Alexandria Engineering Journal (2019) 58, 699–711

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessment of indoor thermal environment in

different prototypical school buildings in Jordan
Hikmat H. Ali *, Rifqa Al-Hashlamun

Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Received 26 December 2018; revised 12 June 2019; accepted 12 June 2019

Available online 29 June 2019

KEYWORDS Abstract Indoor thermal environment is vital for occupant comfort and productivity. This is true
Indoor thermal environment; of educational facilities where people are expected to engage in prolonged period of intense concen-
School buildings; tration. This research focuses on evaluating and comparing the effect of envelopes in uninsulated
Jordan; prototypical governmental schools built before 2003 with thermally insulated. Indoor thermal
Assessment environments of classrooms of the old and new schools were assessed using two methods. The first,
indoor temperature profiles obtained through field monitoring were analyzed under the adaptive
comfort standard model employed in ASHRAE standard 55. The second method relied upon ther-
mal simulation of the selected classrooms using DB to obtain the predicted mean vote (PMV) values
of classrooms in accordance with ISO 7730. Finally, for the validation purpose, a control group was
conducted to function as a base case model for the schools. A calibration test was conducted, by
comparing the indoor environmental measurements obtained from field monitoring with the simu-
lation results. Based on the above results, both schools exceeded the range comfort level during
peak hours. The result indicate that the indoor thermal environment in the new school was more
satisfactory than the old one.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction thermal environment in school buildings is directly associated

with student health and productivity [1]. Uline & Tschannen-
Indoor thermal environment is vital for occupant comfort and Moran, 2008 researched the influence of indoor thermal
productivity. This is especially true of educational facilities. environment on student achievement and found a strong
Many studies have shown that thermal comfort in classrooms correlation between the quality of a school environment and
needs to be considered carefully because of their high occupant student achievement in English and mathematics [2].
density, and the adverse effects that uncomfortable or unsatis- In addition to energy saving, building envelope upgrading
factory thermal environments have on learning performance can have a vital impact on the thermal comfort and satisfac-
and outcomes. It is well known that the quality of the indoor tion of occupants. Past studies have investigated the effects
of building refurbishment on conditions of thermal comfort.
* Corresponding author. Ascione, Bianco, De Masi, de’Rossi, & Vanoli, 2014 used
E-mail address: hikmat@just.edu.jo (H.H. Ali). Energy Plus 7.2.0 to investigate the effects of the addition of
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria PCM plaster on the exterior building envelope during the cool-
University. ing season on occupant comfort levels, and found that indoor
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.06.001
1110-0168 Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
700
temperature within the comfort range was higher after the
application of insulation on the exterior walls [3]. Comfort
time thus increased by approximately 15.4%–22.9% based
on the thickness of the material. Furthermore, prior retrofit-
ting, the daily HVAC system operation was required only
for a few hours.
S. H. Hong et al., 2009 investigated the effects of the refur-
bishment of low-income dwellings based on field survey data
collected from a large sample of low-income households in
England [4]. Thermal comfort in these dwellings was measured
by self-reported diaries filled out by the occupants. It was con-
cluded that installing thermal insulation and central heating
led to an increase in the mean indoor temperature from
17.1 °C to 19.0 °C, and consequently increased the number
of households the occupants of which reported feeling ther-
mally ‘‘comfortable” or warmer from 36.4% to 78.7% [4].
Synnefa, Saliari, & Santamouris, 2012 investigated the
impact of a cool roof on the energy performance and thermal
behavior of an uncooled school building in Athens, Greece [5].
An experimental monitoring campaign had been conducted
before and after the application of a white elastomeric-
coating, with a solar reflectance of 0.89 on the roof of the
building. The building was modeled on the TRNSYS software,
where the model was calibrated and validated using experi-
mental data. The results of simulations showed a categorical
decrease in air temperature by 2.8 °C, to a comfort level of
25 °C during the summer, after roof retrofitting [5].
In Jordan, there is an urgent need to assess the impact of
building envelope configurations on existing governmental
school buildings, as they affect indoor thermal environments.
Jordan is a developing country located in the Middle East with
an area of 89,342 km2. The country is divided into 12 states,
where Amman is the capital and most populous city, housing
42% of the population [6]. The population of Jordan was 9.53
million in 2016, increasing at an annual rate of 2.2%, with
approximately 82.3% living in urban areas [6]. In addition to
natural population growth, Jordan has witnessed a tremendous
influx of refugees. For example, the number of Iraqis registered
with the United Nations High Council for Refugees in Jordan
remains stable at approximately 450,000–500,000 [7]. However,
there has been a significant increase in the number of Syrian
refugees, where more than 1.26 million Syrian refugees are either
registered or waiting for registration with the UN Refugee
Agency (UNHCR) [6]. Approximately 54% of these refugees
are children below the age of 18. In 2013, of the estimated num-
ber of Syrian refugees, approximately 187,675, were primarily
school-age children, and this number continues to grow [7].
Jordan has witnessed significant reforms and changes in its
educational system that has influenced the construction of gov-
ernmental schools. The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Jor-
dan divides schools into three categories: governmental,
private, and UNURWA (United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East). In total, there
are over 6,802 school buildings in the country, 3,864 of which
are governmental schools accommodating 1,295,982 students
[8]. Governmental schools in Jordan are either funded by the
MOE, other Jordanian government organizations (JGO), or
non-government organizations (NGOs). Table 1 summarizes
school categories in Jordan; their numbers, number of students
in each respected category, and their sponsored agencies.
Before 2003, all governmental school buildings in Jordan
were constructed according to MOE prototypical designs.
H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun
Table 1 Schools categories in Jordan (MOE, 2015).
Schools in Number of Number of Funding
Jordan schools students agency
Governmental Schools 3864 1,295,982 MOE, JGO, NGO
UNURWA Schools 175 116,105 UNURWA
Private schools 2763 464,729 Private owners
Total 6802 1,876,816
All models had a linear classroom layout that could be
arranged around a double - or single-loaded corridor, in con-
tact with the exterior building envelope. Owing to limited
financial resources, the envelope design and building construc-
tion materials in these models were similar, given that they did
not incorporate any kind of thermal insulation within the walls
or roofs [1]. However, after The Vision Forum for the Future
of Education in Jordan held in September 2002, the Ministry
of Education (MOE) released the Education Reform for the
Knowledge Economy Program Report (ERfKE) [8]. The
report set out detailed plans for an overall reform, within an
extensive and inclusive framework. A major component of this
reform concerned improvements in the physical learning envi-
ronment. Accordingly, the MOE stopped the construction of
prototypical model schools and started building site-specific
schools with upgraded architectural specifications. Since then,
the number of governmental schools in Jordan has increased
from 2719 in 2005, to more than 3864 in 2015 [8]. Conse-
quently, governmental school buildings in Jordan can be clas-
sified into two main categories:
A. Schools built before 2003 (Between 1960 and 1970 and
1970–2000) educational reform (prototypical school models)
Over 2917 governmental schools were built before the 2003
educational reform [8]. This category can be further divided
into two sections: schools built between 1960 and 1970 and
schools built between 1970 and 2000 [9]:

1960–1970: This model of school buildings by the Ministry
of Municipalities and consisted mainly of simple classrooms
with no insulation on the walls or roofs.
1970–2000: The MOE adopted the construction of large-
scale prototypical school buildings from the first Hai Nazal,
up to the seventh prototype based on school type.
The final prototype used in the construction of prototypical
school buildings was the sectorial prototype in 2000. Although
these schools had more functional spaces than previous ones,
the envelope was a simple concrete block configuration with
no insulation material in the walls or roofs.
B. Schools built after 2003 (Between 2005 and 2015) educa-
tional reform (site-specific schools)
In response to the 2003 Knowledge Economy Program
Report (ERfKE), the MOE in collaboration with NGOs
launched the construction of new school buildings with
enhanced physical characteristics. As mentioned before, the
layout of the new buildings did not follow any specific proto-
typical model. Instead, they were built to suit the site configu-
rations. Regarding elements and specifications of the
envelopes, the MOE worked on a guideline for school design
that was not formally published. Consequently, the materials,
architectural details, and envelope configurations incorporated
Assessment of indoor thermal environment
into the new schools followed donor guidelines and standards.
In light of the limited budget of the MOE, many non-
government organizations (NGO) have offered initiatives sup-
porting the construction of new schools [8].
This research focuses on evaluating and comparing the
effect of envelopes in old, uninsulated prototypical govern-
mental schools built before 2003 (between 1970 and 2000) with
new, thermally insulated site-specific schools constructed with
the help of donors following the reform in Jordan. The
enhancing and retrofitting of old school buildings’ envelopes
will have major impact on increasing the level of thermal com-
fort and enhancing the indoor environmental quality in class-
rooms. Accordingly, the main question this study posed is: Do
new site-specific governmental schools offer better indoor ther-
mal environment than old schools.
In order to accomplish the research objectives, and the speci-
fic research context, a cross-sectional design strategy was
adopted. The research methodology is based on a triangulation
approach that used two or more methods of data collection pro-
cedures within a single study. The research combined quantita-
tive and qualitative methods. The indoor thermal environments
of the old and new school classrooms were assessed using two
methods. In the first, indoor temperature profiles obtained
through field monitoring were analyzed under the Adaptive
Comfort Standard (ACS) model employed in ASHRAE stan-
dard 55 [10]. The second method relied upon the thermal simu-
lation of the selected classrooms using Design Builder (DB) to
obtain the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) values of classrooms
in accordance with ISO 7730 [11]. Finally, for validation, a cal-
ibration test was conducted by comparing the indoor environ-
mental measurements obtained from field monitoring with the
simulation results to create a base model for the schools.
2. Description of selected school buildings
This research aims to compare and evaluate the thermal
performance of envelopes and its effect on indoor thermal
Fig. 1 South Elevation of Old Abu Alanda School building.
701
environment in old prototypical government schools built
before 2003 (between 1970 and 2000) as compared with the
new site-specific schools constructed by donors after the 2003
(between 2003 and 2015) educational reform. For this purpose,
two schools were selected as case studies: Hai Nazal standard,
governmental model built in 1992, and a new, site-specific
school built by KFW in 2006. These selected schools are rep-
resenting a model for many governmental school buildings.
Both buildings are in Amman, which accommodates 42% of
government schools in Jordan (MOE, 2014). The two schools
were located in Abu Alanda region as follows:
1. Abu Alanda primary mixed school: Prototypical school
(Hai Nazal) built in 1992, and referred to, herein, as the
old Abu Alanda School.
2. Abu Alanda secondary girls’ school: Site-specific school
built by KFW in 2006, and referred to herein as the new
Abu Alanda School.
2.1. Description of old Abu Alanda primary mixed school
The old Abu Alanda primary mixed school is a two-story
building. The area of the building is 2145 m2, and accommo-
dated 744 students and 39 teachers. The building is a typical
Hai Nazal prototype model; a rectangular plan with a perime-
ter of (53.5 m  21.1 m). The school is oriented north –south
with a 15° tilt toward the east. The main entrance to the school
is on the southern elevation. The 744 students at school are dis-
tributed in classes from grades one to six.
Architectural drawings were provided for the old Abu
Alanda primary mixed school (Figs. 1 and 2). The school is
a two-story, double-loaded, corridor building (Hai Nazal pro-
totype). The ground floor accommodates four classrooms,
administration, library, laboratory, a kindergarten, and a
resource room (Fig. 2). On the other hand, the first floor
accommodates 12 classrooms and two small storage rooms.
702
D
Fig. 2 Old Abu Alanda school–ground floor plan.
Based on the provided data, this school has a total of 16
classrooms. The total area of the classrooms in the school is
800 m2, the net floor area for the typical classroom is 50 m2,
and has height of three meters (Fig. 3). Each classroom typi-
cally has only three windows on the exterior wall: two identical
windows, 2.6 m long, and a smaller one, 1.2 m long. Each
classroom has either one or two sides exposed to the external
wall. The approximate area of the exterior wall is 28 m2, for
a typical classroom exposed on one side and 49 m2, for those
located in a corner (two sides are exposed to the exterior envel-
ope). In addition to natural ventilation from the windows, a
ceiling fan is located at the center of each classroom to provide
mechanical ventilation. There are no active cooling or heating
systems inside the classrooms. The total area of the external
walls is 1050 m2, and the window-to-wall ratio is 30% as cal-
culated from drawings of school elevation (Fig. 1).
The details of the envelope of the old Abu Alanda School
were obtained from school plans, architectural drawings and
specifications. The external walls of the building were uninsu-
lated, medium-weight concrete blocks with no insulation layer,
except a 5-cm air space. The roof of the building consisted of a
reinforced concrete roof, with no vapor or thermal insulation
Fig. 3 Old Abu Alanda School–typical classroom layout.
H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun
N
C
layer. There were 48 windows in the classroom zones. All win-
dows in the school were single glazed, with aluminum frames
and no thermal break strip. There were no shading devices
on the windows except 20-cm projections. The area of the ele-
ments of the envelope were computed for the entire school
building and the classroom zones separately, for subsequent
use in the analysis (Table 2).
2.2. New Abu Alanda secondary girls’ school
Abu Alanda secondary girls’ school is a two-story building
built in 2006. The total area of the building is 4299 m2. The
total number of students at school is 998 students and teachers’
count is 55. The building consists of three classroom wings,
connected by a linear mass and a main entrance located on
the southern face. The wings are directed north–south with a
15° tilt in the east (Fig. 4). Each is a double-loaded corridor
arrangement with a cluster of classrooms, containing a stair-
case and a toilet unit. The ground floor accommodates 13
classrooms, the administration, laboratories, a workshop,
teachers’ room, and storage. The first floor accommodates 14
classrooms, a computer laboratory, a library, teachers’ room,
an art room, and storage. The total number of classrooms is
27 occupying 1269 m2 of the school area. The net floor area
for a typical classroom is 48 m2 and has a height of three
meters (see Figs. 5–7).
Each classroom has two identical windows on the exterior
wall, each is three meters long. In addition, all classrooms have
an extra three internal windows, 1.4 m in length. The elevation
exposure of the exterior wall is 27 m2 for a typical classroom.
All classrooms in this school had only one exposed elevation to
the outside, as the corners were occupied by stairs and toilets.
In addition to natural ventilation from windows, classrooms
have two wall-mounted fans located on the wall adjacent to
the corridor to provide mechanical ventilation. There was no
active cooling or heating system inside the classrooms.
The details of the building envelope for the new Abu
Alanda School were obtained from school plans, architectural
drawings, and specifications. The external walls of the building
Assessment of indoor thermal environment 703

Table 2 Old Abu Alanda School–envelope details.

Element Description Details
External Total area: 1050 m2 20 mm solid concrete blocks + 50 mm air + 10 mm hollow
walls Classroom walls’ area: 550 m2 concrete block + 15 mm cement plaster
Wall thickness: 39 cm
Insulation: No thermal insulation
Description: Medium-weight concrete block wall
Roof Total area: 1013 m2 200 mm reinforced concrete slab + 50 screed + 20 mm
Roof thickness: 29 cm concrete tiles
Insulation: No thermal or vapor insulation
Description: Reinforced concrete slab
Floor Ground floor area: 1072.5 m2 Heavy concrete slab of 200 mm + mortar + 25 mm terrazzo
First floor area: 1072.5 m2 tiles
Classroom zone floor area: 800 m2
Description: Heavy concrete slab
Windows Total window area = 340 m2 Single-glazed 6 mm windows + aluminum frame (no air
Classroom windows = 48 tightness).
Classrooms window area = 180 m2
Description: Single-glazed windows
North WWR: 30%, East WWR: 30%
South WWR: 30%, West WWR: 30%
Overhangs: Horizontal overhangs over the south and north
windows, 20 cm projection.
Room 3- meters
Height

consisted of medium-weight concrete blocks thermally-
insulated with a 5-cm polystyrene layer. The building has a
reinforced concrete roof, thermally insulated with a foam con-
crete layer, and a vapor insulation layer, covered with a fine
aggregate finish. The installed windows, 54 windows in the
classroom zones, are all clear and double glazed with alu-
minum frames and a thermal break strip. As shading devices,
there were louvers on both the north and south windows. The
details of the external walls, roof, and floor in the new Abu
Alanda School are summarized in Table 3.
assessment of selected classrooms of the old and new school.
This was conducted by:
1. Initial assessment of indoor environmental parameters in
the monitored classrooms.
2. Thermal comfort evaluation of selected classrooms of both
schools.
Thermal comfort in this study was determined by two
methods:

3. Indoor thermal environment assessment of selected schools
The Adaptive Comfort Standard (ACS) method for natu-
rally ventilated buildings was employed according to the
The first method used to evaluate the thermal efficiency of the ASHRAE standard 55 [10]. This method utilized data based
school envelopes was an indoor thermal environment on field measurements in the selected classrooms.

Fig. 4 New Abu Alanda School–ground floor plan.

704 H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun

Fig. 5 New Abu Alanda School–site plan drawing.

Fig. 6 View of New Abu Alanda School building.

Design Builder (DB) to estimate the PMV and PPD values

in selected classrooms in accordance with ISO 7730 specifi-
cations which were originally developed by Fanger in 1970
on the bases of climate chamber experiments [11].

Consequently, the sub-sections below represent the initial

assessment of thermal parameters obtained during field moni-
toring in selected classrooms of both schools. Thermal comfort
evaluation using adaptive comfort standard (ACS) method is
based on field measurements, and monthly outdoor air temper-
ature. Thermal comfort assessment is based on PMV values
generated by using Design Builder, and their comparison to
Fig. 7 New Abu Alanda School–typical classroom layout. calibrated test, to those generated throughout simulations, to
Assessment of indoor thermal environment 705

Class (D, Di): New Abu Alanda School–north

Table 3 Details of the walls, roof, and floors of the new Abu
Alanda School.
Where Xi indicates the classroom on the ground floor and
Element Description Details X indicates that on the first floor.
External Total area: 2594 m2 15 mm concrete cement The selected classrooms had similar student density per
walls Wall thickness: 40 cm blocks + 50 mm square meter. The outdoor temperature readings, on the day
Insulation: Polystyrene polystyrene layer + 10 mm of the field survey, were obtained from a nearly metrological
layer (5 cm) hollow concrete block station [6] (Amman airport station, 2016) Fig. 8.
Description: Medium- + 20 mm cement plaster Table 4 presents indoor air temperature measurements
weight concrete block obtained during the field study, from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm in
wall with thermal
the four monitored classrooms of each school. The table illus-
insulation
Roof Total area: 2251 m2 300 mm reinforced concrete
trates the average indoor air temperature obtained in moni-
Roof thickness: 43 cm slab + 50 mm foam tored classrooms, as well.
Insulation: Foam concrete + 20 mm screed Based on the above results for indoor air temperature read-
concrete 5 cm + 40 mm dpm with fine ings in classrooms of both schools, it was found that:
Description: Reinforced aggregate finish
concrete slab
Class A (old Abu Alanda school–south/first floor) had the
Floor Ground floor area: Heavy weight concrete slab highest temperature at 31.2 °C during peak hour (the high-
2034.40 m2 300 mm + 150 mm sand est temperature), whereas classroom Di (new Abu Alanda
First floor area: and mortar + 25 mm school–north/ ground floor) had the lowest temperature at
2251.87 m2 terrazzo tiles
27.8 °C during the peak hour (the highest temperature).
Description: Heavy
concrete slab

The average indoor temperature in the monitored class-
Room 3- meters rooms, during the peak hour (1:00 pm), in the old Abu
height Alanda school was 30.4 °C, and was 28.0 °C in the new
school. Considering that both schools had the same class-
room orientation, this indicates there was poor thermal per-
validate the base models and compare relative humidity formance of the envelope in the old Abu Alanda School, as
profiles. the average indoor temperature in the monitored class-
rooms (30.4 °C) was close to the outdoor peak temperature
3.1. Initial assessment of indoor environmental parameters of of 33.0 °C.
monitored classrooms
Fig. 9 shows the average indoor air temperatures from 9:00
am to 1:00 pm in the four monitored classrooms of each
Thermal comfort data loggers (Q544949) were used to measure
school.
the indoor air temperature, relative humidity, and air move-
Based on the above figure, it was found that:
ment inside the old and new school classrooms on October
13, 2016. Four classrooms were selected from each school

The highest average indoor air temperature (28.24 °C) was
based on occupancy ratio, orientation, and floor level. Conse-
recorded in the old Abu Alanda School (south
quently, two north and two south classrooms were selected
classroom/first floor), whereas the north classroom/ground
from each school on the ground and first floors, as follows:
floor in the new Abu Alanda School exhibited the lowest
average indoor air temperature (25.72 °C).

Class (A, Ai): Old Abu Alanda School–south

The average indoor air temperature in classrooms of the old

Class (B, Bi): Old Abu Alanda School–north
Abu Alanda School during the monitored period was

Class (C, Ci): New Abu Alanda School–south
27.6 °C, and was 25.9 °C in the four monitored classrooms
in the new Abu Alanda School.

Outdoor Air Temperature 13th October Based on the temperature profile readings and average
Outdoor Air Temperature indoor air temperature in the four monitored classrooms of
35
32
33 each school, it was found that the average indoor air temper-
31.5
30 ature in the monitored classrooms was 27.7 °C in the old
29
30 28 Abu Alanda School, and was 25.9 °C in the new Abu Alanda
Temperature Cº

26.5 27
26 School respectively. Considering that both schools had the
25 same building and classroom orientations, this indicates that
the envelope of the old Abu Alanda School had lower thermal
20 resistance to outdoor temperature. Furthermore, based on the
results shown in Fig. 9, classrooms facing south in both
15 schools exhibited higher indoor temperature profiles than
9:am 9:30am 10:00am 10:30am 11:00am 11:30am 12:00am 12:30am 13:00am
those facing north. Additionally, classrooms on the first floor
Time
also often had higher average indoor temperature profiles than
Fig. 8 Outdoor temperature profiles on October 13, 2016 those located on the ground floor. The average indoor air
(Amman airport station). temperature profiles, relative humidity, and air movement
706 H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun

Table 4 Indoor air temperature measurements in the classrooms monitored on October 13, 2016.
School Class Floor 9: AM 10: AM 11: AM 12: PM 1: PM Indoor average T.
Old Abu Alanda Class Ai Ground 24.5 26.1 27.9 30 31.1 27.92
Class A First 25 26.5 28.1 30.4 31.2 28.24
Class Bi Ground 24.5 26.4 27.1 28.7 29.5 27.24
Class B First 24.5 26.3 27.5 29 29.8 27.42
New Abu Alanda Class Ci Ground 23.4 24.7 26.1 27.1 27.8 25.82
Class C First 23.5 25 26.4 27.6 28.6 26.22
Class Di Ground 23.5 24.8 25.7 26.8 27.8 25.72
Class D First 23.5 24.7 26 27.3 27.9 25.88

Old Abu Alanda New Abu Alanda school. Moreover, the internal windows in the new school were
28.24 closed during field monitoring.
28.5
27.92 In conclusion, the initial assessment of the parameters of
28
27.42
Avarage Temperature ºC

27.5
Old school Avarage temperature =27.7ºC
27
26.5 26.22
25.82
26
25.5 New school Avarage temperature = 25.9ºC
25
24.5
24
South /Ground South /First
Classroom Direcon / Floor
Fig. 9 Average indoor air temperature in old and new Abu
Alanda School classrooms.
readings for the four monitored classrooms in each school are
summarized in Table 5.
Relative humidity was measured with the same thermal
comfort data logger used to measure indoor temperature pro-
files. Table 5 lists the average relative humidity levels for the
monitored classrooms from 9:00am to 1:00 pm. The field mea-
surements show that a majority of classrooms in both schools
had relative humidity values within the acceptable range dur-
ing school going hours.
Air movement readings were taken at both schools with the
ceiling fans switched off in the old school and the wall fans off
in the new one. Air movement ranged from 0.01 m/s to 0.02 m/s
with an average of 0.015 m/s in the old Abu Alanda School;
whereas it ranged from 0.02 m/s to 0.05 m/s, with an average
of 0.03, in the new school. Thus, the average air movement in
neither school did not coincide with an established comfort
range of 0.15–0.25 m/s [12]. This might have occurred owing
to a lack of internal windows for cross-ventilation in the old
27.24 temperature, humidity, and air movement in both schools indi-
cated that the average indoor air temperature profiles in the
old Abu Alanda School were higher than in the new one. Con-
25.88
25.72 sidering that both schools had similar classroom orientations
and the monitored classrooms had similar occupancy ratios
less efficient. This indicates that the thermal resistance of the
envelope of the old school was poorer than that of the new
one.
North/Ground North/First
3.2. Thermal comfort assessment – Adaptive comfort standard
(ACS) model
Two classrooms with different orientations (north and south),
located on the first floor, were chosen from each school for fur-
ther comparative analysis and evaluation of thermal comfort.
The first method used to assess thermal comfort inside the
monitored classrooms was the ACS model for naturally venti-
lated buildings employed by ASHRAE standard 55 [10]. In the
adaptive comfort standard (ACS) model, the mean monthly
outdoor air temperature determines acceptable indoor air tem-
perature. This relationship is expressed by the following
formula:
Tcom ¼ :31ðToutÞ þ 17:8
Where Tcom is the optimum indoor comfort temperature in
Celsius in a selected month and Tout is the mean monthly out-
door air temperature for the same month.
Consequently, in October, the monitoring period, the mean
monthly outdoor air temperature obtained from the meteoro-
logical station was 19.7 °C (Climate data organization, 2016).
Tcom. is calculated as follows:

Table 5 Average indoor air temperature, relative humidity, and air movement inside the monitored classrooms on October 13–2016.
School Class Floor Average indoor Average relative Air movement (m/s)
average temp. (°C) humidity (%)
Old Abu Alanda Class Ai Ground 27.92 42.45 0.01
Class A First 28.24 40.78 0.01
Class Bi Ground 27.24 47.87 0.01
Class B First 27.42 44.12 0.02
New Abu Alanda Class Ci Ground 25.82 37.91 0.02
Class C First 26.22 37.67 0.03
Class Di Ground 25.72 40.21 0.03
Class D First 25.88 38.81 0.05
Assessment of indoor thermal environment 707

Tcom ¼ :31ð19:7Þ þ 17:8
From the above equation, it is found that the indoor Tcom
was 24 °C based on the mean outdoor air temperature of
19.7 °C in Amman, in October.
The next step involved defining the ranges of temperature
around Tcomf corresponding to an 80% range of thermal
acceptability in accordance with ISO 7730 [11]. According to
the adaptive comfort standard (ACS) model, the acceptability
value of 80% is defined by the mean comfort zone band of
7 °C [13]: Thus, the limits based on Tcom were calculated as
follows:
80% acceptability ranges ¼ TðcomÞ  3:5 C
In this study, the 80% band of acceptability was 24.0
± 3.5 °C. Consequently, the acceptability ratio of the thermal
environment decreased to below 80% when the indoor air tem-
perature exceeded the range 24.0 ± 3.5 °C. The indoor tem-
perature profiles for the four monitored classrooms (two in
the old school and two in the new one) in compliance with
the 80% acceptability band of the adaptive comfort standard
(ACS) model (24.0 ± 3.5 °C) are shown in Fig. 10. The classes
were named A, B, C, and D in the following manner:

Class A: Old Abu Alanda school–south classroom

Class B: Old Abu Alanda school–north classroom

Class C: New Abu Alanda school–south classroom

Class D: New Abu Alanda school–north classroom
class) while the lowest (4.4 °C) was noted in Class D (new
Abu Alanda–north classroom). According to Humphreys
[14], the maximum acceptable temperature variation within
school buildings was 4 °C during daytime. Any further tem-
perature increase causes discomfort to pupils. Thus, tem-
perature increase in classrooms of both schools was
beyond the comfort standard. However, it was found that
the average temperature variation between 9:00 am and
1:00 pm was 5.8 °C in classrooms of the old school and
4.7 °C in those of the new one, indicating that the envelope
of the former had lower thermal resistance to outdoor tem-
perature change. This was due to the absence of thermal
insulation in the walls and roof of the old school. Further-
more, single-glazed windows with higher SHGC in the old
school contributed to direct temperature exchange between
inside and outside.
2. Adaptive comfort standard (ACS) acceptability band: It is
clear from Fig. 10 that the four monitored classrooms
exceeded the comfort acceptability band, especially around
noon time. However, the period of discomfort (chart above
the acceptability band) varied among the four monitored
classrooms. Based on chart intervals that exceeded the band
of thermal acceptability, the periods of discomfort (as a
percentage) were calculated for the four classrooms (A, B,
C, and D) from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. The percentages of
the periods of discomfort for the four classrooms are listed
in Table 6.

From Fig. 10, the following is evident: Based on Table 6, the following was observed:

1. Temperature variation (Dt): The measured data clearly
Highest discomfort period: 62% in Classroom A; old Abu
showed a steady increase in indoor air temperature in the Alanda school–south classroom.
monitored classrooms. The highest temperature increase
Lowest discomfort period: 15% in Classroom D; new Abu
(6.2 °C) was recorded in Class A (old Abu Alanda, south Alanda school–north classroom.

33
Class ( A) Class ( B) Class ( C) Class ( D)
32
31
30
29
Temperature (ºC)

28
27
26
25
24 Calculated using adapve model
23
80% acceptability band 20.5-27.5 ºC
22
21
20
9:30A 10:00A 10:30A 11:00A 11:30A 12:00P 12:30P 13:00P
9:AM
M M M M M M M M
Class ( A) 25 25.8 26.5 27.3 28.1 29.2 30.4 30.9 31.2
Class ( B) 24.5 25.4 26.3 26.9 27.5 28.2 29 29.4 29.8
Class ( C) 23.5 24.2 25 25.7 26.4 26.9 27.6 28.1 28.6
Class ( D) 23.5 24.1 24.7 25.3 26 26.6 27.3 27.6 27.9

Fig. 10 Indoor air temperature profiles inside old and new school classrooms with adaptive comfort standard (ACS) comfort zone limit
(24.0° ± 3.5 °C).
708 H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun

Table 6 Temperature variations and estimated period of discomfort in the monitored classrooms.
Class Lowest temperature °C Highest temperature °C DT (Temperature variation) °C Discomfort period
Class A 25 31.2 6.2 62%
Class B 24.5 29.8 5.3 50%
Class C 23.5 28.6 5.1 25%
Class D 23.5 27.9 4.4 15%

are in those of the new school. Consequently, students in

the old school would feel uncomfortable for more than half
the time they spend in school. However, students in the new
Abu Alanda School would experience discomfort less than
a quarter of the time they spend in school.

3.3. Thermal comfort assessment– Predicted mean vote (PMV)

method

According to specifications of ISO 7730 (ISO Standard 7730,

Fig. 11 Predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD) as a function
of Predicted Mean Vote (PMV).

Based on the calculated discomfort periods, students would
feel uncomfortable 56% of the time they are in classrooms
of the old Abu Alanda School, and 20% of the times they
2005), the acceptable thermal environment for a PMV is
between 1 and +1 and its PPD is below 20%. The Predicted
Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) is related to the PMV
(Fig. 11), and is based on the assumption that people voting
3, 2, +2, or +3 are dissatisfied. The Design Builder
(DB) software was used to estimate sub-hourly predicted mean
vote values for the four classrooms mentioned in the previous
section (Classes A, B, C, and D), Fig. 12 shows the estimated
PMV values for the four classrooms in accordance with the
thermal neutrality zone (1  PMV  1). It is important to
note that during the thermal simulation of the four classrooms
in DB, their physical and operational characteristics were set

3
PMV class A
2.5 PMV class B
PMV class C
2
PMV class D
1.5

1
PMV

0.5

0 Thermal
Thererm
mal neutra
neutral
neutr
neutrality
lity
--1.0≤pmv≤+1.0
1.0≤pmv
≤pm ≤+1.0
+
-0.5

-1
12:00p 12:30p 13:00p
9:am 9:30am 10:00am 10:30am 11:00am 11:30am
m m m
PMV class A 0.7 0.78 0.92 1.17 1.54 1.87 2.21 2.26 2.37
PMV class B 0.56 0.73 0.86 0.96 1.2 1.63 1.88 2.15 2.18
PMV class C 0.51 0.53 0.74 0.8 0.95 0.98 1.27 1.58 1.87
PMV class D 0.5 0.52 0.71 0.75 0.84 0.96 1.21 1.28 1.57

Fig. 12 PMV for the four classes (A, B, C, and D).

Assessment of indoor thermal environment 709

Table 7 Average and peak PMV/PPD for the four classrooms under study (Researcher, 2017).
Average PMV (9am–1 pm) Average PPD (9am–1 pm) PMV (peak) PPD (peak)
Class A 1.54 53% 2.37 90%
Class B 1.35 47% 2.18 82%
Class C 1.05 23% 1.87 76%
Class D 0.65 16% 1.57 56%

to match real-world conditions. This included the occupancy
ratio, envelope characteristics, layout, and geometry. Further-
more, the classroom zones were set to be naturally ventilated,
and mechanical ventilation was assumed to have been turned
off during thermal modeling so that the temperature and
humidity profiles generated by the simulation could be com-
pared with real measurements for a subsequent calibration test
of the base model. The simulation for the PMV was set to run
on a sub-hourly basis on the day of the field monitoring.
PMV values for the four classes obtained from DB in
Fig. 12 were used to calculate the average PMV, in each, from
9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Fig. 12 was used to estimate the PPD for
the calculated average PMV in each class based on the (PMV
 PPD) relation. Table 7 summarizes the average PMV
obtained from the thermal simulation of the classrooms and
the average PPD (as a function of PMV). It also represents
the PMV/PPD during the peak hour (1:00 pm) for the four
classes.
Based on the above results it was found that:

Class A, south classroom in the old governmental school
was found to have the highest average PMV/PPD (1.54,
53%) from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm, which indicates a high level
of thermal discomfort. Moreover, during afternoon hours,
the PMV and PPD were 2.37 and 90%, respectively, indi-
cating sudden discomfort and temperature increase in the
south classrooms of the old school.

Class D, north classroom in the new Abu Alanda School
recorded the lowest average PMV/PPD (0.65, 16%) from
9:00 am to 1:00 pm, indicating that students felt
comfortable most of the time. However, based on the peak
PMV/PPD values (1.57, 56%) it can be concluded that
more than half the students felt discomfort owing to tem-
perature increase at noon.

The average PMV was 1.44 in the old Abu Alanda School
and 0.85 in the new one. Consequently, the average PPD
was 50% in classrooms of the old school and 19% in those
of the new Abu Alanda School, which confirms the results
of the previous section, where the old school had higher
periods of discomfort than the new one.
Consequently, based on the results of thermal comfort eval-
uation for the two classrooms in each school, using ACS and
the PMV/PPD methods, the new Abu Alanda School had a
more comfortable thermal environment, with an average per-
iod of discomfort of 20% in the new school, compared with

Measured indoor air temperature Simulaon indoor air temperature2

Measured outdoor air temperature Simulaon outdoor air temperature2
RH % Measured RH % Simulaon
37 60

55
34
50
Temperature ºC

31
45

40
28

35
25
30

22 25
9:am 9:30am 10:00am 10:30am 11:00am 11:30am 12:00am 12:30am 13:00am
Time

Fig. 13 Measured vs. simulated internal indoor air temperature, relative humidity, and average hourly outdoor air temperature–old
school model/north classroom.
710
Measured indoor air temperature
Measured outdoor air temperature
RH % Measured
37
Temperature ºC 34
31
28
25
22
9:am 9:30am 10:00am 10:30am 11:00am 11:30am 12:00am 12:30am 13:00am
Time
Fig. 14 Measured vs. simulated internal indoor air temperature, relative humidity, and average hourly outdoor air temperature–new
school model/north classroom.
56% in the old Abu Alanda School. Moreover, based on PMV
values, generated by Design Builder, the average PPD in the
new school was 19% compared with 50% in the old one. Dur-
ing peak hours, the average PPD in the old Abu Alanda
School was 86% compared with 66% in the new school, indi-
cating that both schools had exceeded the acceptable range of
comfort during the peak hour. Thus, although the envelope of
the new Abu Alanda School had higher thermal resistance
owing to enhanced parameters, students still suffered from
thermal discomfort during peak hours. This was due to the
absence of an active cooling systems in both schools.
3.4. Calibration test–base case validation
As mentioned above, two parameters were considered for the
validation of the base models in both schools, internal average
hourly temperature and average hourly relative humidity. Fur-
thermore, the outdoor air temperature readings obtained from
the metrological department (Fig. 8) on the day of field mon-
itoring were compared with the outdoor air temperature read-
ings during the simulation in Design Builder. One classroom
from each school was chosen for the calibration test: the north
class in both the old (Class B) and the new Abu Alanda
Schools (Class D). Figs. 13 and 14 show a detailed comparison
in terms of hourly indoor air temperature, relative humidity,
and outdoor air temperature between the results of the simula-
tion and field assessment on October 13, 2016.
Based on the calibration tests, the following was observed:

It was clear that the predicted simulated indoor and out-
door air temperatures tended to be underestimated, com-
pared with the experimental results.

As Fig. 13 shows, the highest indoor air temperature on the
monitored day was 29.8 °C and the lowest was 24.5 °C;
whereas, the DB simulation recorded the high indoor air
H.H. Ali, R. Al-Hashlamun
Simulaon indoor air temperature2
Simulaon outdoor air temperature2
RH % simulated
55
50
45
40
35
30
temperature of 29.2 °C and the low of 23.8 °C. On the con-
trary, the highest outdoor air temperature during the field
study was 33.0 °C; while the simulation was 32.2 °C. Thus,
the measured data varied within a small range around the
simulated data.
Fig. 14 shows similar results for the north classroom in the
new Abu Alanda School.
In conducting the calibration test, it was found that:

The predicted simulated indoor and outdoor air tempera-
tures tended to be underestimated, compared to the exper-
imental results.

The highest indoor air temperature on the monitored day
was 27.9 °C and the lowest was 23.3 °C; whereas, the high-
est temperature in Design Builder simulation was 27.4 °C,
and the lowest was 23.2 °C. Thus, the measured data
slightly varied from the simulated data.
The discrepancies between the measured and predicted
results in both classrooms might have been obtained because
there were numerous paths for the infiltration of airflows in
the buildings that allowed indoor heat to dissipate. However,
in the DB model, the infiltration rate was fixed at values lower
than those for the real buildings. To account for this, the sim-
ulated outdoor temperature was lower than that obtained from
the metrological station. Consequently, in both schools, the
indoor temperature readings were in agreement with the simu-
lation results.
4. Conclusions and discussions
Indoor thermal environment assessment of classrooms of the
selected schools was conducted. Thermal comfort data loggers
were used to monitor the indoor thermal environment of
Assessment of indoor thermal environment
classrooms of the old and new schools. Indoor thermal envi-
ronmental assessment was conducted in three stages: initial
assessment of environmental parameters in the monitored
classrooms, thermal comfort evaluation using the adaptive
comfort standard (ACS) model based on field measurements;
and thermal comfort evaluation using PMV, based on the
results of DB simulations. The following was concluded:
1. Based on the initial assessment of the environmental
parameters inside the monitored classrooms: indoor air
temperature, relative humidity, and air velocity readings
obtained during field monitoring, using thermal comfort
data loggers (Q544949), the following was observed:

During peak temperature hours, both schools exceeded
the acceptable indoor temperature range. The average
indoor air temperature, in the monitored classrooms,
during peak hour in the old Abu Alanda School was
30.4 °C; whereas it was 28.0 °C in the new school.

On the day of monitoring, the old Abu Alanda School
had higher average indoor air temperatures than the n-
ew school, 27.7 °C, in contrast with 25.9°, respectively.

Both schools exhibited acceptable relative humidity on
the day of monitoring.
Thus, although the envelope of the new Abu Alanda School
had better thermal characteristics; it still did not reach accept-
able indoor comfort levels, especially during peak hours,
owing to the absence of active cooling and heating systems
in classrooms. Albeit, envelope enhancements in the new
school made an effective contribution to lowering average
indoor air temperature.
2. Thermal comfort assessment using adaptive comfort stan-
dard (ACS): The acceptability ratio of thermal comfort
inside the monitored classrooms in October was calculated
based on ACS method ranges from 24.0 °C to 27.5 °C,
Based on field measurements and the ACS acceptability
ratio. Approximately 56% of the students felt uncomfort-
able in the old Abu Alanda School compared with 20%
in the new one. Considering that the monitored classrooms
had the same orientation and similar occupancy ratios, the
envelope of the new school had better thermal resistance to
outdoor temperature than that of the old one. Further-
more, the average daily temperature variation was 5.8 °C
in classrooms of the old school and 4.7 °C for those of
the new one, indicating that the envelope of the former
had lower thermal resistance to changes in outdoor
temperature.
3. Thermal comfort assessment–PMV method: Design builder
(DB) was used to estimate the average hourly PMV for four
monitored classrooms in each schools, and it was found to
be 1.44 in classrooms of the old school model and 0.85 in
those of the new one. Consequently, the average percentage
of dissatisfaction with indoor temperatures, during teach-
ing hours, was 50% in classrooms of the old school and
19% in those of the new one. This indicates over 50%
higher level of satisfaction in terms of comfort in the new
711
school. However, during peak hours, both schools exhib-
ited high PPD with an average of 86% in the old school
and 66% in the new one.
Based on the above results, both schools exceeded the com-
fort range during peak hours. However, on average, the indoor
thermal environment in the new school was more satisfactory
than the old one, which again indicates the higher thermal effi-
ciency of the envelope of the new school.
Finally, retrofitting existing school buildings with expected
lifespans of 25 years is economically feasible, given that exist-
ing school buildings in Jordan were built in 1970–2000; the
study investigated the economic feasibility of retrofitting class-
rooms of schools constructed in each of the relevant decades.
Consequently, envelope retrofitting is highly recommended
for government school buildings in Jordan. However, the vari-
ety of expected lifespans of existing school buildings must be
considered.
References
[1] O. Ali, T. Awadallah, Energy consumption optimization in
schools sector in Jordan, Architectural Sci. Rev. 59 (5) (2015)
400–412.
[2] C. Uline, M. Tschannen-Moran, The walls speak: The interplay
of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement, J.
Educational Administration 46 (1) (2008) 55–73.
[3] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R.F. De Masi, F. de’ Rossi, G.P. Vanoli,
Energy refurbishment of existing buildings through the use of
phase change materials: Energy savings and indoor comfort in
the cooling season, Appl. Energy 113 (2014) 990–1007.
[4] S.H. Hong, S.H., J. Gilbertson, T. Oreszczyn, G. Green, I.
Ridley, W.F. Group, A field study of thermal comfort in low-
income dwellings in England before and after energy efficient
refurbishment, Build. Environ. 44 (6) (2009) 1228–1236.
[5] A. Synnefa, M. Saliari, M. Santamouris, Experimental and
numerical assessment of the impact of increased roof reflectance
on a school building in Athens, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 7–15.
[6] DOS, General census of population and housing report 2015,
Department of Statistics, Amman, 2015.
[7] UNHCR, United Ntions High Commissioner for Rerfugee,
2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/
49e486566.html. [Accessed 13 June 2013].
[8] MOE, Education Reform for Knowledge Economy second
phase, Ministry of Education, 2014.
[9] E. Knapp, Quality in Planning, Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
[10] ASHRAE, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy, in ANSI/ASHRAEStandard 55-2010, p. 2010.
[11] I.S. 7730, Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Analytical
determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using
calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal
comfort criteria, in ISO Standard 7730, 2005.
[12] M. Al-Rubaih, Energy-efficient envelope design for schools in
Saudi Arabia, 2008.
[13] R.J., B.G.S. De Dear, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated
buildings: revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55, Energy Build. 34
(6) (2002) 549–561.
[14] M. Humphreys, A study of the thermal comfort of primary
school children in summer, Build. Environ. 12 (4) (1977) 231–
239.