See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354353960

Occupant Perceptions on the Thermal Comfort Guidelines in Air- conditioned

Offices in Colombo, Sri Lanka Occupant Perceptions on the Thermal Comfort
Guidelines in Air- conditioned...

Preprint · September 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 214

3 authors, including:

Kanchana K.S. Perera Biyanka Ekanayake

University of Moratuwa University of Technology Sydney
249 PUBLICATIONS 1,552 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 301 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Biyanka Ekanayake on 04 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Occupant Perceptions on the Thermal Comfort Guidelines in Air-
conditioned Offices in Colombo, Sri Lanka

G. A. Rodrigoa, B.A.K.S. Pererab and B. J. Ekanayakec*

a
John Keells Holdings PLC, Colombo, Sri Lanka; bDepartment of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka; cDepartment of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

*[email protected]
Occupant Perceptions on the Thermal Comfort Guidelines in Air-
conditioned Offices in Colombo, Sri Lanka

ASHRAE Standard 55 sets the minimum requirements for thermal comfort in built
environments. However, this standard is more appropriate to cold climates of the
western countries than to hot climates of the tropical countries like Sri Lanka. This
research was conducted to investigate the thermal comfort perceptions of the
occupants of air-conditioned office environments located in hot and humid regions
using a case study conducted in office environments in Colombo in Sri Lanka. A
mixed research approach was used in two phases to collect the required data. Phase
1 which had ten expert interviews was followed by Phase 2 which had a
questionnaire survey conducted among 144 individuals working in 36 air
conditioned offices. The data collected were analysed using NVivo and SPSS
software. Six parameters, namely temperature, humidity, air velocity, mean radiant
temperature, average metabolic rate and average clothing level of each of the 36
office environments considered were examined for their compliance with
ASHRAE Standard 55. Six of the environments did not comply with the thermal
comfort range specified in the ASHRAE Standard.

Keywords: high humid regions; thermal comfort; office environment, ASHRAE

Standard 55; Sri Lanka

Introduction
Thermal comfort is the condition of mind that expresses satisfaction with the

given thermal environment (ASHRAE Standard 55 2003). It can be controlled using

physical, physiological, or psychological factors (Langley 2000; Huizenga et al. 2006).

Because of the subjectiveness of thermal comfort, several studies undertaken in the past

have proposed objective evaluation methods for its assessment (Udrea et al. 2017). These

past studies indicate that in an office, a productivity difference of up to 25% could be

observed between comfortable staff and uncomfortable staff (John 2005). Thermal
comfort and energy efficiency of office buildings, however, can be enhanced by enforcing

regulations on the indoor temperatures (Cao and Deng 2018).

National and international adaptive thermal comfort standards have gained wide

recognition as they can be applied to different latitudes and climatic conditions (Udrea et

al. 2017). Nicol et al. (2012) have identified ASHRAE Standard 55, ISO 7730 and

CEN/EN 1525, three of the standards that set the minimum requirements for thermal

comfort in built environments, as the most renowned and most widely used international

standards. Among the three, ASHRAE Standard 55 is the most used and most renowned

international standard (Nicol et al. 2012). All these international standards, however, are

more appropriate to the cold climates of western countries as people in hot climates find

it difficult to adapt to the comfort conditions stipulated in those standards (Parsons 2002).

The impacts of different climate zones on the comforts of their occupants can vary

(Evans and Schiller 1996). Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the thermal

comfort range recommended by ASHRAE Standard 55 is suitable for high temperature,

high humid regions as well (Daghigh et al. 2012).

The City of Colombo in Sri Lanka has a hot and humid climate (Emmanueal et

al., 2007). This research, therefore, investigated the thermal comfort perceptions of

people working in air-conditioned offices in Colombo in Sri Lanka. The objectives of the

research were to identify the factors affecting the thermal comfort in air-conditioned

office environments, identify the level of thermal comfort currently maintained in office

environments in Colombo, analyse the level of occupant satisfaction with the current level

of thermal comfort maintained in office buildings in Colombo and explore finally the

parameters which have to be included in a standard dedicated to thermal comfort.

Thermal Comfort

A building environment is capable of changing its occupants’ lives in respect of

aspects that affect their social relationships, behaviour and productivity (Balanli 2011).

In mechanically controlled buildings, there can be a wide range of indoor

conditions (Nicol et al. 2012). When there is no mechanical control to maintain thermal

comfort, thermal discomfort, which could adversely affect the health and productivity of

people, could result (Zr and Mochtar 2013). Furthermore, by manually controlling the air

movement, which has low energy consumption, the thermal comfort in warm

environments can be improved (Liu et al. 2018).

When thermally comfortable environments are created, there would be an

increasing demand and dependence on energy consuming services (Wilson and Piper

2010). For example, mechanical air conditioning, which is still considered as the most

appropriate method for providing thermal comfort in offices, has a high dependency on

energy (Ibe et al. 2013). When attempts are made to lower the high energy costs of these

air conditioning systems of a given space, thermal discomfort can often occur (Haruna et

al. 2014). However, the power consumed by these heating, ventilation and air

conditioning (HVAC) systems can be reduced by increasing their energy efficiency

(Sarfraz and Bach 2017).

Current research on thermal comfort and control is mainly focused on the

engineering aspects of indoor thermal environments in order to identify the temperatures

that satisfy all of the occupants of those environments (Shahzad et al. 2016). In a study

conducted in Japanese offices, Rijal et al. (2017) have found that the comfort temperature

is related primarily to the indoor temperature, although an adaptive relationship can be

derived to estimate the indoor comfort temperature based on the prevailing outdoor
temperature in similar office buildings. However, there is a gap between the literature and

practice with regard to thermal comfort, as what mainstream literature suggests is to use

thermal control to increase the satisfaction and comfort of the occupants of office

environments (Shahzad et al. 2016)

Thermal comfort is a cognitive expression of one’s satisfaction with the thermal

environment (Gordon et al. 2018). It can be determined through a combination of factors

(Parsons, 2003) which can be either quantifiable or unquantifiable (Mallick 1996). These

factors can be categorised as physical, physiological, and psychological factors (Fanger,

1970; Huizenga et al. 2006; Nikolopouloua and Steemers 2003; Mc Mullan 2012).

ASHRAE Standard 55 and Thermal Comfort Parameters

Fincher and Boduch (2009) while identifying the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO), American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) and European Committee for Standardization (CEN) as the

organizations that have produced international thermal comfort standards have stated that

the real experience of comfort is still a determinant of the senses. These commonly used

international standards for thermal comfort use the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) Model

as a function of six parameters for determining the minimum requirements for thermal

comfort (Chenvidyakarn 2007; Efeoma and Uduku 2014). The PMV Model specifies

different combinations of indoor thermal environmental factors and personal factors that

can produce thermal environmental conditions acceptable to a majority of occupants of a

given space. It has to be noted that ASHRAE Standard 55 (2003), in general, considers a

thermal environment with which at least 80% of the occupants are satisfied as acceptable.

In defining the conditions of thermal comfort, ASHRAE Standard 55 addresses six

primary parameters: metabolic rate, clothing insulation, air temperature, radiant

temperature, air speed and humidity. Nevertheless, there are concerns about these thermal
comfort standards as they have been prepared based on laboratory and controlled

environments rather than actual office environments (Kosonen and Tan 2004). In

addition, it is doubtful whether this type of standards published by western countries

would be applicable to countries that have a combination of hot and humid climates

(Parsons 2002; Emmanuel et al. 2007; Hensen and Shady 2014).

It is the view of Humphreys et al. (2013) that the main reasons for the absence of

thermally comfortable building environments are the lack of data and inadequate

legislation. When creating these environments, it is important to understand well the

concept of micro climate, the climate of a small specific area within a larger area (Erell

et al. 2012).

Air-Conditioned Office Environments in Colombo

The City of Colombo in Sri Lanka with a hot and humid tropical climate is prone to the

effects of seasonal monsoonal winds (Emmanuel et al. 2007). The ambient temperature

of the city is in the range of 25oC to 32oC while its relative humidity is in the range of

75% to 95%; both these ranges are not within the accepted typical comfort zone limits

(Ratnaweera & Hestnes 1996). In the context of human comfort and building design, this

warm humid climate is the result of a combination of high temperature and high humidity

(Rajapaksha 2019).

Colombo is presently undergoing rapid urbanization centred mostly on the

Colombo Metropolitan Region (Emmanuel 2005). In any city, it is the buildings that use

the single largest fraction of energy (Steemers 2003). This fact is true for Colombo as

well. This huge demand for energy from buildings arises because of the need to maintain

thermal comfort within the buildings (Daghigh et al. 2012).

Thermal Comfort and Occupant Satisfaction

Thermal comfort in an office environment is important as it affects the

productivity of its occupants (Haynes and Price 2004). According to John (2005), an

unsatisfactory indoor environment will lower the productivity of the occupants by as

much as 25%.

Environmental parameters of an office such as temperature, humidity, and air

motion have a bearing on the acceptance of the environment by its occupants (Berglund

1994). Thus, organizations that have buildings with good thermal control will have an

effective workforce because of the presence of the optimal thermal comfort required for

occupant comfort and efficient energy usage (Efeoma and Uduku, 2014).

Importance and Novelty of the Research

In order to understand the factors that make an environment thermally

comfortable to its occupants, researchers have focused on developing empirical models

that can represent the human perception of thermal comfort in terms of a set of given

conditions or factors (Kim et al. 2018). As revealed from the literature review, western

standards such as ASHRAE Standard 55 cannot be applied to tropical climates like that

found in Sri Lanka. No studies have so far been done on developing a guideline for the

thermal comfort in air-conditioned office environments in countries like Sri Lanka

situated in hot and humid regions. This study can, therefore, be considered as the initial

step towards developing that type of a formal guideline based on the perceptions of

occupants of air conditioned offices.

Research Methodology

The nature of the research problem was such that it was necessary to collect and
analyse both quantitative and qualitative data. Creswell (2014) states that the research

approach of a research has to be based on the research problem, personal experience of

the researcher and the audience to whom the research is done.

A mixed approach takes into consideration both qualitative and/or quantitative

data types occurring concurrently or sequentially (Onwuegbuzie and Combs 2010).

The study commenced with an extensive literature review. It was followed by a

series of semi structured interviews (Phase 1) conducted with 10 subject experts each

having more than 10 years of experience. The interview findings helped to supplement

the literature findings and perceive the practical situation prevalent in Sri Lanka in

relation to issues connected with thermal comfort.

Table 1: Profiles of the interviewees

[Insert Table 1 here]

MacDonald and Headlam (2011) have stated that a questionnaire can capture both

qualitative and quantitative information depending on its structure. The interviews were,

therefore, followed by a questionnaire survey (Phase 2) conducted among the occupants

of 70 office environments. The office buildings selected for the survey were buildings

with 4 to 10 levels. For the survey, two female and two male employees in the age group

of 25 to 45 years were selected from each office environment to ensure gender equality.

Occupants of 36 of the 70 office environments considered, responded with completed

questionnaires.

Temperature readings of the environments were taken in the presence of the

researcher on consecutive days between 11.30 am and 1.30 pm. by personnel such as

facility managers and maintenance managers who were overseeing the thermal comfort

in the buildings. They were assisted by the environmental safety and health auditors of

the buildings. A globe thermometer, a digital sling psychrometer which could measure
dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures and an air velocity meter were the equipment used.

Both the measurements taken using this equipment and the data collected from the 36

completed questionnaires were analysed later.

The questionnaire used in the questionnaire survey contained close ended

questions related to occupant satisfaction with the respective thermal environments. The

quantitative data collected enabled the analysis of occupant satisfaction against thermal

comfort parameter levels.

Table 2: Questionnaire survey respondent profiles

[Insert Table 2 here]

The study used software such as NVivo and SPSS for analysing the measurements

taken and the data collected. NVivo enabled the identification of the most discussed

content to draw attention to them while SPSS enabled all forms of statistical calculations

such as the attainment of the average level of a parameter.

Research Findings and Discussion

Factors affecting Thermal Comfort

The thermal comfort of an environment can be controlled using the physical,

physiological, or psychological factors that affect it (Langley 2000; Huizenga et al. 2006).

ASHRAE Standard 55 uses six primary parameters to define the conditions of thermal

comfort: metabolic rate, clothing insulation, air temperature, radiant temperature, air

speed and humidity. The interviewees were requested to categorize as personal, physical

and psychological factors, the factors that were identified from the literature as affecting

thermal comfort in office environments. Table 3 presents the responses received from the

interviewees.

Table 3: Factors affecting thermal comfort

 [Insert Table 3]

According to the interviewees, in practice there is less emphasis placed on

psychological factors than on personal or physical factors. This is evident even in

international standards on thermal comfort. For example, ASHRAE Standard 55 (2003),

considers six primary parameters, of which four are physical factors while the other two

are personal factors. The effect of psychological factors, however, has been overlooked.

ASHRAE Standard 55, on the other hand, defines thermal comfort as dealing with the

cognitive system and thus as a state of mind. It can thus be concluded that even though

psychological factors play a role in determining and altering thermal comfort, they are

often overlooked in practice.

ASHRAE Standard 55

In the mainstream literature, ASHRAE Standard 55 is considered as one of the

most widely used standards in the world. To verify this fact, the interviewees were

requested to indicate the standard they most frequently use in their work and its

applicability in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Table 4 presents the responses.

Table 4: Most frequently used standards and their applicability in Colombo

[Insert Table 4]

All ten respondents unanimously agreed that ASHRAE Standard 55 is the most

frequently used standard in Colombo. However, eight of them did not fully agree with its

applicability to the micro climate in Colombo.

Thermal Comfort Parameters considered in ASHRAE Standard 55

ASHRAE Standard 55 is based on the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) Model and

uses six parameters: air temperature, mean radiant temperature, air velocity, relative

humidity, activity level and clothing level. Of these six parameters, two are personal
parameters while the other four are physical parameters. All of the interviewees stated

that the individuals maintaining thermal comfort in office environments had either no

influence or very little influence on controlling the two personal factors. Therefore, in

practice, the control and maintenance of the thermal comfort revolves mostly around the

four physical factors. From among these four physical factors, air temperature was

identified as the most monitored and controlled factor, since as compared to other thermal

comfort factors or parameters the occupants of an office could be highly sensitive even

to the slightest change in the office temperature. Another reason was the major differences

in the energy costs related to different levels of air temperature. All of the interviewees

considered relative humidity as a subjective parameter of the air temperature. Air velocity

and mean radiant temperature, on the other hand, were found to be the two physical

parameters most discussed during the design of an air conditioning system although they

were also the most overlooked during the day to day operations.

Level of Thermal Comfort Maintained in Colombo, Sri Lanka

The questionnaire survey helped to acquire data on the levels of the six thermal

comfort parameters maintained in each of the office environments. Table 5 presents the

tabulated data. It is found that the temperatures of the office environments have been

maintained between 22oC and 27oC. The average air temperature of the 36 office

environments has been 24.9oC.

Table 5: Level of thermal comfort maintained in Colombo

[Insert Table 5]

The respondents revealed that humidity control is linked to temperature control,

since humidity reduces when the temperature is lowered. The average humidity of the 36

office environments was 62.08%. However, the humidity of 15 of the office environments

exceeded this average value. The two main reasons for this, according to the respondents,
were the tropical humid climate of Sri Lanka and the difficulty of independently

controlling the humidity of certain HVAC systems. The measurement of the mean radiant

temperature (MRT) and the air velocity of the office environments were not being done

as a practice during the operational stages. Therefore, a relative benchmark was set up to

find whether the parameters were lower or higher than this benchmark.

Thermal Comfort in Relation to ASHRAE Standard 55

The levels of the parameters in each of the 36 office environments as revealed

from the questionnaire survey were compared with those given in ASHRAE Standard 55.

It was found that there were six office environments in which the thermal comfort did not

fall within the range stated in ASHRAE Standard 55 (2013). These six environments had

similar work patterns, dress codes and air temperatures as well as high mean radiant

temperatures and low air velocities. The only significant difference among the six

environments was in their relative humidity levels. It was therefore found that as far as

thermal comfort in office environments is concerned, a difference in just only one of the

six parameters could produce a unique thermal environment. This was verified using the

first office environment. Table 6 indicates the changes that need to be made to one of the

parameters while keeping all the other parameters unchanged, to bring back the thermal

comfort of office environment #1 to the comfort range stated in ASHRAE Standard 55

(2013) and whether those changes are practically attainable.

Table 6: Rectifying thermal comfort based on ASHRAE Standard 55

[Insert Table 6]

One parameter at a time was changed until the thermal environment fell within the

thermal comfort range stated in ASHRAE Standard 55. It was revealed that for some

parameters, it is not always practically possible to achieve the thermal comfort range stated
in the Thermal Comfort Standard. For example, the air temperature can be reduced from

27oC to 23.7oC by merely setting the temperature setting point to a lower level. However,

it can, at the same time, increase the energy consumption of the air conditioning system.

If the comfort range is to be achieved while maintaining all other parameters except

humidity, unchanged, it will require the humidity level to be set at 10%. Such a low level

of humidity will not be practically attainable as a humidity level below 30% is said to

critically affect the health of humans. The change in air velocity, on the other hand, can be

achieved by mechanically adjusting the blowers or the diffusers. The metabolic rate and

the clothing level cannot be lowered below 0.8 met and 0.2 clo respectively as 0.8 met is

the minimum metabolic rate of a reclining individual and 0.5 clo is the minimum clothing

level possible during a light summer.

It was found that even in situations when only one standalone parameter has an

effect on the thermal comfort level, it will not be possible to maintain a comfortable

environment and achieve thermal comfort standards by controlling only that parameter as

it is a combination of the parameters that need to be controlled to get the optimal thermal

comfort level.

Level of Occupant Satisfaction

According to ASHRAE Standard 55, a thermal environment would be acceptable

if at least 80% of its occupants are satisfied with it. Therefore, the thermal environments

of the 30 offices that complied with ASHRAE Standard 55 were observed to find out the

level of satisfaction of its occupants. The 120 responses received from these 30 office

environments were categorized as “No” for dissatisfaction, “Yes” for satisfaction and

“Neutral” for neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. The results are presented in Figure

1.
 Figure 1: Level of occupant satisfaction with office thermal environments in

Colombo

[Insert Figure 1 here]

It is observed that 40% of the occupants of the thermal environments that were

acceptable according to ASHRAE Standard 55 were not satisfied with their thermal

environments. A potential impact of unsatisfactory indoor environment is the lowering of

the productivity of the occupants and studies have shown that a productivity difference

of up to 25% is possible between comfortable and uncomfortable staff (John, 2005). This

further substantiates the suggestions made in the literature that an international standard

may not always be 100% applicable to all micro climates, especially those in tropical

climates such as that in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Table 7 below was prepared indicating the physical parameters that have to be

analysed to determine their levels that best suit Colombo, Sri Lanka. The results of this

research supports the argument of Clements-Croome (2011), which says that a number

of personal factors that depend on physical and mental health in relation to work

environments have been overlooked in the experimental work on comfort as these

experiments had focused only on the response of a group as a whole.

Table 7: Thermal comfort parameters for Colombo, Sri Lanka

[Insert Table 7 here]

When the results of the research were compared with the ASHRAE Standard 55

using the Centre for Built Environment (CBE) Thermal Comfort Tool for ASHRAE

Standard 55, it was revealed that a thermal environment prepared using these results

would be well within the comfort range specified in ASHRAE Standard 55. According to

the CBE Thermal Comfort Tool for ASHRAE Standard 55, these findings expect the

predicted percent of dissatisfied to be only 5%. Figure 2 shows the thermal environment
maintained based on these findings. The shaded area represents the acceptable comfort

zone based on ASHRAE Standard 55 while the encircled dot represents the thermal

environment created based on the guideline developed.

Figure 2: Thermal environment created using the research findings

[Insert Figure 2]

Figure 2 therefore confirms that the thermal environment created is well within

the comfort range defined by ASHRAE Standard 55 and that it suits a tropical climate

like that found in Colombo, Sri Lanka. It can also be seen that these findings provide for

a more precise level of maintaining thermal comfort compared to the broad and common

range presented in ASHRAE Standard 55 for a tropical climate.

Conclusions and the Way Forward

Personal and physical factors are found to be the two main types of factors that

affect the thermal comfort in an air-conditioned office environment. This confirms the

findings of Gordon et al. (2018), which indicate that thermal comfort is a cognitive

expression of a person’s satisfaction with his/her thermal environment. Among the

various international standards on thermal comfort that set the minimum levels for

thermal comfort parameters, ASHRAE Standard 55 is found to be the most frequently

used standard in Colombo, Sri Lanka. According to this standard, there are six primary

thermal comfort parameters that determine the thermal comfort of an office environment.

Among them, air temperature, mean radiant temperature, air velocity and relative

humidity are physical factors while metabolic rate and clothing level are personal factors.

The levels of the thermal comfort parameters were benchmarked against those given in

ASHRAE Standard 55 to identify whether the respective thermal environments comply

with the international standard. It was revealed that 15 out of the 36 office environments

complied with ASHRAE Standard 55. When examining the six thermal environments
that did not comply with ASHRAE Standard 55, it was found that a difference in just only

one parameter can create a whole new thermal environment which can even be

uncomfortable.

To understand what makes an environment thermally comfortable to its

occupants, researchers have focused on developing empirical models that can represent

the human perception of thermal comfort in terms of a set of given conditions or factors

(Kim et al. 2018). The present study reveals that when setting up a thermally comfortable

environment, the control of just one single parameter can often be impractical. Thus, it is

recommended to consider thermal comfort as being dependent on a combination of

parameters rather than just one single parameter.

If a guideline for thermal comfort could be developed, it will help personnel such

as facility managers and maintenance managers who oversee the thermal comfort in office

buildings to establish and maintain the temperature levels within their buildings so as to

save energy costs.

In relation to energy efficiency, it is seen that even a 1oC difference in the set

temperature could save a substantial amount of energy. In Colombo, at times, the only

parameter that is controlled by individuals maintaining thermal comfort is the air

temperature. However, it has to be noted that a considerable amount of energy could also

be saved by considering thermal comfort as a combination of parameters. In observing

occupant satisfaction in the 10 office environments that complied with ASHRAE

Standard 55, it was found that 40% of the occupants of those environments were

dissatisfied with their respective thermal environments. This confirms the concerns

expressed by many scholars on the universal applicability of the thermal comfort

standards to micro climates. It has to be noted that this scenario is common when western

standards such as ASHRAE Standard 55 are used for tropical climates such as that found
in Colombo, Sri Lanka which has high humidity and temperature. Besides, in the context

of human comfort and building design, the warm humid climate in Colombo is a

combination of high temperature and high humidity (Rajapaksha 2019). International

standards, therefore, have to be used in office environments only as a point of reference

and not as a strict guideline, especially in environments in tropical climates. It is therefore

recommended that in order to ensure better occupant satisfaction, a location specific

guideline for the thermal comfort in office environments has to be developed based on

international standards.

Limitations of the Study

There are six main parameters affecting thermal comfort. However, it is practically

impossible to measure some of these parameters individually. Therefore, industry expert

opinions were considered for determining the levels of those parameters that are being

maintained generally. These industry experts were individuals with sound knowledge of

each of these parameters with experience in using them. The two personal parameters

(metabolic rate and clothing level) were, however, excluded from the study. The reason

for the exclusion is the inability to control the metabolic rate and clothing insulation of

occupants both of which are highly subjective factors.

References

American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers.

1992. ASHRAE STANDARD: An American Standard: Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy. American Society of Heating refrigeration and
air conditioning engineers.
Attia S, Hensen JL. 2014. Investigating the impact of different thermal comfort models
for zero energy buildings in hot climates. In Proceedings 1st International.
Conference on Energy and Indoor Environment for Hot Climates.
Balanlı A. 2011. Building Biology and Examination Models for Buildings. Proceedings
of Sick Building Syndrome. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 113-133.
Berglund LG. 1994. Common elements in the design and operation of thermal comfort
and ventilation systems. TRANSACTIONS-AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
HEATING REFRIGERATING AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERS. 776-
776.
Cao S, Deng H. 2018. Investigation of temperature regulation effects on indoor thermal
comfort, air quality and energy savings towards green residential buildings.
Science and Technology for the Built Environment.
Center for Built Environment Thermal Comfort Tool for ASHRAE 55 (2018). University
of Caifornia, Berkrly. Retrieved from http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/
Chenvidyakarn T. 2007. Review article: Passive design for thermal comfort in hot humid
climates. United Kingdom: PHD Department of Architecture, University of
Cambridge.
Clements-Croome, DJ. 2014. Sustainable intelligent buildings for better health, comfort
and well-being. Report for DENZERO project.
Creswell JW. 2008. Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. CA,
US: Sage Publications.
Daghigh R, Nor Mariah A, Barkawi S, Basharia AA Yousef. 2012. Thermal comfort
study and ventilation evaluation of an office. Advances in Mechanical
Engineering and its Application. 3(1). 278-83.
De Dear R, Gail SB 1998. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference.
Efeoma O, Meshack, Ola. 2014. Assessing thermal comfort and energy efficiency in
tropical African offices using the adaptive approach. Structural Survey. 32(5).
396-412.
Emmanuel R. 2005. Thermal comfort implications of urbanization in a warm-humid city:
The Colombo Metropolitan Region (CMR), Sri Lanka. Building and environment.
40(12). 1591-1601.
Emmanuel R, Rosenlund H, Johansson E. 2007. Urban shading—a design option for the
tropics? A study in Colombo, Sri Lanka. International journal of
climatology 27(14). 1995-2004.
Erell E, Pearlmutter D, Williamson T. 2012. Urban microclimate: designing the spaces
between buildings. Routledge.
Evans JM, De Schiller S. 1996. Application of microclimate studies in town planning: a
new capital city, an existing urban district and urban river front development.
Atmospheric Environment. 30(3). 361-364.
Fanger PO. 1970. Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental
engineering. Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental
engineering.
Fincher W, Boduch M. 2009. Standards of human comfort: relative and absolute.
Gordon R, Butler K, Cooper P, Waitt G, Magee C. 2018. Look before you LIEEP. Journal
of Social Marketing. 8(1). 99-119.
Haruna IU, Musa I, Tikau MI, Yerima M. 2014. Improvement of thermal comfort in
residential buildings. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research.
3. 180-183.
Haynes B, Price I. 2004. Quantifying the complex adaptive workplace. Facilities. 22(1/2).
8-18.
Huizenga C, Abbaszadeh S, Zagreus L, Arens EA. 2006. Air quality and thermal comfort
in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey.
Humphreys DK, Goodman A, Ogilvie D. 2013. Associations between active commuting
and physical and mental wellbeing. Preventive medicine, 57(2). 135-139.
Ibe CA, Anyanwu EE. 2013. Principles of Tropical Air Conditioning. Author House,
2013.
John A. 2005. Making Buildings Work. London: Charted Institution of Building Services
Engineers.
Langley BC. 2000. Fundamentals of air conditioning systems. The Fairmont Press, Inc.,
Liu S, Yin L, Schiavon S, Ho WK, Ling K.V., 2018. Coordinate control of air movement
for optimal thermal comfort. Science and Technology for the Built
Environment.1-11.
Kim J, Schiavon S, Brager G. 2018. Personal comfort models – A new paradigm in
thermal comfort for occupant-centric environmental control. Building and
Environment. 132. 114-124.
Kosonen R, Tan F. 2004. The effect of perceived indoor air quality on productivity
loss. Energy and Buildings 36(10). 981-986.
Mallick FH. 1996. Thermal comfort and building design in the tropical climates. Energy
and buildings. 23(3). 161-167.
McMullan R. 2017. Environmental science in building. Palgrave Macmillan Education.
 Nicol F, Humphreys M, Roaf S. 2012. Adaptive thermal comfort: principles and practice.
Routledge.
Nikolopoulou M, Steemers K. 2003. Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a
guide for designing urban spaces. Energy and buildings. 35(1). 95-101.
Onwuegbuzie AJ, Combs JP. 2011. Data analysis in mixed research: A
primer. International Journal of Education. 3(1).
Parsons KC. 2002. Introduction to thermal comfort standards. In Proceedings of the
Windsor Conference: Moving Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st Century,
19-30.
Parsons KC. 2003. Human thermal environments. The effects of hot, moderate and cold
temperatures on human health, comfort and performance. Taylor & Francis:
London.
Rajapaksha U. 2019. Heat Stress Pattern in Conditioned Office Buildings with Shallow
Plan Forms in Metropolitan Colombo. Buildings. 9(2).35.
Ratnaweera C, Hestnes AG.1996. Enhanced cooling in typical Sri Lankan
dwellings. Energy and buildings. 23(3).183-190.
Rijal HB, Humphreys MA, Nicol JF. 2017. Towards an adaptive model for thermal
comfort in Japanese offices. Building Research & Information, 45(7). 717-729.
Shahzad S, Brennan J, Theodossopoulos D, Hughes B, Calautit JK. 2017. A study of the
impact of individual thermal control on user comfort in the workplace: Norwegian
cellular vs. British open plan offices. Architectural Science Review. 60(1). 49-61.
Steemers K. 2003. Cities, energy and comfort: a PLEA 2000 review.Energy &
Buildings 1(35). 1-2.
Udrea I, Croitoru C, Nastase I, Crutescu R, Badescu V. 2018. First adaptive thermal
comfort equation for naturally ventilated buildings in Bucharest,
Romania. International Journal of Ventilation.17(3).149-165.
Wilson E, Piper J. 2010. Spatial planning and climate change. Routledge.
Zr DL, Mochtar S. 2013. Application of bioclimatic parameter as sustainability approach
on multi-story building design in tropical area. Procedia Environmental Sciences.
17. 822-830.

View publication stats