Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Thermal comfort assessment in naturally ventilated offices located in a cold T

tropical climate, Bogotá
Andrés Garcíaa,∗, Francesca Olivieria, Enrique Larrumbidea, Paula Ávilab
a
Department of Construction and Technology in Architecture, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. ETS Arquitectura, Avda. Juan de Herrera 4, 28040, Madrid, Spain
b
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cra. 7 # 40 – 62, Bogotá, Colombia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Thermal comfort has been the object of study and concern for more than a century. As a result, significant
Thermal comfort advances have been carried out, which have led to the establishment of standards and guidelines for thermal
Office buildings environments within buildings. These have defined mechanisms for its evaluation and measurement; however,
Natural ventilation they have been developed for specific areas, among which the cold, humid tropical climatic zones are not found.
Cold tropics
In the absence of thermal comfort regulations in these areas, various comfort standards are currently applied that
Comfort temperature
Adaptive model
could ignore local conditions. Therefore, the objective of this research was to approach thermal comfort in cold,
humid tropical zones, through the study of naturally ventilated offices located in the city of Bogotá, Colombia.
Eight offices located in different areas of the city were analysed over approximately three months, surveying 72
people and carrying out 790 surveys. The results of this research showed that for a thermal acceptance of
96.58%, and according to the Griffiths method, the comfort operative temperature for the offices analysed is
23.47 °C. This differs from the static and/or the adaptive models, such as those recommended by the ASHRAE,
which establish lower ranges. Applying these models could help to increase energy consumption, in a city where
adequate levels of thermal comfort could primarily be obtained through natural ventilation.

1. Introduction and the regulatory context, relevant.

Bogota, the capital of Colombia, is one of the cold humid cities lo-
cated within the intertropical zone of America, with an average altitude
of 2,600 m above sea level. Its climate is characterised by slight var-
iations in annual temperatures and rainfall distributed throughout the
year [1]. The annual average temperature is 13.7 °C, with an average
variation of 0.8 °C between the coldest month and the hottest month of
the year, whilst the average relative humidity is 80% [2]. Un-
fortunately, the current standards that regulate thermal comfort in
Bogota still do not recognise these particularities of a cold wet tropical
climate.
Bogotá is home to more than eight million inhabitants, corre-
sponding to 16.41% of the Colombian population [3]. It is also the city
with the highest construction index, with 24.86% of the country's new
builds in the second quarter of 2017, 16.50% of which were offices [4].
Offices are the type of building most studied in terms of thermal
comfort [5] and also where most concerns are placed, given that the
increasing levels of CO2 emissions are attributed to the high energy
consumption patterns in these buildings [6]. These are the reasons why
this work considers the analysis of offices, given the climatic conditions
1.1. Energy consumption in Colombia
In Bogotá, the demand for energy has increased in recent decades
from five main sectors: residential, industrial, transport, services and
others (government buildings, public lighting, etc.). The key factors
influencing the demand for energy in the city of Bogotá include eco-
nomic growth, demographics, industrial composition and higher stan-
dards of living [7]. The National Administrative Department of Statis-
tics (DANE for its initials in Spanish) reported that in 2015 the total
national energy consumption increased 6.7% in comparison to the
previous year [8]. Considering these consumption patterns, the Na-
tional Government through the Ministry of Housing, introduced para-
meter measures and guidelines to save water and energy in buildings,
via the Resolution 549 dated July 10th, 2015 [9]. This stipulates per-
centages of minimum savings in new constructions, which gradually
increased between 10% and 15% in the first year of the resolution and
between 20% and 45% for the following years. However, these guide-
lines have not yielded representative results and are not yet part of the
generalised knowledge of the builders, architects and planners of new

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ag@andresgarciabio.com (A. García).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.013
Received 22 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 April 2019; Accepted 7 May 2019
Available online 12 May 2019
0360-1323/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. García, et al.
builds in Colombia; in spite of this being the only normative tool of
energy efficiency in buildings in the country.
Due to the existing problems of regulation, in a city like Bogota it is
common to find office buildings with mechanical air conditioning sys-
tems, which are not taking advantage of the low outdoor temperatures
that are constant throughout the year. These practices have resulted in
an increase in the use of mechanical systems, often causing an increase
in energy consumption, as is common in developed countries [10]. This
increase is also motivated by the intention to meet imprecise ranges of
comfort [11,12].
1.2. The static and adaptive comfort models
There are currently two different models to study thermal comfort:
The static or heat balance model and the adaptive model. The former is
based on studies by Fanger [13] who first defined the parameters that
influence thermal comfort and the methods to measure it (Predicted
mean vote (PMV) and Predicted percentage dissatisfied (PPD)). This
model does not take into account certain variables of the context such
as the occupant's acclimatisation mechanisms, and demographic and
psychological variables, given that it is the result of a study developed
within environmental chambers. However, this approach is the theo-
retical basis of international standards by the ASHRAE (American So-
ciety of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) and the
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). It has been ap-
plied worldwide for more than 47 years throughout all types of con-
struction, even when Fanger was clear that the PMV model was de-
signed primarily for the study of spaces with heating, ventilation and
air conditioning [14].
In contrast, the adaptive model is based on the occupant's ability to
adapt to changes in the thermal environment until comfort is achieved,
becoming then an active subject [15]. Therefore, this model takes into
consideration, to a certain extent, parameters such as age, origin,
gender, and occupant's acclimatisation processes, amongst others. It
was introduced in 2004 within the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55:
Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy (ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 55, 2004), based on the work of different authors
including: [13,16–18].
This work recognises the advancements made with the static and
adaptive models within the study of thermal comfort, but also ac-
knowledges the limitations identified in past research [19]. It is well
known that comfort preferences vary in relation to the climatic zone
evaluated [20], for example, in tropical countries [21–25]. This high-
lights the relevance of the study, not only in the context of Bogotá or
Colombia, but also framed by the urgent need to define further me-
chanisms for measuring and monitoring thermal comfort in general.
Only in this way, contextualised decisions can be made regarding
spatial and technical conditions to achieve sustainability [26–28].
1.3. Thermal comfort in Colombia
Colombian regulations indicate that the comfort zone range is be-
tween 21 °C and 25 °C air temperature, with relative humidity between
20% and 75% for all the diverse Colombian climates and for all types of
buildings [29]. The standard NTC 5316, by the Colombian Institute of
Technical Standards and Certification, suggests that the comfort op-
erative temperature for Bogotá is from 20 °C to 27 °C [30]. This stan-
dard is the direct translation of the ASHRAE Standard 55 from 1992, in
which the adaptive model is not contemplated. Due to the lack of
controls and the unawareness regarding the requirement of minimum
comfort levels for buildings, these standards are not normally applied
and very few projects include energy and comfort studies during the
design and operation stages. Additionally, in the development of this
type of study in Colombia, it is often the designers who decide which
comfort standard or proposed variation to apply, regardless its applic-
ability or suitability within the Colombian context. Examples of the
238
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
approaches taken as reference in past studies realizados por: E. Arens
et al. [31], ASHRAE [5], A. Auliciems [32], P·O Fanger [13], A.P Gagge
et al. [33], B. Givoni [34],I. Griffiths [35], M.A Humphreys [36],J.F
Nicol and S. Roaf [37], V. Olgyay [38]. To date, there is no standard or
contextualised range that establishes the minimum conditions of com-
fort and well-being for people living in Bogotá. A previous study de-
monstrated the ambiguity of the results brought by the application of
these standards specifically in Bogotá [39].
1.4. Objectives
Taking into account the previously mentioned context, this work
intends to respond to the following specific objectives:
- To interpret the general environmental conditions inside naturally
ventilated offices in Bogotá.
- Identify the comfort temperature and develop an adaptive comfort
model that describes the conditions of the offices analysed.
- To compare the results obtained from the proposed model, in rela-
tion to the commonly used international models or standards.
Fieldwork was conducted during three months in eight offices lo-
cated in Bogotá, which were naturally ventilated via manually opening
the windows. The current conditions of thermal comfort within these
offices were investigated based on environmental data and surveys
carried out with occupants working in these spaces. With the in-
formation gathered, it was aimed to develop an adaptive comfort model
for the studied offices. It was intended to complement the results of the
first thermal comfort study conducted in this region by S. Natajaran
et al. [39], with the intention of contributing to the construction of a
model or comfort standard applicable in the context of offices or spaces
for work in Bogotá.
2. Methodology
In order to respond to the proposed objectives, the fieldwork was
conducted between 19th February and 11th May 2018 in Bogotá. Eight
offices were studied and environmental measurements were taken for at
least a week in each one, considering that during that period the typical
activities of the offices would be observed. The sample size was de-
terminate according to J.F Nicol et al. [40]who defined that the number
of votes must be equal or higher than 300 votes in order to be re-
presentative, the period was selected randomly considering the con-
stant climatic conditions in Bogotá. The variables that were taken into
account to determine the study period were related to the usual
working dynamics in Bogotá offices; for example, the holiday periods of
June–July and November–December. The perception, preference, sen-
sation and thermal acceptance of the occupants during that period was
measured, from which, both indoor and outdoor climatic data were
obtained. The above, in order to analyse their responses regarding the
thermal conditions in each office. After this fieldwork, a statistical and
descriptive analysis of the data obtained was carried out, to later pro-
pose an adaptive comfort model and compare it with previous models.
The variables measured in each office correspond to those established
by the ASHRAE [5] for the study of thermal comfort (metabolic rate,
clothing insulation, air temperature radiant temperature, airspeed,
humidity). Additionally, the luminosity levels were measured at the
request of the offices’ managers.
2.1. Information from the analysed offices
Eight offices that meet the established conditions were selected
randomly. These conditions were that they could be measured with the
permission of their occupants, that they were naturally ventilated
through windows with, that they were located in Bogotá (Fig. 1), and
that the use was only for typical office activities. The selected offices
A. García, et al.
Fig. 1. Office facades (A–H), office locations (map adapted from Google Earth).
had an average area per occupant of 4.60 m2, with a mixed layout
aiming for the maximum use of space. The predominant building ma-
terials within the eight offices were: porcelain, ceramics, and laminate
floor finishes; fibreboard and Formica with PVC edged desks; and
tempered glass with metal framed partitions or fibreboard lined with
textiled partitions. All desks were equipped with a desktop computer
and auxiliary screens in some cases. Regarding the external construc-
tion, a brief description of each of the offices is given below:
A) Twelve-storey building with two basements and the main facades
oriented north-south. Solid brick external walls with 5 mm clear
glass and aluminium framed windows.
B) Three-storey building with solid brick external walls with 4 mm
clear glass and aluminium framed windows and light roofing.
C) Two-storey building with rendered block and white painted external
walls, front windows with a solar control reflective film and light
roofing.
D) Eight-storey building with a full smoky coloured glass façade and
natural granite tiles in some areas. It displays some aluminium sun
protection blades in the southeast corner.
E) and G) Less than five years old buildings with an exposed dark brick
facade and floor-to-ceiling height laminated windows, which cover
approximately 70% of its area. It features external dark-aluminium
solar protection elements.
F) Building with a double-skin main facade oriented to the west and
other facades built with rendered block with clear paint and 60% of
windows.
H) The oldest building in the whole sample, with a stone-tiled facade
and 4 mm clear glass windows covering 50% of its area.
2.2. Fieldwork measurements of the climatic variables
The climate data taken into account, as mentioned above, corre-
sponds to indoor and outdoor data from the studied offices. The indoor
conditions measured during the fieldwork were: air temperature (°C)
(dry-bulb temperature), relative humidity (%), air velocity (m/s) and
globe temperature (°C), with a 1-min frequency. A HOBO Data Logger
U12-012, a T-DCI-F900-SO air velocity sensor and a HEAT INDEX
WBGT METER DATALOGGER globe thermometer were used to collect
the data (Table 1). Specifically, the operative temperature was calcu-
lated with a formula based on the radiant temperature, obtained with
the globe temperature data. The equipment was located in each of the
eight offices, supported on a 1-m high base and at an average distance
239
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
from the studied work stations (Fig. 2). The outdoor conditions mea-
sured were: the outdoor air temperature (°C) and the outdoor relative
humidity (%), both with 1-h frequency. This data was obtained from the
Ministry of Environment, precisely from the Bogotá Air Quality Mon-
itoring Network (Red de Monitoreo de Calidad del Aire de Bogotá) [41].
Approximately 429,352 climatic records were collected in total.
Regarding the outdoor data, the meteorological station used was
located at El Centro de Alto Rendimiento (Sports centre within the Simón
Bolívar Metropolitan Park, Latitude 4°39′30.48″N, 74°5′2.28″W,
Altitude 2.557) [41]. The station is placed at 0 m above ground level, its
sample point is at 4.6 m height, and the wind height is approximately
10 m.
2.3. Questionnaires and scales used
At the beginning of each of the measurements and surveys, a general
presentation was made to the occupants who were going to be surveyed
and their approval was requested. The authorization of the offices'
managers was also needed. In exchange, they requested a report at the
end of the measurements on the environmental conditions and the
perceptions of the occupants regarding their workspace. The pre-
sentation served to explain the nature and the scope of the study, and
each of the questions (written in Spanish), as well as to answer any
queries regarding the procedure and equipment used.
Subsequent to this general presentation, the characterization of
occupants regarding their physical characteristics and historical
thermal sensation of the offices was made by means of an initial oc-
cupant's survey, where questions were asked related to their job per-
ception and other characteristics such as air movement, humidity and
temperature (Appendix 1). In this initial stage, basic questions were
also asked regarding age, gender, approximate weight, working sche-
dule, height, activities carried out during working hours, working
clothes, total time spent within the space and their length of residency
in Bogotá.
Additionally, a longitudinal survey was conducted using a follow-up
questionnaire (Appendixes 2) to record thermal sensation throughout
the monitored period (4 times a day for each person during one week).
This with the purpose of covering a greater number of offices around
the city. As suggested by ASHRAE (2010), four questions were asked
throughout the day to avoid data alterations due to the entrance and
exit of occupants from the space. This information was compiled by a
researcher who communicated with the occupants at the established
hours to register the votes.
A. García, et al. Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247

Table 1
Instrumentation details and measured variables.
Instrument Parameter Range Accuracy

HOBO Data Logger U12-012
T-DCI-F900-SO air velocity sensor
Heat index wbgt meter
dataloggeR globe
thermometer
Air temperature −20 to 70 °C (−4 to 158 °F) ± 0.35 °C from 0 to 50 °C ( ± 0.63 °F from 32 to 122 °F)
(°C)
Relative humidity 5–95% ± 2.5% accuracy from 10 to 90%, up to a maximum of ± 3.5%
(%) accuracy including hysteresis at 25 °C (77 °F); below 10% and
above 90% ± 5% typical accuracy.
Light intensity (lux) 1 to 3000 foot-candles (lumens/ft2) typical Precision designed for indoor measurement of relative light
range; the maximum value varied between 1500 levels
and 4500 foot-candles (lumens/ft2).
Air velocity (m/s) 0.15–10 m/s (30–1969 fpm) model “P″ than 10% accuracy or ± 0.05 m/s or 1% full scale accuracy
Globe temperature 0.00–59 °C (32.0–138 °F) ± 1 °C
(°C)

Fig. 2. Interior views of the studied offices.

72 occupants were surveyed, collecting 790 valid surveys, for a total
3,160 comfort votes. These values are very similar to other studies
[42–45].
In both questionnaires, the multiple-choice questions followed the
ASHRAE (2010) guidance. The records and votes taken into account,
with their respective scales, are presented as follows:
- The thermal perception vote was measured in both surveys (initial
and follow-up) with the Likert 7-point scale, which range is −3 to
+3 from cold to hot (the in-between options were: cool, slightly
cool, neutral, slightly warm, and warm).
- In both surveys, the thermal sensation was measured by the occu-
pant's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the working space on a
scale of 1–6 (the options were: very comfortable, comfortable,
slightly comfortable, slightly uncomfortable, uncomfortable and
very uncomfortable).
- The first survey recorded the occupant's perception regarding air
movement, humidity and air quality. For each variable, this was
measured with a 1 to 6 scale (the options ranged between very slow
to very high; very dry to very damp; and very bad to excellent).
- The thermal preference vote was registered in both surveys with a
scale of −2 to +2 (the options were: much cooler, a bit cooler, no
change, a bit warmer and much warmer).
- Finally, the thermal acceptability vote was recorded in both surveys
with the options: generally acceptable and generally unacceptable.
was acclimatised to the studied environment.
3.2. Estimation of clothing insulation and metabolic rate
Regarding clothing, it emerged that 100% of the surveyed occupants
wore trousers combined with a long-sleeve shirt, what according to
ASHRAE (2010) corresponds to a clo of 0.67. The main clothing ad-
justment for thermal control was to add one (clo = 0.85) or two
(clo = 1.2) additional garments (a jumper or a jacket). 31.0% of people
did not use any type of additional garment, 64.8% used one and 4.2%
used two of the mentioned garments. Taking this information into ac-
count and after having classified each one of the typical participant's
answers, a clothing level of 0.85clo was generalised. The clothing in-
sulation was estimated using the formula Icl_tot = ∑Iclu,I [5] where,
Icl_tot was the insulation of the entire ensemble and Iclu,i was the in-
sulation of the individual piece of garment. Using standard lists,
clothing insulation values were determined. Additionally, 100% of oc-
cupants said that they work on the computer throughout their day so a
metabolic rate of 1.1met, which is suggested in ASHRAE (2010) for
computer and office activities, was stipulated. These rates were used for
the PMV application.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Outdoor data

3. Distribution of the sample
3.1. Size, age and gender of the sample
72 people (46 women and 26 men) were surveyed in total. The ages
ranged between 20 and 60 years old, although the majority of the
sample (81.69%) focused on the range of 20–40 years old. The average
weight of the subjects was 66.8 Kg and the average height was 1.64 m.
The majority of the occupants surveyed (93.05%) reported to have lived
in Bogotá for more than ten years and to have worked in the same office
for an average of 1.79 years. Therefore, it was assumed that everyone
The outdoor climate data of Bogotá from February 19th to May
11th, 2018 is shown in Table 2 and the average day illustrated in Fig. 3.
The local climate, as predicted in the description of the study area, had
minimum monthly temperature variations with the average outdoor air
temperature remaining at 14.9 °C. The variations are present
throughout the day with a 12 °C average morning temperature, in-
creasing to its maximum point of 20.5 °C by midday. At night the
temperature drops between 14 and 10 °C, decreasing mainly at dawn.
On the other hand, the relative humidity shows an inverse beha-
viour. In contrast to the temperature, the relative humidity does not
present significant monthly variations (due to the common high levels

240
A. García, et al. Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247

Table 2
Indoor and outdoor climate data during the sample period.
Outdoor Indoor

Air temperature (°C) Relative Air temperature (°C) Relative Operative Air speed (m/s) Globe temperature Radiant
humidity (%) humidity (%) temperature (°C) (°C) temperature (°C)

Of. S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean

A 3,5 15,6 12,9 64,6 0,8 23,1 2,6 45,4 0,8 23,0 0,0 0,1 0,8 23,0 0,8 23,0
B 2,9 14,1 12,2 71,9 1,0 18,6 3,8 65,3 1,0 18,5 0,0 0,1 9,1 18,1 1,0 18,5
C 4,4 15,2 16,2 65,7 2,7 22,5 6,1 48,0 2,6 22,6 0,0 0,1 2,6 22,7 2,6 22,7
D 2,9 15,1 12,0 67,9 1,8 22,0 6,2 53,4 2,2 22,8 0,4 0,2 1,9 22,6 4,0 23,7
E 2,9 14,7 10,4 66,5 0,8 21,3 2,3 49,1 1,4 22,0 0,0 0,1 1,6 22,2 2,2 22,7
F 4,0 15,0 14,2 69,0 1,2 22,5 3,9 47,5 1,7 22,6 0,0 0,1 1,8 22,7 2,1 22,7
G 4,6 15,2 17,2 65,5 1,4 20,6 3,3 52,2 1,6 21,7 0,0 0,1 1,6 20,9 1,7 21,9
H 2,4 13,7 10,4 76,4 0,4 21,9 2,2 55,4 0,4 22,0 0,0 0,1 0,5 22,0 0,5 22,0

characteristic of this tropical zone [1]). The lowest RH values during an
average day are around 53% at midday, whilst the highest values are in
the morning and night periods reaching an average of 83%.
4.2. Indoor data
Table 2 shows the indoor climatic data of the variables that could
affect the thermal comfort within the eight studied offices, the table
presents the standard deviation and the average for each variable in
each office. In general terms, there was a significant difference between
the data of air temperature (9.4 °C difference in the maximum values)
and the mean radiant temperature (20.9 °C difference in the maximum
values) in the different offices analysed. Alternatively, low air velocities
(0.1 m/s on average) were noticed, which are below those expected by
ASHRAE (2010) for office typologies. However, these values are
common in the city of Bogotá, considering the outdoor climatic con-
ditions.
4.3. Outdoor vs. indoor data
Fig. 4 show the relationship between the outdoor and indoor en-
vironment regarding relative temperatures and humidity. The indoor
temperature is on average 6.7 °C higher than the outdoor temperature.
A significant relationship was evidenced (p= < 2.2e-16) between both,
but the coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.18) did not represent the
close relationship that was expected and that has been recorded in other
studies [28,46,47]. The same happened in relation to relative humidity,
although the coefficient R2 = 0.38, there is no evidence of a strong
relation between them either. In other words, in the records for the
present study in Bogotá there was no strong relationship found between
the indoor and outdoor data, in terms of temperature and relative hu-
midity. This may impact the significance when proposing an adaptive
comfort model that relates to these variables.
4.4. Perception and thermal sensation
Fig. 5 (graphs A and C), show the distribution of the thermal sen-
sation votes during the sampled period. In general terms, 88% of the
occupants perceived the space to be outside the critical conditions (−3
and 3) (Fig. 5, graph A) and 55% found it to be within the comfort
conditions (−1, 0 and 1). 88% claimed to be within the comfort range
(1, 2 and 3), being option 2: comfortable the most popular with 67%.
This shows that, during the sampled period and at four different times
of the day, most of the occupants felt comfortable. It was noticed that a
difference of more than 30% emerged between the results of perception
and sensation votes, which assessed the thermal sensation of the same
group of people.
The feeling of comfort was also evaluated in the initial ques-
tionnaire, which sought to record the sensation and general thermal
perception before the sampled period. Here, 66% of the occupants

Fig. 3. Outdoor data on an average day measured during the sample period.

241
A. García, et al.
Fig. 4. Relationship between outdoor and indoor air temperatures and relationship between outdoor and indoor relative humidity.
perceived the space to be outside the critical conditions and 83% de-
scribed it as a very comfortable, comfortable or slightly comfortable space.
4.5. Thermal preference
Fig. 5 (graph B), illustrates the distribution of the thermal pre-
ference votes during the sampled period. It shows that 58% of the oc-
cupants preferred that the thermal environment of their place of work
remain the same (no change); 19% preferred it to be a bit warmer and
18% preferred it to be a bit cooler. In other words, people preferred the
thermal environment to stay the same or change slightly. This coincides
with the initial survey, where 93% of occupants preferred their work-
spaces to remain the same or were only a little cooler or a little warmer.
4.6. Thermal acceptance
Fig. 5 (graph D), shows the distribution of the thermal acceptance
votes during the sampled period. 97% of the participants rated their
work spaces as generally acceptable, as opposed to 3% of participants
who evaluated their offices as generally unacceptable. This represents a
high thermal compliance of the occupants with their space, which was
Fig. 5. Distribution of perception, preference, sensation and thermal acceptance votes registered in the follow-up questionnaire. A) Thermal perception, B) Thermal
preference, C) Thermal sensation D) Thermal acceptance.
242
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
also recorded in the initial survey where 91% of votes described it as
generally acceptable.
As mentioned in the methodology section, the records from the
eight offices were analysed together as a group and also independently.
It was evidenced, that, in spite of the differences in the materiality,
orientation and/or distribution of the offices, the results in terms of
perception, preference, sensation and thermal acceptance maintain
proportionally the same behaviour. From this it can be inferred that the
explanation of the procedure, as well as the selection of the people
involved in the investigation, was correct.
4.7. Thermal perception votes and operative temperature
Each type of thermal perception vote (perception, preference, sen-
sation and acceptance) in each of the eight sampled offices were plotted
independently based on the operative temperature recorded at the
exact time of the answers.
In none of these exercises was it possible to find a response pattern
that could explain the relationship between votes and operative tem-
perature, because between the 18–29.5 °C operative temperature range
all types of votes were recorded. There is coincidence in the perception
A. García, et al.
Fig. 6. PMV calculations and thermal perception in relation to operative temperature registered in the follow-up questionnaire.
of the space as being comfortable, however, within this wide range of
temperatures.
This can explain the radical difference between the analysis of the
survey responses and the analysis with the PMV static model (Fig. 6).
According to the ASHRAE standard [5], with the increase or decrease of
the subjects’ temperature they begin to prefer warmer or cooler spaces
respectively. Based on the PMV model, for this case study it expected
that occupants would describe the environment as being slightly cool at
an average temperature of 18 °C, and that they would tend to prefer
temperatures around 23.01 °C. According to the PMV calculations
(made in the CBE thermal comfort tool [48]), for the average recorded
temperatures (17.9–29.0 °C), occupants would describe their environ-
ment between the slightly cool and slightly warm range in an ascending
and uniform manner according to the operative temperature [5].
However, it was proven that there is no relationship between the
thermal perception analysis obtained with the actual user votes and the
analysis with the PMV model. Therefore, perception cannot be esti-
mated using this model. The PMV model is linear (R2 = 0.89), unlike
the actual votes that present a dispersed behaviour (R2 = 0.05). The
average PMV was 0.00 and the average real perception vote was −0.6,
which shows an excessive prediction of the PMV model. Unlike the PMV
model, 27% of the occupants preferred the thermal environment to
remain the same in broad operative temperature ranges. Taking into
account the data of the present study, the PMV model could not be
applied for naturally ventilated offices located in cold tropical zones.
This underestimation of the PMV model in different contexts has
already been pointed out by other studies [11,49–51]. This is logical
since the PMV model was designed for the study of spaces with heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems [14].
Table 3
Results office (A-H) from the regression between comfort temperature based on thermal perception (−1,0,1) and outdoor data (air temperature, relative temperature
and a multivariate regression with air temperature and relative humidity). In grey, offices excluded.
243
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
5. Adaptive model
Given the uncertainty found by the acceptance of the environment
within wide ranges of operative temperature, it was decided to build an
adaptive model that would allow to define the comfort operative tem-
perature, based on the outdoor data. However, the low relation be-
tween outdoor and indoor climate data in the sampled offices (as pre-
sented in section 4.3) made this work more complex.
5.1. Climatic data and comfort
The first procedure carried out for the development of the model
was the analysis of a series of regressions between the outdoor data
(outdoor temperature and outdoor relative humidity) and the indoor
data associated with comfort, specifically for questions related to
thermal perception and sensation of the follow-up questionnaire. Where
it was found that although all the regressions were significant
(p < 0.05), the low coefficient of determination was not high enough
to provide a reliable model, despite the fact that the number of ob-
servations (n = 435–694) was over the amount suggested by J.F Nicol
et al. [40](n ≥ 300). The regressions were made with the total ob-
servations recorded from the eight offices. However, an independent
analysis of each of them was also carried out (Table 3), where it was
found that in two offices (E and F) there were lower relations with
respect to outdoor data. Therefore, these two offices were excluded
from the regressions used to develop the model.
From this procedure, it was possible to generate a model for the six
offices analysed, which resulted from the regression between the out-
door air temperature (To) and the comfort operative temperature (Tc)
A. García, et al. Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247

Fig. 8. Comfort votes compared to the 80% and 90% acceptability range of the
adaptive model in the ASHRAE Standard 55.

proposed by the ASHRAE Standard 55 (Fig. 8). This figure shows a

Fig. 7. Relationship between outdoor temperatures and comfort operative
temperatures.
according to thermal perception for the answers −1, 0 and 1 (Fig. 7).
The proposed model corresponds to the equation:
Tc = 16.00 + 0.41To, n = 642, R2 = 0.41
dispersion in the comfort operative temperatures for the same outdoor
temperature. In some cases, such operative temperatures are outside
the 80% acceptability range and the 90% acceptability range. Ad-
ditionally, it is observed that there is no definite trend, nor a linearity
with respect to the ranges established by the ASHRAE Standard 55. For
this reason, it was decided to use the Griffiths method [35].
(1)

Therefore, for an average 14.9 °C outdoor temperature (average 7. Comfort temperature

during the sampled period), the comfort operative temperature would
be 22.13 °C, with a range of comfort of 19,63 °C to 24,63 °C for a 90% of
acceptability and 18,63 °C to 25,63 °C for an 80% of acceptability, both
ranges calculated as an extension of the neutral or comfort temperature
( ± 2.5 °C for 90% of thermal acceptability and ± 3.5 °C for 80% of
thermal acceptability).
6. Comparison with other models
It was decided to test some existing adaptive models for naturally
ventilated buildings and compare the results with the proposed model
(Table 4), considering a 90% and 80% ranges of acceptability for each
one.
As it can be seen in Table 4, the ASHRAE adaptive model is the most
suited to the comfort operative temperature and acceptability ranges
calculated with the proposed model in this study. However, a higher
coefficient of determination would be expected to validate the applic-
ability of this model and its use for Bogotá. Moreover, it has been de-
monstrated that this model generates an overestimation of the comfort
conditions and also known adaptive capabilities of users, mainly in
tropical climates. Proof of this is the ratio of the operative temperatures
votes that are within the comfort zone in relation to the outdoor tem-
perature and the comfort ranges for 80% and 90% of acceptability
The Griffiths’ method is essentially the relationship between com-
fort and temperature assuming no adaptation was made [57]. This
method is especially useful when the variation of temperature during
the fieldwork is small and the volume of data may not provide a reliable
regression to predict the comfort temperature, especially when the
average comfort vote is very different from neutrality [25], as is the
case in this sample. Therefore, to define the comfort temperature in
naturally ventilated offices in Bogotá, the following formula was used;
T comf = Top tsv /G (2)
Where Tcomf is the comfort temperature (°C), Top is the indoor op-
erative temperature, tsv is the thermal sensation vote and G is the
Griffith's constant or the Griffith's slope [57]. The constant G that was
used was 0.50, taking into account results from different articles
[20,28,58–60].
The comfort temperature for the total of the offices was 23.47 °C,
with an acceptability of 90% in the range of 20.97–25.97 °C and 80% in
the range of 19.97–26.97 °C. This is compatible with the average
comfort temperature given by the real votes, which was 23.18 °C. It is
worth mentioning that this calculation was made only with the votes
from −1 to 1 since when integrating all the data, low relations were
obtained. It is believed that this was the case due to the high dispersion

Table 4
Adaptive models for naturally ventilated buildings compared to the proposed model.
Model Equation Tn or Tc Acceptability range 90% Acceptability range 80%

Min Max Min Max

Humphreys [52] Tn = 11.9 + 0.534To 19.8 17.3 22.3 16.3 23.3

Auliciems [52] Tn = 9.22 + 0.48Ta +0.14To 21.6 19.1 24.1 18.1 25.1
ASHRAE [5] Tn = 17.8 + 0.31To 22,4 19.9 24.9 18.9 25.9
Pakistan [53] Tc = 18.5 + 0.36Toh 23.2 20.7 25.7 19.7 26.7
Shangai [54] Tn = 15.12 + 0.42To 21.3 18.8 23.8 17.8 24.8
Harbin [55] Tn = 11.80 + 0.48To 19.0 16,.5 21.5 15.5 22.5
SCAT [56] Tc = 14.1 + 0.20To_max + 0.35 To_min 20.6 18.1 23.1 17.1 24.1
Proposed model Tc = 16.00 + 0.41To 22.1 19.6 24.6 18.6 25.6

Tn = Neutral temperature Tc= Comfort temperature To = Operative temperature.

244
A. García, et al.
of the data. Therefore, it can be said that the temperature values with
the Griffiths’ method are closer to the expected thermal sensation for
this study, contrary to the ASHRAE's adaptive model, which proposes
lower temperature ranges in this case.
Bogota is a city with minimal variations in air temperature
throughout the year, consequently, Griffiths' comfort range could be a
successful tool to predict the desirable conditions for naturally venti-
lated offices located in this city. Compared with the ranges suggested by
the Colombian guidelines (21 - 25 °C), this result is within the expected
range, which means that the policy in Colombia could be, according to
this study and the Griffiths’ method, adjusted to the expected conditions
of Bogotá.
It is worth mentioning that this identified temperature range is
compatible with other models proposed in Bogota and South America,
especially in Brazil and Mexico. In Bogotá, the comfort temperature
that was proposed (based in thermal sensation votes and in thermal
preference models) was 23,0 and 23,5 °C [39]. Very similar to that
found in Brazil which showed temperatures between 23.0 and 24.3° or
21,08 °C (when the external data of Bogotá was applied) [61]. Including
other studies in Mexico where the proposed temperature was from 24.7
Fig. 9. Effects of indoor variables on the comfort temperature A) Relative humidity B) Air speed, C) Radiant temperature D) Air temperature E) Luminosity.
245
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
to 26.9 °C [62], all previous within the ranges proposed and found in
the Griffiths method. However, it is important to take into account the
radical differences between climates in Colombia, making the existing
guidelines an imprecise tool when defining comfort temperatures for
the whole country.
8. Effects of indoor variables on the comfort temperature
The comfort temperature was analysed with respect to the indoor
variables measured in each of the buildings (indoor relative humidity,
air velocity, radiant temperature, air temperature, and luminosity)
(Fig. 9). The metabolic rate and clothing insulation variables were ex-
cluded since they are necessary only for the PMV analysis [40]. In this
study, the highest ratio found was between the indoor relative humidity
values and comfort temperature (R2 = 0.62), as also shown by M.
Vellei et al. [63] In the present study it was noticed that as the indoor
relative humidity increases, the operative comfort temperature de-
creases. Indoor relative humidity values between 29% and 70% were
found for the comfort operative temperature.
Conversely, no relationship was found between the air temperature
A. García, et al.
and the comfort operative temperature (R2 = 0.02) in this study, with a
range of 0,05–0,15 m/s. This can be explained by the low values of
airspeed (compared with the minimum levels of 0.18 and 0.25 m/s
proposed by ASHRAE [5] registered inside the analysed spaces. This
behaviour could indicate that the occupants did not operate the win-
dows during the measurements because under these conditions they
were in thermal comfort, even when the air quality was possibly poor.
This considering that the opening of windows affects the indoor air
temperature and thus thermal comfort, especially in cities like Bogotá
where the outside air temperature is below the indoor temperature.
Finally, for this study, the relationship between thermal comfort and
the radiant temperature was R2 = 0.46, similar to air temperature
(R2 = 0.45), confirming their strong impact on thermal comfort
ASHRAE [5]. For the operative comfort temperature data, air tem-
perature values between 17.8 and 26.7 °C and 17.9–31.3 °C were found
for radiant temperature. On the contrary, the behaviour of the lumin-
osity showed no relationship with comfort temperature with a range
between 73 and 1,951 lux.
9. Conclusions
A thermal comfort study was carried out in Bogotá, Colombia from
February 19th to May 11th, 2018 within eight naturally ventilated of-
fices. For this purpose, 72 people were surveyed and their subjective
sensation, preference and thermal acceptance votes were registered via
internationally used questionnaires. Indoor and outdoor climatic vari-
ables were measured simultaneously to compare them with the occu-
pant's responses. The results were analysed and an adaptive model was
proposed, which was compared with other international models. The
comfort temperature was calculated using the Griffiths’ method and the
following was concluded:
- No strong relationship was found in the collected data between the
indoor and outdoor records in terms of temperature for Bogotá
(R2 = 0,189).
- Based on the high acceptability of their environment manifested by
the participants, the naturally ventilated offices located in Bogotá
provide their occupants with thermally acceptable conditions, re-
gardless of their materiality, orientation, and location.
- The PMV model does not predict the thermal sensation of the oc-
cupants of naturally ventilated buildings, located in Bogotá.
- The comfort operative temperature (with the −1, 0 and 1 Likert
scale votes) as a function of the outside temperature represents the
best model to predict the comfort conditions in the offices analysed
(Tc = 16.002 + 0.4115To). Contrary to what was expected, the
adaptive model in the ASHRAE Standard 55 that most closely
matches the proposed model.
- The adaptive model in the ASHRAE Standard 55 and the proposed
model in this study (Tc = 16.002 + 0.4115To) both suggest ranges
of comfort temperatures below the thermal sensation votes regis-
tered as comfortable in the surveys. In contrast, the Griffiths' method
is more compatible with the average comfort temperatures of the
actual votes.
- According to the Griffiths' method, the neutral comfort temperature
in Bogotá for naturally ventilated buildings is 23.47 °C.
- This study confirms and supports the results of studies carried out in
Bogotá and, in this way, promotes the continuation of the search for
comfort temperatures in these areas.
- In regards to the relationship between comfort temperature and
indoor variables, the relative humidity (R2 = 0.62), the radiant
temperature (R2 = 0.46), and the air temperature (R2 = 0.45) dis-
played a relation. The relative humidity was the one influencing the
perception of comfort the most. Therefore, it is recommended to
analyse the possibility of an integrated model with established
ranges of relative humidity, especially when there is a relation in the
outdoor and indoor relative humidity data (R2 = 0,387) Contrary to
246
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
what was expected, the airspeed did not have an impact on the
thermal comfort evaluated (R2 = 0.02).
- This study invites future research on adaptive thermal comfort in
cold tropical zones, such as those that exist in developed countries.
This taking into account the non-standard conditions found in the
present study, which reaffirm the differences found in the tropics
against other climatic zones. These conditions make it difficult to
establish concrete conclusions and an ultimate description of the
context present in cities such as Bogotá. The construction of a da-
tabase, which allows clear and powerful tools to be developed not
only in Bogotá but also at the regional level, is believed to be a
priority.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on research conducted to obtain a PhD degree
in Construction and Technology in Architecture from The School of
Architecture at The Polytechnic University of Madrid (Madrid, Spain).
The authors would like to thank the participants of this study and their
respective companies for their support during the fieldwork.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.013.
References
[1] Instituto de Hidrología Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Estudio de la
caracterización climática en Bogotá y cuenca alta del Río Tunjuelo, (2004).
[2] Instituto de Hidrología Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Reporte Estación
Meteorológica Aeropuerto El Dorado, (2018).
[3] Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística, Información Estadística -
Colombia proyecciones nacionales y departamentales de poblacion 2005-2020,
(2010).
[4] Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística, Boletín Técnico - Censo
Edificaciones -CEED, (2017).
[5] ASHRAE, ASHRAE STANDARD Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy, (2010).
[6] J.C. Soares Gonçalves, J.M. Fernández, The environmental design of working spaces
in equatorial highlands zones: the case of Bogotá, Buildings 5 (4) (2015)
1105–1130.
[7] C.I. Pardo Martínez, Energy and sustainable development in cities: a case study of
Bogotá, Energy 92 (3) (2015) 612–621.
[8] Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística, Boletín Técnico - Cuenta
ambiental y económica de energía y de emisiones al aire, Flujos físicos 2014 – 2015,
(2017).
[9] Ministerio de Vivienda Ciudad y Territorio, Resolución 549 del 10 de julio del año
2015, [Online]. Available: http://www.minvivienda.gov.co/ResolucionesVivienda/
0549-2015.pdf.
[10] L. Yang, H. Yan, J.C. Lam, Thermal comfort and building energy consumption
implications - a review, Appl. Energy 115 (2014) 164–173.
[11] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: revi-
sions to ASHRAE Standard 55, Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002) 549–561.
[12] R. de Dear, G.S. Brager, The adaptive model of thermal comfort and energy con-
servation in the built environment, Int. J. Biometeorol. 45 (2) (2001) 100–108.
[13] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort, Analysis and Applications in Environmental
Engineering vol 92, Danish Tech. Press, 1970 3.
[14] J. Van Hoof, Forty years of Fanger's model of thermal comfort: comfort for all?
Indoor Air 18 (3) (2008) 182–201.
[15] C. Molina, L. Veas, Evaluación del confort térmico en recintos de 10 edificios
públicos de Chile en invierno, Rev. la Construcción 11 (2) (2012) 27–38.
[16] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference, ASHRAE Transact. 104 (1a) (1998) 145–167.
[17] B.W. Olesen, Thermal comfort requirements for floors occupied by people with bare
feet, ASHRAE Transact. 83 (2) (1977) 41–57.
[18] D.A. McIntyre, Preferred air speeds for comfort in warm conditions, ASHRAE
Transact. 84 (2) (1978) 264–277.
[19] M. L, S. Alameida, C. Pina Santos, M. Rebelo, M. Correia Guedes, Adaptive thermal
comfort for buildings in Portugal based on occupants' thermal perception,
PLEA2009 - 26th Conf. Passiv. Low Energy Archit, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[20] S.A. Damiati, S.A. Zaki, H.B. Rijal, S. Wonorahardjo, Field study on adaptive
thermal comfort in offi ce buildings in Malaysia , Indonesia , Singapore , and Japan
during hot and humid season, Build. Environ. 109 (2016) 208–223.
[21] J.F. Nicol, “Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hot–humid tropics, Energy
Build. 36 (7) (2004) 628–637.
[22] C.G. Webb, An analysis of some observations of thermal comfort in an equatorial
A. García, et al.
climate, Br. J. Ind. Med. 16 (4) (1959) 297–310.
[23] M.R. Sharma, S. Ali, “Tropical Summer Index—a study of thermal comfort in Indian
subjects, Build. Environ. 21 (1) (1986) 11–24.
[24] J.F. Busch, A tale of two populations: thermal comfort in air-conditioned and
naturally ventilated offices in Thailand, Energy Build. 18 (3–4) (1992) 235–249.
[25] J.F. Nicol, M. Humphreys, S. Roaf, Standards for Thermal Comfort, (1995).
[26] H.B. Rijal, M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Towards an adaptive model for thermal
comfort in Japanese offices, Build. Res. Inf. 45 (7) (2017) 717–729.
[27] G.S. Brager, R.J. de Dear, “Thermal adaptation in the built environment : a litera-
ture review, Energy Build. 27 (1) (1998) 83–96.
[28] S. Thapa, A.K. Bansal, G.K. Panda, “Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated office
buildings in cold and cloudy climate of Darjeeling , India – an adaptive approach,
Energy Build. 160 (2018) 44–60.
[29] Ministerio de Vivienda Ciudad y Territorio, Anexo 1 - Guía de construcción sos-
tenible para el ahorro de agua y energía en edifcaciones, (2013).
[30] Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas y Certificación, Condiciones Ambientales
Térmicas de Inmuebles para Personas - NTC 5316, (2004).
[31] E. Arens, H. Zhang, C. Huizenga, Partial- and whole-body thermal sensation and
comfort, part I: uniform environmental conditions, J. Therm. Biol. 31 (1–2) (2006)
60–66.
[32] A. Auliciems, Towards a psycho-physiological model of thermal perception, Dep.
Geogr. Univ. Queensl. 25 (2) (1981) 109–122.
[33] A.P. Gagge, Y. Nishi, Effective temperature scale useful for hypo and hyperbaric
environments, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 48 (1977) 97–107.
[34] B. Givoni, Estimation of the Effect of Climate on Man-Development of a New
Thermal Index, (1963).
[35] I. Griffiths, Thermal comfort studies in buildings with passive solar features, Rep.
Comm. Eur. Commun. ENS35 090 (1990).
[36] M.A. Humphreys, Comfortable Indoor Temperatures Related to the Outdoor Air
Temperature, Build. Res. Establ. (Note PD117/76) U.K. Dept. Environ., 1976.
[37] J.F. Nicol, S. Roaf, Pioneering new indoor temperature standards: the Pakistan
project, Energy Build. 23 (3) (1996) 169–174.
[38] V. Olgyay, Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism
vol 12, Van Nostrand Reihold, 1963, pp. 75–77 1.
[39] S. Natarajan, J. Rodriguez, M. Vellei, A field study of indoor thermal comfort in the
subtropical highland climate of Bogota , Colombia, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 237–246.
[40] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, S. Roaf, Adaptive Thermal Comfort - Principles and
Practice, (2012).
[41] Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Red de Monitoreo de Calidad del Aire de Bogotá,
(2018).
[42] X. Chengcheng, L. Shuhong, Z. Xiaosong, S. Suola, Thermal comfort and thermal
adaptive behaviours in traditional dwellings: a case study in Nanjing, China, Build.
Environ. 142 (2018) 153–170.
[43] M.S. Mustapa, S.A. Zaki, H.B. Rijal, A. Hagishima, M. Sukri, M. Ali, Thermal
comfort and occupant adaptive behaviour in Japanese university buildings with
free running and cooling mode offices during summer, Build. Environ. 105 (2016)
332–342.
[44] M.K. Singh, S. Mahapatra, S.K. Atreya, Thermal performance study and evaluation
of comfort temperatures in vernacular buildings of North-East India, Build. Environ.
247
Building and Environment 158 (2019) 237–247
45 (2) (2010) 320–329.
[45] M.K. Singh, S. Mahapatra, J. Teller, Development of thermal comfort models for
various climatic zones of North-East India, Sustain. Cities Soc. 14 (2015) 133–145.
[46] R. KC, H.B. Rijal, M. Shukuya, K. Yoshida, “An in-situ study on occupants' behaviors
for adaptive thermal comfort in a Japanese HEMS condominium, J. Build. Eng. 19
(2018) 402–411.
[47] M. Indraganti, R. Ooka, H.B. Rijal, Field investigation of comfort temperature in
Indian office buildings: a case of Chennai and Hyderabad, Build. Environ. 65 (2013)
195–214.
[48] T. Hoyt, S. Schiavon, A. Piccioli, T. Cheung, D. Moon, K. Steinfeld, CBE Thermal
Comfort Tool, Center for the Built Environment, University of California Berkeley,
2017 [Online]. Available: http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/ , Accessed date: 11
February 2018.
[49] M. Indraganti, R. Ooka, H.B. Rijal, G.S. Brager, Adaptive model of thermal comfort
for offices in hot and humid climates of India, Build. Environ. 74 (2014) 39–53.
[50] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes
in every-day thermal environments, Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002) 667–684.
[51] M. Indraganti, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated apartments in summer:
findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India, Appl. Energy 87 (3) (2010)
866–883.
[52] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal
comfort, ASHRAE Transact. 104 (1) (1998) 991–1004.
[53] J.F. Nicol, I.A. Raja, A. Allaudin, G.N. Jamy, Climatic variations in comfortable
temperatures: the Pakistan projects, Energy Build. 30 (3) (1999) 261–279.
[54] X.J. Ye, Z.P. Zhou, Z.W. Lian, H.M. Liu, C.Z. Li, Y.M. Liu, Field study of a thermal
environment and adaptive model in Shanghai, Indoor Air 16 (4) (2006) 320–326.
[55] Z. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Zhao, Y. He, Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated re-
sidential buildings in Harbin, Energy Build. 42 (12) (2010) 2406–2415.
[56] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, S. Roaf, Adaptive Thermal Comfort - Foundations and
Analysis, (2016).
[57] A. Jindal, Thermal comfort study in naturally ventilated school classrooms in
composite climate of India, Build. Environ. 142 (2018) 34–46.
[58] M. Indraganti, R. Ooka, H.B. Rijal, “Thermal comfort in offices in summer: findings
from a field study under the ‘setsuden’ conditions in Tokyo, Japan, Build. Environ.
61 (2013) 114–132.
[59] S. Thapa, A.K. Bansal, G.K. Panda, M. Indraganti, “Adaptive thermal comfort in the
different buildings of Darjeeling Hills in eastern India –Effect of difference in ele-
vation, Energy Build. 173 (2018) 649–677.
[60] M.A. Humphreys, H.B. Rijal, J.F. Nicol, Updating the adaptive relation between
climate and comfort indoors; new insights and an extended database, Build.
Environ. 63 (2013) 40–55.
[61] J. Maykot Kuntz, R. Forgiarini Rupp, E. Ghisi, Assessment of gender on require-
ments for thermal comfort in office buildings located in the Brazilian humid sub-
tropical climate, Energy Build. 158 (1) (2018) 1170–1183.
[62] R. Forgiarini Rupp, R. de Dear, E. Ghisi, Field study of mixed-mode office buildings
in Southern Brazil using an adaptive thermal comfort framework, Energy Build. 158
(1) (2018) 1475–1486.
[63] M. Vellei, M. Herrera, D. Fosas, S. Natarajan, The influence of relative humidity on
adaptive thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 124 (1) (2017) 171–185.