the humidity has no statistically significant ef-
fect on thermal sensation. This study also brings forth interest-
ing fact that female students have narrower neutral temperature
range and female students adjust their clothing level swiftly with
variation in indoor temperature. Hu et al. [119] and Zaki et al.
[120] study brought the functionality into the picture by conclud-
ing that the neutral temperature in the classroom is different from
that in the laboratory. The respondents were more sensitive to
temperature variation in the laboratory than that in the classroom
[118–120]. A gradient of about one sensation unit per 3–4 °C was
found in the laboratory (3 °C in summer and 4 °C in winter) while
the figure was nearly 6 °C in the classroom [118–120]. Zaki et al.
[120] study on Malaysian student’s states that classroom-based ac-
tivities are generally restricted; therefore, individuals have limited
options for adjusting themselves to the indoor thermal environ-
ment. Additionally, the current guideline for HVAC buildings might
also underestimate occupants’ thermal preference in hot-humid
climates, where a greater degree of heat tolerance could be found
in the general population [120].
Long time exposure to similar climate has an impact on human
adaptability. In case of university student’s, it was found that ther-
mal neutrality does not same as an optimal thermal condition for
students [121–124,125]. Even for air-conditioned classrooms, the
outdoor climatic condition does affect the human adaptation so
the neutral temperature in spring was higher than winter [121–
124]. Student’s thermal adaptability to coldness should be well
considered in winter and a high thermal comfort zone should be
avoided to save energy and improve the energy efficiency [121–
124]. If the neutral temperature is used instead of current indoor
air temperature for space heating, then 12% of heating energy can
be saved in the classroom. Also, an interesting conclusion related
to adaptation was put forth by Jung et al. [126] that students
readily accept slightly cool environment but do not easily accept
slightly warm environment.
Buratti and Ricciardi [127] carried out a study to find the rela-
tions ship between PMV versus the difference between equivalent
uniform temperature (Teu) and comfort uniform temperature (Tu)
and PPD versus absolute of (Teu -Tu). This study found a linear
relationship for PMV versus Teu-Tu thus verifying Fanger theory
which forecasts null value of PMV in neutral comfort conditions.
Demand for energy efficiency in air-conditioned buildings is
making the buildings more and more airtight and buildings are de-
signed with low Air Change per Hour (ACH) rates [7,45,47,128,129].
But for classrooms were generally occupancy is relatively higher,
this strategy fails. Research shows that IEQ and IAQ must be given
adequate priority while designing air-conditioned classrooms as
they impact students learning ability [7,45,47,128,129]. The thermal
satisfaction acceptance percentage in stratum ventilation strategies
can be improved by increasing the air flow supply from 10 to
15 ACH at the elevated indoor condition of 26.8 °C, 27.3 °C and
26.4 °C [7,45,47,128–130]. While designing ventilation strategy for
air-conditioned classrooms high vertical temperature difference
must be avoided [128]. Classroom comfort also gets affected by
non-classroom factors such as such as visibility, acoustics and
furniture play important role in building student perception about
learning [7,45,128]. It was also found that students have low
satisfaction for artificial lighting and acoustics. Improving artificial
lighting has almost no impact on their learning but improving
acoustics has improved the learning [8,131]. Designing classrooms
in cold climate, buildings codes make it mandatory to use insu-
lation materials but increased use of ICT in university education
system demands pre-design assessment of heat generated by these
equipment’s [8,131]. A study in university classrooms of Cyprus in
winter and summer season found that heat generated by equip-
ment in classrooms improves comfort in winter but deteriorates in
summer [44,132].
7. Discussion
7.1. Article types and publication trend
At all educational stages, functional requirement of the class-
room is very distinct and so the student density in the class-
room, indoor environment control, clothing choices, activity and
use of internet and communication technology. Figs. 3 and 4 show
the Koppen–Geiger world climatic classification and the number of
studies done in the classrooms of each climatic zone. It can be seen
in Fig. 4 that the distribution of studies is quite skewed. The high-
est number of studies is done in sub-tropical countries followed by
countries in a temperate climate. Mediterranean and hot and dry
climate countries have quite a few studies. Continent-wise, Asia
and Europe lead the count. In Asia, maximum number of stud-
ies is being reported from Taiwan, China, and Malaysia. In Europe,
maximum number of studies is being reported from UK, Italy, and
Portugal. The approach followed by the researchers to carry out
thermal comfort studies is also analyzed. Fig. 5 represents the ap-
proach (PMV-PPD or adaptive thermal comfort methodology) fol-
lowed in the studies carried out in different continents. It is clear
that a maximum number of studies followed PMV-PPD method-
ology to evaluate the classroom thermal environment. To know
about number of studies done for each educational stages class-
room e.g. primary, secondary and university, Fig. 6 is plotted. It
can be seen that highest number studies are done in primary and
University classrooms in Europe and Asia respectively.
Publication trend of 89 articles is shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen
that highest number of articles are published in the year 2014 and
2015. The share of classroom thermal comfort studies in overall
thermal comfort studies is only 2.1% (approximately). Fig. 2 shows
the increasing trend of publication with very high growth in last
10 years. To know the composition of the type of articles Fig. 7
is plotted. It shows that in both the thermal comfort and thermal
comfort in classrooms themes, original research papers dominate
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174 163

Fig. 3. World map of Koppen–Geiger climate classification.

Fig. 4. Summary of thermal comfort studies conducted in different climates at various education level (total 89 articles).

the publication followed by conference papers. It is a healthy sign
because it is enriching the database which is required to develop
a robust thermal comfort model for classroom. It is also showing
the increasing awareness and concern among the researchers and
scientists about the IEQ and its role in the human well-being in
different kind of built environments including classrooms. A small
number of classroom centric studies are a matter of concern de-
spite knowing the impact of inadeadequate IEQ on the learning
ability and well-being of students. It demands more studies to be
done across the globe so that a grand database can be built and it
can be taken forward to the formulation of a new set of IEQ stan-
dards/guidelines for designing future classrooms.
7.2. Thermal comfort and preferences in primary school classrooms
All 93 research articles are classified into primary, secondary
and university classrooms based studies. 34 out of 93 studies are
on primary school’s classrooms. Tables 2 and 3 present the im-
portant set of data related to location, time of the survey, the op-
eration of classrooms, sample size, comfortable temperature, neu-
tral temperature and air velocity etc. Some rows in Tables 2 and
3 are highlighted showing significant information is missing in
the published article. It may be possible that for particular study
those data were not necessary but for this study comfort survey
indicators and statistics are important to the data with a specific
164 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174

Fig. 5. Distribution of papers considered for this review article following two schools of thoughts ( PMV-PPD and adaptive approach: total 89 articles).

Fig. 6. Classification of field studies conducted in classrooms based on education stages in different continents (total 89 articles).

objective of thermal comfort in classroom. Missing data in the pub-
lished studies also reflecting to inconsistency in reporting thermal
comfort studies [19,20,32,44,48,60,62,63,67,90]. Studies done on el-
ementary and primary schools classrooms show a strong relation-
ship between indoor thermal environment, student performance
and well-being but lacks to put forth any direct evidence. It was
also found that at this stage student do not take adaptive actions
like changing clothing level, changing set point temperatures and
opening and closing of windows on their own [39,40,83,84]. At
this grade student has to follow the choices of the adults for ther-
mal environments. PMV and PPD methodology underestimate the
actual thermal environments in both NV/FR and air-conditioned
classrooms [39,90]. Studies also suggested that students at this
stage are very active and have high metabolic rates compared to
adults. Also, these students are always in the same uniform and
seldom allowed to adjust despite the level of activity required in
the classroom [39,40,83,84]. Above all at this stage of education
student’s educational curricula demands many physical activities
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Fig. 7. Type of documents on Scopus scientific database when search with keywords “thermal comfort, adaptive thermal comfort and thermal comfort in classroom” (ac-
cessed on 11th October 2018).
which aggravate the unacceptability of existing thermal environ-
ment [39,40,83,84].
7.3. Thermal comfort and preferences in secondary school classrooms
Tables 4 and 5 present the list of studies that carried out
thermal comfort assessment in secondary classrooms. Total 29 re-
search articles address the thermal comfort status and preferences
in secondary school classrooms operated under NV/FR and air-
conditioned modes (Tables 4 and 5). Like primary school class-
rooms, students at this stage are not satisfied with the existing
thermal environment. Studies relating sustainability and energy ef-
ficiency concluded that in designing new classrooms or refurbish-
ing old ones, more emphasis should be given adequate learning
conditions which include non-thermal parameters too. It has been
found that adequate learning conditions improve student’s perfor-
mance as much as 30% [33,107]. At this stage also students in
the classrooms prefer optimum temperature towards cooler side
of the thermal sensation scale. Studies done in NV/FR classrooms
concluded that students in summer months are more sensitive to
change in temperature compared to winter months and neutral
temperature in summer is considerably higher compared to win-
ter months [35,52,101,102].
7.4. Thermal comfort and preferences in university classrooms
University classrooms students have a greater degree of
freedom to take adaptive actions to restore their comfort.
Tables 6 and 7 list 33 studies that are being carried out in univer-
sity classrooms and are operated under NV/FR or air-conditioned
mode. Study linking controls, adaptive actions and thermal com-
fort states that increasing level of control over microclimate and
adaptive actions is directly related to enhanced satisfaction of the
students towards the indoor thermal environment. Here also stu-
dents preferred cool sensation in both NV and air-conditioned
classrooms. So in winter months, when the heating system is re-
quired to run then set temperature can be kept low and this will
save heating energy consumption by 12% [126]. In case of univer-
sity student’s, they move in and out of the classroom after every
165
class. So they are in transient condition for about 20–30% of the
time (if a class is of 1-hour duration). So the memory of the pre-
vious environment greatly affects the thermal comfort and pref-
erence of a student in university classrooms. This happens several
times in a day, during their stay in the university. In classroom stu-
dents experience a transient thermal condition for first 15–20 min
in a class and when ignoring this fact ISO 7730, ASHRAE 55 and
CEN 15251 standard which generally deals with steady-state condi-
tions, applied to evaluate classrooms thermal environment, the de-
viation reported by many studies seems obvious [25–27,121–124].
Here also it is the case where standards are applied to design an
environment whose functionality and the requirement is quite dif-
ferent to the mandate of the standard.
7.5. Regression equations and operation modes of classrooms
Based on above classification the studies which have proposed
regression equations were segregated. Table 8 presents the list of
regression equations for primary, secondary and university class-
rooms. These equations are establishing the relationship between
mean thermal sensation and indoor temperature (operative tem-
perature, air temperature or globe temperature). To find the change
in temperature required to shift in one thermal sensation vote, the
inverse of the coefficient attached to mean thermal sensation is
calculated. On analysing these values, it is found that very few
studies are able to give reliable value. A temperature change of up
to 5 °C to shift one sensation vote seems in good agreement with
other thermal comfort studies. It is strange that values in the range
of 7 °C–22.2 °C are being found.
Regression equations proposed by studies in classrooms are an-
alyzed where the heating and cooling system is operational dur-
ing the study period. Studies that proposed the regression equa-
tion are listed in Table 9. Again analysing the temperature change
required to shift one thermal sensation vote, we find that in this
case, the values are more reliable compared to NV and FR class-
rooms except for 4 studies. On analysing mixed mode operated
classrooms we find that a maximum number of studies in all
the categories show high-temperature change to shift one thermal
sensation vote. Table 10 presents the details of the studies and
 166
Table 8
Proposed regression equations in the comfort studies done in naturally ventilated and free running primary, secondary and university classrooms.

M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Temperature change
Building Operation required to shift one
Classroom Reference Country Type type Survey Period Regression equation thermal sensation (°C)

Hwang et al., 2009 [88] Central, Taiwan NV FR Sept 2005 to Jan 2006 MSV = 0.01Top – 0.30 10
Teli D et al., 2012 [51] Hampshire, England, UK NV FR Mar to Aug 2011 TSV = 0.26Top – 5.68 3.85
M: TSV = 0.27Top – 5.56; M = 3.7;
Teli et al., 2013 [81] Southampton, UK HS + CS FR Apr to Jul 2011
Primary F: TSV = 0.25Top – 5.48 F=4
Yun et al., 2014 [34] Seoul, Korea HS + CS FR Apr to Jun 2013 TSV = 0.29Top – 6.47 3.45
Liu et al., 2016 [84] Weinan and Wuwei, China HS + CS FR Nov and Dec 2014 TSVm = 0.18 Top – 2.72 5.56
Haddad et al., 2019 [85] Iran NV FR Aut, Win and Spr 2012 - 2013 TSVm = 0.27 Top – 6.25 3.7

Hwang et al., 2009 [88] Central, Taiwan NV FR Sept 2005 to Jan 2006 MSV = 0.01Top – 0.30 10
Liu et al., 2016 [84] Northwestern China HS + CS FR Nov and Dec 2014 TSVm = 0.18 Top – 2.72 5.56
Secondary
TSV = 0.175 To – 5.07 5.71
Hamzah et al., 2018 [99] Indonesia NV FR Aug 2017
PMV = 0.259To – 5.95 3.86

TSV = 0.045Top – 0.96; TSV = 22.2;

Zhang et al., 2007 [108] Hunan University, China NV FR Mar to Apr 2005
PMV = 0.116Top – 2.88 PMV = 9.1
Cheng et al., 2008 [121] Central Taiwan NV FR Apr to Nov 2006 TSV = 0.34Top – 8.4 2.94
Wang et al., 2014 [123] Harbin, China HS + CS FR Dec 2010-Jan 2011, Apr 2011 TSVspr = 0.15Ta – 3.32 6.67
Mishra & Ramgopal, 2014a [115] Kharagpur, India NV FR Jan to Apr 2013 TSV = 0.14Top – 3.72 7.14
University
Mishra & Ramgopal, 2014b [10] Kharagpur, India NV FR Jan to Apr 2013 TSV = 0.14Top – 3.72 7.14
Baruah et al., 2014 [111] Tezpur, India NV FR Feb and May 2013 TSV = 0.24Tin – 5.73 4.16
Vittal and Gnanasambandam., 2016 [116] Tamil Nadu, India NV FR Dec 2014 and Jan 2015 TSV = 0.54Tg – 15.59 1.85
Singh et al., 2018 [113] Rajasthan, India NV FR April, May, June 2015 TSV = 0.19Ta – 5.04 5.26
Kumar et al., 2018 [114] Rajasthan, India NV FR April, May, June 2015 TSV = 0.19Ta – 5.04 5.26

NV: Naturally ventilated; FR: Free running; Tc : Comfort temperature; Top : Operative temperature; Ta : Air temperature; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; MSV: Mean sensation vote; Tin : Indoor air temperature; TSV: Thermal
sensation vote; TSVm : Mean thermal sensation vote; PMV: Predicted mean vote; M: Male; F: Female; TSVspr : Spring season thermal sensation vote; AC: Air conditioned (HS + CS).
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Table 9
Proposed regression equations in the comfort studies done in heating and cooling system operated primary, secondary and university classrooms.

Temperature change
Building Operation required to shift one
Classrooms Reference Country Type type Survey Period Regression equation thermal sensation (°C)

Primary Auliciems, 1975 [39] Queensland, Australia HS + CS HS May to Aug 1973 TSV = 0.147Tin – 3.6 6.8

Auliciems, 1969 [13] Reading, UK HS + CS HS Jan to Apr 1967; Oct 1967; Mar 1968 TSV = 0.12Tin – 7.72 8.33
Secondary
Auliciems, 1975 [39] Queensland, Australia HS + CS HS May to Aug 1973 TSV = 0.15Tin – 3.6 6.67

Cheng et al., 2008 [121] Central Taiwan HS + CS CS Apr to Nov 2006 TSVAC = 0.35Top – 8.8 2.86
Wang et al., 2014 [123] Harbin, China HS + CS HS Dec 2010-Jan 2011, Apr 2011 TSVwin = 0.24Ta – 5.43 4.17
Wang et al., 2016 [124] Harbin, China HS + CS HS Oct 2013 to Apr 2014 TSVm = 0.16Tin – 2.97 6.25
University Jp: Feb to Mar 2013; My: TSVcl = 0.33Top – 8.8; My: 3.03;
Zaki et al., 2017 [120] Mara, My; Kyushu, Jp HS + CS CS
My: Mar to May 2013 Jp: TSVcl = 0.43Top – 11.2 Jp: 2.33
TSVm = 0.198 Top – 4.784 5.05
Fanga et al., 2018 [125] Hong Kong HS + CS CS Aug to Oct 2015
PMV = 0.371Top – 9.765 2.7

CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; Top : Operative temperature; Ta : Air temperature; Tin : Indoor air temperature; Tm : Monthly mean temperature; Tc : Comfort temperature; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; TSVm : Mean
thermal sensation vote; TSVwin : Winter thermal sensation vote; TSVAC : Thermal sensation vote in air-conditioned classroom; My: Malaysia; Jp: Japan; AC: Air conditioned (HS + CS).

167
 168
M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Table 10
Proposed regression equations in the comfort studies done in mixed mode operated primary, secondary and university classrooms.

Temperature change
required to shift one
Classroom Reference Country Building Type Operation type Survey Period Regression equation thermal sensation (°C)

de Dear et al., 2015 [5] Sydney, Australia HS + CS FR + HS + CS + EC Sum 2013 TSVm = 0.12 Top – 2.78 8.33
Primary Trebilcock et al., 2017 [90] Shiraz, Iran HS + CS HS + EC + FR Aut, Win and Warm 2012 - 2013 TSVm = 0.27 Top – 6.25 3.7
Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] Sydney, Australia HS + CS FR + CS March 2012 and March 2013 TSV = 0.16Tdiff – 0.24 6.25

Kwok, 1997 [41] Hawaii, USA HS + CS FR + HS + CS Sept-Oct 1995; Jan - Feb 1996 TSV = 0.29Top – 7.40 3.45
Secondary de Dear et al., 2015 [5] Sydney, Australia HS + CS FR + HS + CS + EC Sum 2013 TSVm = 0.12 Top – 2.78 8.33
Kim and de Dear, 2018 [92] Sydney, Australia HS + CS FR + CS March 2012 and March 2013 TSV = 0.15Tdiff – 0.12 6.67

TSV = 0.14ET – 3.76; TSV = 7.14;

Hwang R-L et al., 2006 [118] Centre and South, Taiwan HS + CS FR + CS Sum 2003, Sum 2004
PMV = 0.28ET – 7.72 PMV = 3.57
Hu et al., 2006 [119] Wuhan, China HS + CS FR + CS + HS Jun to Sept and Dec to Feb TSV = 0.13ET – 2.93 7.7 ET
University Buratti & Ricciardi, 2009 [127] Perugia, Terni, Pavia and Italy HS + CS HS + CS Nov to Dec 2004, Feb, Mar & May 2005 PMV = 0.16Top – 3.31 7.69
Mishra & Ramgopal, 2015 [129] Kharagpur, India HS + CS FR + CS Aug to Oct 2013 TSV = 0.14Top – 3.72 7.14
Jp: Feb to Mar 2013; My: TSVcl = 0.33Top – 8.8; My: 3.03;
Zaki et al., 2017 [120] Mara, My; Kyushu, Jp HS + CS FR + CS
My: Mar to May 2013 Jp: TSVcl = 0.43Top – 11.2 Jp: 2.33

NV: Naturally ventilated; CS: Cooling system; HS: Heating system; EC: Evaporative cooling; ET: Effective temperature; Top : Operative temperature; TSV: Thermal sensation vote; TSVm : Mean thermal sensation vote; PMV:
Predicted mean vote; My: Malaysia; Jp: Japan; AC: Air conditioned (HS + CS); Sum: Summer.
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174 169

Table 11
Proposed adaptive comfort equations in the comfort studies done in primary, secondary and university classrooms.

Building Adaptive comfort

Classroom Reference Country Type Operation type Survey Period equation

Liang et al., 2012 [35] Taichung, Taiwan NV FR Sept 2005 to Feb 2006 Tc = 0.62Tom + 12.1
Huang et al., 2015 [24] Central Taiwan NV FR May, Jun, Sept and Oct 2013 Tc = 0.33Trm + 18.8
Trebilcock et al., 2017 [89] Santiago, Chile NV FR Jul-Aug 2013 and Nov -Dec 2014 Tc = 0.834Trm + 7.11
Primary Haddad et al., 2019 [85] Iran NV FR Aut, Win and Spr 2012 - 2013 Tc = 0.33Trm + 17.9
Montazami et al., 2017a [86] West Midlands, UK NV FR June and July of 2014 and 2015 Tc = 0.33Trm + 18.8-3
Teli et al., 2017 [82] Southampton, UK NV FR 2011 to 2015 Tc = 0.26Trm + 18.2
Montazami et al., 2017b [87] West Midlands, UK NV FR June and July of 2014 and 2015 Tc = 0.33Trm + 18.8

Secondary Liang et al., 2012 [35] Taichung, Taiwan NV FR Sept 2005 to Feb 2006 Tc = 0.62Tom + 12.1

Yao et al., 2010 [112] Chongqing, China NV FR Mar 2005 to May 2006 Tc = 0.6Tout + 9.85
Jung et al., 2011 [126] Busan, South Korea HS + CS HS + CS + FR Mar to Jun 2009, Sept to Dec 2009 Tc = 0.42Tom + 16.90
University
Singh et al., 2018 [113] Rajasthan, India NV FR April, May, June 2015 Tc = 0.49Trm + 13.8
Kumar et al., 2018 [114] Rajasthan, India NV FR April, May, June 2015 Tc = 0.49Trm + 13.8

NV: Natural Ventilation; FR: Free running; HS: Heating system; CS: Cooling system; AC: Air conditioned (HS + CS); Tom : Outdoor monthly mean temperature; Tc : Comfort
temperature; Trm : Running mean comfort temperature over two days; Tout : Outdoor temperature; PMV: Predicted Mean Vote.

Fig. 8. Plot of Neutral temperature proposed by studies carried out in primary school, secondary school and university classrooms separately on ASHRAE comfort bands.

calculated values. From Tables 8–10 it is evident that in most of
the classrooms studies the results obtained are quite different from
what thermal comfort study reveals when done in a built environ-
ment other than classrooms. This also concludes that the students
in the classrooms were highly unsatisfied with the existing indoor
environmental conditions.
Very interestingly it can be said that this study did not succeed
to find the consistency between the temperature change required
to shift one thermal sensation vote in classrooms at different edu-
cation stages and under different operation modes.
Table 11 presents the adaptive comfort equations proposed
by 12 studies done in primary, secondary and university class-
rooms altogether. Most of the studies have comparable slope ex-
cept the study done in Santiago, Chile. This study proposes very
steep slope stating that subjects were very sensitive to temperature
change.
7.6. Adaptive comfort equations
In this study, comfort temperatures proposed by different stud-
ies are plotted on ASHRAE 55-2013 and CEN 15251-2007 comfort
band. To draw this plot, proposed comfort temperature and daily
mean outdoor temperature data are extracted from the selected
research articles (Tables 2–7). In some research articles where the
daily outdoor mean temperature was not provided, a web source
was used to get the data of that location for the study period
(Metoffice, 2017) [80]. Figs. 8 and 9 present the plots of comfort
temperature on ASHRAE −55 and CEN 15251 comfort band [25,27].
On carrying out regression analysis we get four adaptive comfort
equations, one each for primary, secondary, university classrooms
and all classrooms (considering primary, secondary and university
together).
 
Tcop_ pri = 0.22Tout + 18.01 N = 21; R2 = 0.17 (1)
170 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174

Fig. 9. Plot of neutral temperature proposed by studies carried out in primary school, secondary school and university classrooms separately on CEN comfort bands.

Fig. 10. Plot of neutral temperature proposed by studies carried out in primary school, secondary school and university classrooms together on ASHRAE comfort bands.

where Tcop_pri is comfort temperature (operative temperature)

 
Tcop_sec = 0.47Tout + 14.11 N = 18; R2 = 0.77 (2) in primary school classroom
Tcop_sec is comfort temperature (operative temperature) in sec-
 
Tcop_uni = 0.30Tout + 16.91 N = 16; R2 = 0.45 (3) ondary school classroom
Tcop_uni is comfort temperature (operative temperature) in uni-
 
Tcop_all = 0.33Tout + 16.37 N = 55; R2 = 0.49 (4) versity classroom
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
Fig. 11. Comfort temperature bandwidth in different continents proposed by research articles considered in this study (total 89 articles).
Tcop_all is comfort temperature (operative temperature) in all
classrooms
and Tout is daily mean outdoor temperature
It is interesting to note that student at all the educational stages
has a different level of sensitivity towards outdoor temperature
change. Out of all the stages, primary school students are least
sensitive to temperature change. This conclusion is supported by
several studies and primarily Humphreys [38,40] and Auliciems
[13,36,37,39]. This happens because the clothing level selection for
this section of students is primarily adult dependent. Out of three
levels, the most sensitive to the outdoor change of temperature
are secondary school students. Because they have limited scope
of clothing variation because they have to wear school uniform
throughout the year irrespective of the type of activity they have
to perform based on school curricula (limited scope of clothing re-
lated adaptation). University students show the slope which is very
close to ASHRAE standard and CEN standard because the database
used to propose these comfort bands consists of adult’s subjects
and the university students are in the age bracket of adults. More-
over, college students have maximum liberty and flexibility out of
three educational stages for adaptation as listed in Table 1. When
all comfort temperature of all stage classrooms is plotted together
on ASHRAE comfort band it resulted in Eq. (4). Fig. 10 shows the
plot all neutral temperature on ASHRAE comfort band. Regression
line shows that the slope is similar to that of ASHRAE standard. But
this picture is quite different to what was found, when each pri-
mary, secondary and university classroom plotted individually. The
range of comfort temperatures is estimated by finding out low-
est and highest reported neutral temperatures in the primary, sec-
ondary and university classrooms in each continent. For this plot
171
operation mode of classrooms are not considered. Fig. 11 is show-
ing the range of comfort temperature for primary, secondary and
university classrooms. It shows that among all the continents, uni-
versity classrooms in Asia are showing a highest band of comfort
temperatures.
Indoor air quality consideration is not the prime objective of
this study but it was found that most of the studies reported quite
a high level of CO2 concentration (up to 30 0 0 ppm) in the class-
rooms [15,107]. Most of the studies also pointed out high den-
sity and lack of adequate ventilation as the probable reasons for
the high level of CO2 concentration in classrooms (poor indoor air
quality) [15,108].
8. Conclusions and way forward
This study on thermal comfort in the classroom has led to the
following conclusions:
• Students in all classrooms at all stages of their education, i.e.
primary, secondary and at university, report feeling comfort-
able on the cooler side of the thermal sensation scale. Pri-
mary school students are least sensitive to outdoor temperature
changes.
• In case of naturally ventilated classrooms, outdoor climatic con-
ditions have a stronger influence on indoor thermal conditions.
Neutral temperatures in NV classrooms are higher in summer
than in winter.
• Studies done in NV/FR classrooms concluded that students in
summer months are more sensitive to change in temperature
compared to winter months and their thermal perception was
strongly affected by acclimatization.
172 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
• In designing new classrooms and retrofitting old classrooms it
is now required to change the priority of providing an adequate
learning environment.
• Secondary school and university students are in a position to
express their thermal sensation experiences and are in a better
position to make day to day adjustments like changing cloth-
ing level, opening/closing of windows and switch on/off ceiling
fans. These adjustments play a significant role in defining the
thermal acceptability in the NV classrooms.
• In recent publications over last 10–15 years, it can be seen
that both PMV-PPD and adaptive methodology are simultane-
ously used by researchers with more emphasis on the adaptive
methodology to assess the classrooms thermal environment.
• Some studies able to show the qualitative relationship between
IEQ and IAQ on student academic performance and well-being.
Still, this needs more research where the performance and
wellbeing can be quantified. Different authors follow different
methodology leading to difficulty in drawing conclusions. If the
methodology is standardized then it will help in quantifying
performance and wellbeing of students in classrooms.
• In air-conditioned classrooms in the winter season, it was found
that students feel comfortable a lower temperature so heating
system temperature can be set low temperature as it leads to
saving of about 10% heating energy consumption without com-
promising on thermal comfort.
• Classrooms are functionally quite different compared to other
built environments like offices and residences. Unavailability of
classroom related guidelines making designers and engineers
consider classrooms as any other built environment which is
failing its intended purpose of providing an adequate learning
environment.
• Naturally ventilated classrooms fair better compared to air-
conditioned classrooms as they have a lower CO2 level. Reason
for this is attributed to lower ventilation rate and high density
of students in air-conditioned classrooms.
• A study done by Krüger and Zanninb [18] concludes that Non-
classroom factors such as visibility, acoustics, and furniture’s
also affected classroom comfort.
• Very interestingly this study did not succeed to find the con-
sistency between the temperature change required to shift one
thermal sensation vote in classrooms at different levels and un-
der different operation modes. Though a temperature change of
5 °C to shift one sensation vote seems a good agreement.
• Comfort temperatures given by the selected studies are be-
ing used to develop adaptive comfort equations to estimate in-
door comfort temperature in primary, secondary and university
classrooms.
Number of research articles published related to thermal com-
fort study in classrooms are very less compared to thermal com-
fort study in general. It is seen that the research trend in terms
of publication is increasing in last few years and it is a good sign
because it shows the awareness and growing concern about the
student’s performance and well-being in classrooms. The research
gaps mentioned in the introduction section still remains valid but
some progress can be seen in the form of different approach be-
ing adopted by researchers to cover most of the aspects that af-
fects the performance and well-being of students in the classroom.
The biggest limitation is this direction is the number of studies
as often field studies face the challenge of accessibility and reli-
able data collection. Since it is very difficult to cover all aspects of
comfort in a single study and this limitation can be overcome by
increasing the number of studies thus increasing the possibility to
cover most of the aspects of thermal comfort. Moreover, this study
successfully brings forth the evidence that the new classroom de-
sign or refurbishing the existing ones need a separate set of guide-
lines or standards because existing comfort standards and design
guidelines are inadequate. Also, it is required to establish a stan-
dard methodology and protocol regarding data collection and in-
strumentation for studies being conducted in classrooms. Different
methodology and instrumentation make it difficult to combine the
data collected in different studies and analyze them quantitatively
linking performance, wellbeing, thermal comfort.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a literature review and we would like to
thank all the researches whose work we have used. This research is
funded by the Japan Society for Promotion of Sciences (JSPS) post-
doctoral research grant P15371. Short version of this manuscript
is also presented in 10th Windsor Conference 2018. Organisers of
10th Windsor Conference have given due permission to authors to
publish the full version of the manuscript with updated data in
suitable international journal.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.01.051.
References
[1] Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, M. Hafezi, Thermal comfort in educational
buildings: a review article, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 59 (2016)
898–906.
[2] M.J. Mendell, G.A. Heath, Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in
school’s influence student performance? A critical review of the literature,
Indoor Air 15 (2005) 27–52.
[3] N. Djongyang, R. Tchinda, D. Njomo, Thermal comfort: a review paper, Re-
newable Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 2626–2640.
[4] Singh M. K., Ooka R., Rijal H.B., Thermal comfort in classrooms: a critical
review, 10thWindsor Conference 2018: Rethinking Comfort, 12th–15th April
2018, Cumberland Lodge, The Great Park, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 2HP. Pub-
lished in Conference Proceedings pp 649–668, ISBN-978-0-9928957-8-5.
[5] R.J. de Dear, J. Kim, C. Candido, M. Deuble, Adaptive thermal comfort in Aus-
tralian school classrooms, Build. Res. Inf. 43 (2015) 383–398.
[6] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, Providing better thermal and air quality conditions in
school classrooms would be cost-effective, Build. Environ. 59 (2013) 581–589.
[7] M.C. Lee, K.W. Mui, L.T. Wong, W.Y. Chan, E.W.M. Lee, C.T. Cheung, Student
learning performance and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in air-condi-
tioned university teaching rooms, Build. Environ. 49 (2012) 238–244.
[8] Z. Yang, B. Becerik-Gerber, L. Mino, A study on student perceptions of higher
education classrooms: impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction
and performance, Build. Environ. 70 (2013) 171–188.
[9] V. De Giuli, O. Da Pos, M. De Carli, Indoor environmental quality and pupil
perception in Italian primary schools, Build. Environ. 56 (2012) 335–345.
[10] A. Mishra, M. Ramgopal, Thermal comfort field study in undergraduate labo-
ratories–An analysis of occupant perceptions, Build. Environ. 76 (2014) 62–72.
[11] M. Turunena, O. Toyinboa, T. Putusb, A. Nevalainena, R. Shaughnessyc,
U. Haverinen-Shaughnessyaa, Indoor environmental quality in school build-
ings, and the health and well-being of students, Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
217 (2014) 733–739.
[12] R.J. de Dear, T. Akimoto, E.A. Arens, G. Brager, C. Candido, K.W.D. Cheong,
B. Li, N. Nishihara, S.C. Sekhar, S. Tanabe, J. Toftum, H. Zhang, Y. Zhu, Progress
in thermal comfort research over the last twenty years, Indoor Air 23 (2013)
442–461.
[13] A. Auliciems, Thermal requirements of secondary schoolchildren in winter, J.
Hyg. 67 (1969) 59–65.
[14] J.V. Hoof, Forty years of Fanger’s model of thermal comfort: comfort for all?
Indoor Air 18 (2008) 182–201.
[15] F. Stazia, F. Naspib, G. Ulpianic, C. Di Perna, Indoor air quality and thermal
comfort optimization in classrooms developing an automatic system for win-
dows opening and closing, Energy Build. 139 (2017) 732–746.
[16] M.A Nico, S. Liuzzi, P. Stefanizzi, Evaluation of thermal comfort in univer-
sity classrooms through objective approach and subjective preference anal-
ysis, Appl. Ergon. 48 (2015) 111–120.
[17] J Gao, P Wargocki, Y. Wang, Ventilation system type, classroom environmen-
tal quality and pupils’ perceptions and symptoms, Build. Environ. 75 (2014)
46–57.
[18] E.L. Krüger, H.T. Zanninb Paulo, Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in
classrooms, Build. Environ. 39 (2004) 1055–1063.
[19] D. Teli, M.F. Jentsch, P.A.B. James, The role of a building’s thermal properties
on pupils’ thermal comfort in junior school classrooms as determined in field
studies, Build. Environ. 82 (2014) 640–654.
 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
[20] C. Di Perna, F. Stazi, A.U. Casalena, M. D’Orazio, Influence of the internal iner-
tia of the building envelope on summertime comfort in buildings with high
internal heat loads, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 200–206.
[21] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal
standards for buildings, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 563–572.
[22] L. Yang, H. Yan, J.C. Lam, Thermal comfort and building energy consumption
implications –a review, Appl. Energy 115 (2014) 164–173.
[23] Y.H. Yau, B.T. Chew, A review on predicted mean vote and adaptive thermal
comfort models, J. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (2014) 23–35.
[24] K.T. Huang, W.P. Huang, T.P. Lin, R.L. Hwang, Implementation of green build-
ing specification credits for better thermal conditions in naturally ventilated
school buildings, Build. Environ. 86 (2015) 141–150.
[25] CEN EN 15251, Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and As-
sessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality,
Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics, European Committee for Stan-
dardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
[26] ISO 7730, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment – Analytical Determina-
tion and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the PMV and
PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria, International Organization
for Standardization, 2005.
[27] ASHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,
ANSI/ASHRAE standard 55-2013, 2013.
[28] R. de Dear, Thermal comfort in practice, Indoor Air 14 (7) (2004) 32–39.
[29] S. Carlucci, L. Bai, R. de Dear, L. Yang, Review of adaptive thermal com-
fort models in built environmental regulatory documents, Build. Environ. 137
(2018) 73–89.
[30] A. Montazami, M. Gaterell, F. Nicol, A comprehensive review of environmental
design in UK schools: history, conflicts and solutions, Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev. 46 (2015) 249–264.
[31] A. Martinez-Molina, P. Boarin, I. Tort-Ausina, J_e-Luis Vivancos, Post-occu-
pancy evaluation of a historic primary school in Spain: comparing PMV, TSV
and PD for teachers’ and pupils’ thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 117 (2017)
248–259.
[32] K.T. Huang, R.L. Hwang, Parametric study on energy and thermal performance
of school buildings with natural ventilation, hybrid ventilation and air condi-
tioning, Indoor Built Environ. 25 (2016) 1148–1162.
[33] R.M.S.F. Almeida, V.P. de Freitas, IEQ assessment of classrooms with an op-
timized demand controlled ventilation system, Energy Procedia 78 (2015)
3132–3137.
[34] H. Yun, I. Nam, J. Kim, J. Yang, K. Lee, J. Sohn, A field study of thermal com-
fort for kindergarten children in Korea: an assessment of existing models and
preferences of children, Build. Environ. 75 (2014) 182–189.
[35] 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.
[36] A. Auliciems, Classroom performance as a function of thermal comfort, Int. J.
Biometeorol. 16 (3) (1972) 233–246.
[37] A. Auliciems, Thermal sensations of secondary schoolchildren in summer, J.
Hyg. 71 (1973) 453–458.
[38] M.A. Humphreys, Classroom temperature, clothing and thermal comfort-a
study of secondary school children in the summertime, Build. Serv. Eng. 41
(1973) 191–202.
[39] A. Auliciems, Warmth and comfort in the subtropical winter: a study in Bris-
bane schools, J. Hyg. 74 (1975) 339–343.
[40] M.A. Humphreys, A study of the thermal comfort of primary school children
in summer, Build. Environ. 12 (1977) 231–239.
[41] A.G. Kwok, Thermal comfort in tropical classrooms, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998)
1031–1050.
[42] N.H Wong, S.S Khoo, Thermal Comfort in classrooms in the tropics, Energy
Build. 35 (2003) 337–351.
[43] K. Al-Rashidi, D. Loveday, N. Al-Mutawa, Impact of ventilation modes on
carbon dioxide concentration levels in Kuwait classrooms, Energy Build. 47
(2012) 540–549.
[44] D.K. Serghides, C.K. Chatzinikola, M.C. Katafygiotou, Comparative studies of
the occupants’ behaviour in a university building during winter and summer
time, Int. J. Sustainable Energy 34 (2015) 528–551.
[45] M.L. Fong, V. Hanby, R. Greenough, Z. Lin, Y. Cheng, Acceptance of thermal
conditions and energy use of three ventilation strategies with six exhaust
configurations for the classroom, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 606–619.
[46] P. Barrett, Y. Zhang, J. Moffat, K. Kobbacy, A holistic, multi-level analysis iden-
tifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning, Build. Environ. 59
(2013) 678–689.
[47] S.M. Choi, D.A. Guerin, H.U. Kim, J.K Brigham, T. Bauer, Indoor environmen-
tal quality of classrooms and student outcomes: a path analysis: approach, J.
Learn. Spaces 14 (2) (2013) 2.
[48] M.C. Katafygiotou, D.K. Serghides, Indoor comfort and energy performance
of buildings in relation to occupants’ satisfaction: investigation in secondary
schools of Cyprus, Adv. Build. Energy Res. 8 (2014) 216–240.
[49] V. De Giuli, R. Zecchin, L. Corain, L. Salmaso, Measurements of indoor en-
vironmental conditions in Italian classrooms and their impact on children’s
comfort, Indoor Built Environ. 24 (2015) 689–712.
[50] I. Nam, J. Yang, D. Lee, E. Park, J-R. Sohn, A study on the thermal comfort
and clothing insulation characteristics of preschool children in Korea, Build.
Environ. 92 (2015) 724–733.
173
[51] D. Teli, M.F. Jentsch, P.A.B. James, Naturally ventilated classrooms: an assess-
ment of existing comfort models for predicting the thermal sensation and
preference of primary school children, Energy Build. 53 (2012) 166–182.
[52] M. Puteha, M.H Ibrahimb, M. Adnana, C.N.C. Ahmad, N.M. Nohc, Thermal
comfort in classroom: constraints and issues, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 46
(2012) 1834–1838.
[53] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort. Analysis and Applications in Environmental En-
gineering, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[54] M.A. Humphreys, Field studies of thermal comfort compared and applied,
Symposium on Physiological Requirements of the Microclimate, Prague, 8–10
September, 1975.
[55] M.A. Humphreys, Outdoor temperatures and comfort indoors, Build. Res.
Pract. 6 (1978) 92–105.
[56] A. Auliciems, Towards a psycho-physiological model, Int. J. Biometeorol. 25
(1981) 109–122.
[57] M.A Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal
comfort, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998) 991–1004.
[58] R.J de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort
and preference, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998) 145–167.
[59] G.S. Brager, R.J. de Dear, Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a lit-
erature review, Energy Build. 27 (1998) 83–96.
[60] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review, Indoor Air 22
(2012) 96–109.
[61] F.H. Mallick, Thermal comfort and building design in the tropical climates,
Energy Build. 23 (1996) 161–167.
[62] T.H. Karyono, Report on thermal comfort and building energy studies in
Jakarta, Indonesia, Build. Environ. 35 (20 0 0) 77–90.
[63] N.H. Wong, H. Feriadi, P.Y. Lim, K.W. Tham, C. Sekhar, K.W. Cheong, Thermal
comfort evaluation of naturally ventilated public housing in Singapore, Build.
Environ. 37 (2002) 1267–1277.
[64] P.O. Fanger, J. Toftum, Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned
buildings in warm climates, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 533–536.
[65] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal
standards for buildings, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 563–572.
[66] K.J. McCartney, J.F. Nicol, Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Eu-
rope, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 623–635.
[67] H. Feriadi, N.H. Wong, Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated houses in In-
donesia, Energy Build. 36 (2004) 614–626.
[68] J.F. Nicol, Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hot–humid tropics, En-
ergy Build. 36 (2004) 628–637.
[69] A.K Mishra, M. Ramgopal, Field studies on human thermal comfort -an
overview, Build. Environ. 64 (2013) 94–106.
[70] M. Taleghani, M. Tenpierik, S. Kurvers, A. van den Dobbelsteen, A review into
thermal comfort in buildings, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 26 (2013)
201–215.
[71] R. Yao, B. Li, J. Liu, A theoretical adaptive model of thermal comfort – Adap-
tive Predicted Mean Vote (aPMV)., Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 2089–2096.
[72] F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Derivation of the adaptive equations for thermal
comfort in free-running buildings in European standard EN15251, Build. Env-
iron. 45 (2010) 11–17.
[73] M.K. Singh, S. Mahapatra, S.K. Atreya, Adaptive thermal comfort model for dif-
ferent climatic zones of North-East India, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 2420–2428.
[74] R.J. de Dear, Revisiting an old hypothesis of human thermal perception: alli-
esthesia, Build. Res. Inf. 39 (2011) 108–117.
[75] Y. Yau, B. Chew, A review on the predicted mean vote and adaptive thermal
comfort models, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (2012) 23–35.
[76] R.F. Rupp, N.G. Vásquezb, R. Lamberts, A review of human thermal comfort in
the built environment, Energy Build. 105 (2015) 178–205.
[77] G. Havenith, I. Holmer, K. Parsons, Personal factors in thermal comfort as-
sessment; clothing properties and metabolic heat production, Energy Build.
34 (2002) 581–591.
[78] C. Cândido, R.J. de Dear, R. Lamberts, L. Bittencourt, Air movement accept-
ability limits and thermal comfort in Brazil’s hot humid climate zone, Build.
Environ. 5 (2010) 222–229.
[79] E. Halawaa, J. van Hoof, The adaptive approach to thermal comfort: a critical
overview, Energy Build. 51 (2012) 101–110.
[80] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/
[81] D. Teli, P.A.B. James, M.F. Jentsch, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated pri-
mary school classrooms, Build. Res. Inf. 41 (2013) 301–316.
[82] D. Teli, L. Bourikas, P.A.B. James, A.S. Bahaj, Thermal performance evaluation
of school buildings using a children-based adaptive comfort model, Interna-
tional Conference on Sustainable Synergies from Buildings to the Urban Scale,
SBE16, Procedia Environ. Sci. 38 (2017) 844–851.
[83] S.T. Mors, J.L.M. Hensen, M.G.L.C. Loomans, A.C. Boerstra, Adaptive thermal
comfort in primary school classrooms: creating and validating PMV-based
comfort charts, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 2454–2461.
[84] Y. Liu, J. Jiang, D. Wang, J. Liu, The indoor thermal environment of rural school
classrooms in Northwestern China, Indoor Built Environ. 0 (2016) 1–18.
[85] S. Haddad, P. Osmond, S. King, Application of adaptive thermal comfort meth-
ods for Iranian schoolchildren, Build. Res. Inf. 47 (2) (2019) 173–189.
[86] A. Montazami, M. Gaterell, F. Nicol, M. Lumley, C. Thoua, Developing an al-
gorithm to illustrate the likelihood of the dissatisfaction rate with relation to
the indoor temperature in naturally ventilated classrooms, Build. Environ. 111
(2017) 61–71.
174 M.K. Singh, R. Ooka and H.B. Rijal et al. / Energy & Buildings 188–189 (2019) 149–174
[87] A. Montazami, M. Gaterell, F. Nicol, M. Lumley, C. Thoua, Impact of social
background and behaviour on children’s thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 122
(2017) 422–434.
[88] 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 (2009) 189–200.
[89] M. Trebilcock, J. Soto-Muñoz, M. Yañez, R.F.S. Martin, The right to comfort: a
field study on adaptive thermal comfort in free-running primary schools in
Chile, Build. Environ. 114 (2017) 455–469.
[90] S. Haddad, P. Osmond, S. King, Revisiting thermal comfort models in Ira-
nian classrooms during the warm season, Build. Res. Inf. (2016), doi:10.1080/
09613218.2016.1140950.
[91] E.A. McCullough, S. Eckels, C. Harms, Determining temperature ratings for
children’s cold weather clothing, Appl. Ergon. 40 (2009) 870–877.
[92] J. Kim, R. de Dear, Thermal comfort expectations and adaptive behavioural
characteristics of primary and secondary school students, Build. Environ. 127
(2018) 13–22.
[93] T.G. Theodosiou, K.T. Ordoumpozanis, Energy, comfort and indoor air qual-
ity in nursery and elementary school buildings in the cold climatic zone of
Greece, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 2207–2214.
[94] W. Zeiler, G. Boxem, Effects of thermal activated building systems in schools
on thermal comfort in winter, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 2308–2317.
[95] E.Z.E. Conceição, M.M.J.R. Lúcio, Thermal study of school buildings in winter
conditions, Build. Environ. 43 (2008) 782–792.
[96] P. Barrett, F. Davies, Y. Zhang, L. Barrett, The impact of classroom design on
pupils’ learning: final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis, Build. Environ.
89 (2015) 118–133.
[97] P.M. Bluyssen, D. Zhang, S. Kurvers, M. Overtoom, M. Ortiz-Sanchez, Self-re-
ported health and comfort of school children in 54 classrooms of 21 Dutch
school buildings, Build. Environ. 138 (2018) 106–123.
[98] K.E. 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: R.J. Howlett, L.C. Jain, S.H. Lee (Eds.), Sustainability
in Energy and Buildings, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
[99] B. Hamzah, Z. Gou, R. Mulyadi, S. Amin, Thermal comfort analyses of sec-
ondary school students in the tropics, Buildings 8 (56) (2018) 1–19.
[100] A.G. Kwok, C. Chun, Thermal comfort in Japanese schools, Sol. Energy 74
(2003) 245–252.
[101] L.D. Pereira, D. Raimondo, S.P. Corgnati, M.G. da Silva, Assessment of in-
door air quality and thermal comfort in Portuguese secondary classrooms:
methodology and results, Build. Environ. 81 (2014) 69–80.
[102] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, The effects of moderately raised classroom temper-
atures and classroom ventilation rate on the performance of schoolwork by
children (RP-1257), HVAC&R Res. 13 (2007) 193–220.
[103] M.C. Katafygiotou, K. Serghides D, Thermal comfort of a typical secondary
school building in Cyprus, Sustain. Cities Soc. 13 (2014) 303–312.
[104] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, The effects of outdoor air supply rate and supply air
filter condition in classrooms on the performance of schoolwork by children
(RP-1257), HVAC&R Res. 13 (2007) 165–191.
[105] L.D. Pereira, E. Cardoso, M.G. Da Silva, Indoor air quality audit and evaluation
on thermal comfort in a school in Portugal, Indoor Built Environ. 24 (2015)
256–268.
[106] D. Mumovic, J. Palmer, M. Davies, M. Orme, I. Ridley, T. Oreszczyn, C. Judd,
R. Critchlow, HA. Medina, G. Pilmoor, C. Pearson, P. Way, Winter indoor air
quality, thermal comfort and acoustic performance of newly built secondary
schools in England, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 1466–1477.
[107] R.M.S.F. Almeida, V.P. de Freitas, J.M.P.O. Delgado, in: Indoor Environmental
Quality in Classrooms: Case Studies, Springer International Publishing, AG
Switzerland, 2015, pp. 31–55. ISBN 978-3-319-15359-9.
[108] G. Zhang, C. Zhenga, W. Yanga, Q. Zhanga, D.J. Moschandreasa, Thermal com-
fort investigation of naturally ventilated classrooms in a subtropical region,
Indoor Built Environ. 16 (2007) 148–158.
[109] S.P. Corgnati, M. Filippi, S. Viazzo, Perception of the thermal environment in
high school and university classrooms: subjective preferences and thermal
comfort, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 951–959.
[110] S.P. Corgnati, A. Roberta, M. Filippi, Thermal comfort in Italian classrooms un-
der free-running conditions during mid-seasons: assessment through objec-
tive and subjective approaches, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 785–792.
[111] P. Baruah, M.K. Singh, S. Mahapatra, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated
classrooms, PLEA -2014 Conference, December 16–18, 2014.
[112] R. Yao, J. Liu, B. Li, Occupants’ adaptive responses and perception of thermal
environment in naturally conditioned university classrooms, Appl. Energy 87
(2010) 1015–1022.
[113] M.K. Singh, S. Kumar, R. Ooka, H.B. Rijal, G. Gupta, A. Kumar, Status of thermal
comfort in naturally ventilated classrooms during the summer season in the
composite climate of India, Build. Environ. 128 (2018) 287–304.
[114] S Kumar, K Singh M, A Mathur, J Mathur, S Mathur, Evaluation of comfort
preferences and insights into behavioural adaptation of students in naturally
ventilated classrooms in a tropical country, India, Build. Environ. 143 (2018)
532–547.
[115] A. Mishra, M. Ramgopal, Thermal comfort in undergraduate laboratories - a
field study in Kharagpur, India, Build. Environ. 71 (2014) 223–232.
[116] R. Vittal, S. Gnanasambandam, Perceived thermal environment of naturally-
ventilated classrooms in India, Creat. Space 3 (2016) 149–165.
[117] N. Castilla, C. Llinares, J.M. Bravo, V. Blanca, Subjective assessment of univer-
sity classroom environment, Build. Environ. 122 (2017) 72–81.
[118] R.L. Hwang, T-P. Lin, N.J. Kuo, Field experiments on thermal comfort in cam-
pus classrooms in Taiwan, Energy Build. 38 (2006) 53–62.
[119] P.F. Hu, W. Liu, Z.N. Jiang, Study on the indoor thermal sensation of young
college students in the area which is hot in summer and cold in winter, Int.
J. Arch. Sci. 7 (2006) 47–52.
[120] S.A. Zaki, S.A. Damiati, H.B. Rijal, A. Hagishima, A.A. Razak, Adaptive thermal
comfort in university classrooms in Malaysia and Japan, Build. Environ. 122
(2017) 294–306.
[121] M.J. Cheng, R.L. Hwang, T.P. Lin, Field experiments on thermal comfort re-
quirements for campus dormitories in Taiwan, Indoor Built Environ. 53 (2008)
191–202.
[122] B. Cao, Y. Zhu, Q. Ouyang, X. Zhou, L. Huang, Field study of human thermal
comfort and thermal adaptability during the summer and winter in Beijing,
Energy Build. 43 (2011) 1051–1056.
[123] Z. Wang, A. Li, J. Ren, Y. He, Thermal adaptation and thermal environment
in university classrooms and offices in Harbin, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 192–
196.
[124] Z. Wang, H. Ning, X. Zhang, Y. Ji, Human thermal adaptation based on univer-
sity students in China’s severe cold area, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. (2016),
doi:10.1080/23744731.2016.1255495.
[125] Z. Fanga, S. Zhang, Y. Yong Cheng, A.M.L. Fong, M.O. Oladokun, Z. Lind, H. Wu,
Field study on adaptive thermal comfort in typical air conditioned class-
rooms, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 73–82.
[126] G. Jung, S.ki. Song, Y.C. Ahn, G.S. Oh, Y.B. Im, Experimental research on ther-
mal comfort in the university classroom of regular semesters in Korea, J.
Mech. Sci. Technol. 25 (2011) 503–512.
[127] C. Buratti, P. Ricciardi, Adaptive analysis of thermal comfort in university
classrooms: correlation between experimental data and mathematical mod-
els, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 674–687.
[128] S. Liu, H. Yoshino, A. Mochida, A Measurement study on the indoor climate
of a college classroom, Int. J. Vent. 10 (2011) 251–261.
[129] A. Mishra, M. Ramgopal, A comparison of student performance between
conditioned and naturally ventilated classrooms, Build. Environ. 84 (2015)
181–188.
[130] A.K. Mishra, M.T.H. Derks, L. Kooi, M.G.L.C. Loomans, H.S.M. Kort, Analysing
thermal comfort perception of students through the class hour, during the
heating season, in a university classroom, Build. Environ. 125 (2017) 464–
474.
[131] Y. Maki, M. Shukuya, Visual and thermal comfort and its relations to ex-
ergy consumption in a classroom with day lighting, Int. J. Exergy 11 (2012)
481–492.
[132] S. Barbhuiya, S. Barbhuiya, Thermal comfort and energy consumption in a UK
educational building, Build. Environ. 68 (2013) 1–11.