Proceedings of 7th Windsor Conference: The changing context of comfort in an unpredictable world Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 12-15

April 2012. London: Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, http://nceub.org.uk

Significance of air movement for thermal comfort in warm climates: A discussion in Indian context
Madhavi Indraganti 1,*, Ryozo Ooka1, Hom B Rijal2
1 2 *

Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Japan Tokyo City University, Japan Corresponding Author: maindraganti@gmail.com

Abstract Thermal comfort research is yet to gain momentum in India. Indian designers follow verbatim the ASHRAE standard when designing the indoor environments. This only leads to over design/ energy wastage and in environments inappropriate to the local climates and customs. Our earlier study in 2008 highlighted the wide gulf between the actual comfort temperature recorded on field and that specified in the National Building Code- 2005. Therefore, comfort studies are exigent in India. Addressing this need, the authors are conducting a field study in warm-humid and composite climates of India from January 2012. The current paper highlights the significance of air movement for comfort at elevated temperatures as observed in our Hyderabad study. Subjects using fans had higher comfort temperature than those without. The occupants successfully achieved higher air velocities through the use of various personal environmental controls in order to comfortably offset the discomfort during the warm-humid months. Keywords Comfort temperature; Air movement; Humidity; Thermal Comfort research in India; Griffiths Method Introduction Thermal comfort research is mainly concentrated in the west and in some parts of Asia and Africa. This is perhaps one of the reasons why thermal comfort standards are not defined yet in India. In the absence of comfort standards and very little first- hand field work (Sharma and Ali, 1986, Indraganti, 2010a), the tendency is to follow the comfort standards as described in ASHRAE Std-55 (2005) verbatim. However, the base cases used in the above standard are predominantly based on western climates and do not necessarily represent the wide ranging tropical climates in India. This inappropriate standard neither matches the social attitudes nor cultural variety found in Indian indoor environments. It is thus leading to over specification of air conditioning systems and an enormous energy misuse. On the contrary, several studies in the warmer climates have shown that increased air movement can comfortably offset thermal discomfort at high indoor temperatures without compromising the overall acceptability of the environment (Mallick 1996, Nicol 2004, Brager 2000). The present paper discusses the importance of air movement in Indian context, referring to literature on this, our earlier (Indraganti, 2010a) and present studies in India.

Ergonomics of thermal comfort Thermal comfort is a six- dimensional topological solid, having at least six parameters that give dimensions to any unique thermal condition. Two of these, activity and clothing are specific to an individual while the other four are the properties of the environment itself air temperature, humidity air velocity and radiation. Under isothermal and steady state conditions, the heat balance of the body can be defined by these vital six variables. While there are several other minor parameters like health, light etc. which also influence thermal comfort, Fanger (1972) clarifies that comfort can be achieved by many different combinations of the above variables. The effect of any of these factors should not be considered independently as the effect of each of them depends on the level and conditions of the other factors, and also by the use of many fundamentally different technical systems (both passive and active). The effect of humidity and air velocity shall be discussed in detail as under. Humidity While conductive heat gain is affected by the air and skin temperature difference, the rate of heat exchange depends on the air velocity and the clothing. Although humidity of air does not directly affect the heat load operating on the body, it determines the evaporative capacity of air and hence the cooling efficiency of sweating. In extremely hot conditions the humidity level determines the limits of endurance time by restricting the total evaporation (Givoni, 1969). Markus and Morris (1980, pp 59) add to this bio physical phenomena that, evaporation is critical to heat loss from the body at high temperatures (above skin temperature), and high humidity at this level impedes the rate of evaporation. Evaporative cooling was exploited in many different ways both indoors and outdoors in several cultures, since antiquity, for ex. pools in open courts and wind towers with water sprays or pots in warm climates. There is no evidence that extreme humidities are undesirable, from thermal comfort stand point. However, it leads to unwanted side effects, such as wettedness sensation at high humidity (June and July months in Hyderabad) and dehydration of mucous membranes at low humidity (April and May). Maroof and Jones (2009) from their Malaysian Mosque study point that humidity had an overarching influence on thermal comfort than temperature, and that 30C was tolerable, with even a minor increase in the humidity adversely effecting the comfort than temperature. Literature indicates that, relative humidity as low as 9 % is judged comfortable over long periods of time. However, an acceptable range extends from 30 % to 65 %, with the optimum at about 50 %. High relative humidity, together with high air temperature, increases heat stress because the body cannot be cooled by evaporation. Air velocity Air velocity (VA) has little effect on evaporation at low humidity, as it takes place readily. However it is of great importance in hot- dry conditions in affecting the convection transfer. Though its effect is limited at high humidity, it is vital, as the atmospheres ability to absorb moisture is limited. At increased air velocities, most people remain comfortable even at higher relative humidity. Nicol (1993) reports that, the effect of air movement is generally considered to be roughly proportional to the square root of the air velocity. He has identified in his 2

Baghdad and Roorkie studies (Nicol, 1974) that there is little difference in the comfort vote with VA in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 (m/s) and when VA exceeds 1.0, i.e., the major effect on comfort is observed than when VA exceeded 0.5. He has also noted that air movement has reduced discomfort from heat at temperatures above 31 C; at temperature exceeding 40 C discomfort from heat is experienced whatever the air velocity. The ISO - 7730 recommends that the mean indoor air velocity should be less than 0.25 m/s for moderate thermal environments with light, mainly sedentary activity during cooling season, and in winter it should be less than 0.15 m/s. It is worth noting that acclimatised populations in warm humid climates report comfort even at air velocities above 1.5 m/s, when air temperature is well above the skin temperature and humidity is high (Krishnan, 2001). Nicol (1974) has similar findings to present; in the range of 32- 40 C, moderate air movement (VA > 0.25 m/s) 1 reduced both thermal discomfort and skin moisture in hot climates2. However, air velocities above 2 m/s are undesirable for prolonged periods because of other inconveniences, (papers flying off, window shutters fluttering etc.). Thus, comfort can be achieved over a much wider range of conditions than present standards recognize, necessitating the need for less conservative comfort standards. Role of clothing in warm climates While buildings are our third skin, clothing forms the second skin. Clothing and buildings are similar in that, both use passive devices to control natural flows of heat, air, and moisture vapor for the increased comfort of the wearer or occupant- Olgyay. As Olgyay (1963) says, clothing forms a barrier to the convective and radiant heat transfer between the body and the environment, as it interferes with the process of sweat evaporation. It reduces the bodys sensitivity to variations in air temperature and velocity, forming a protective layer. At air temperatures below 35 C the effect of clothing is always to reduce the dry heat loss from the body, producing a heating effect. At air temperature above 35 C (the case in Hyderabad Summer) the effect of clothing is quite complicated. Clothing reduces the dry heat gain from the environment on one hand; it increases the humidity and reduces the air velocity over the skin on the other hand. It results in a reduction of the cooling obtained from sweat evaporation. In this case the evaporation takes place mostly from the clothing and not from the skin, reducing the cooling efficiency of evaporation. The net resultant evaporative cooling depends on the metabolic rate, humidity and air motion (Givoni, 1969). Significance of Air Movement and Ventilation in warm environments Areas with poor thermal comfort conditions are mainly due to the poor natural ventilation (Wang and Wang, 2005). Both natural and mechanical ventilation serve the dual purpose of eliminating indoor surplus heat and contaminants in time. In fact, air movement is the only way to achieve physiological comfort at high temperatures, as it affects both evaporative and convective heat losses from the human body. Air exchange efficiency and ventilation efficiency can both reflect the capacity for eliminating indoor contaminants of ventilation system (Su et al. 2009). Holm and
1 2

These can be easily achieved with the use of a ceiling fan. The humidity is too low to affect the sensation of warmth.

Engelbrecht (2005) maintain that air movement at a temperature below 37 C cools the body, while heating it at an air temperature above 37 C. The frequency distribution of wind velocity in natural ventilation is skew, and people enjoy the fluctuations and remain comfortable, while that of mechanical ventilation system is normal and has an unfavourable effect on thermal comfort. It is well known that the fluctuation of natural wind can make people more comfortable3 and closer to nature. Furthermore, the airflow of natural ventilation moves at a low speed for long time which can reduce the feeling of tiredness. The larger turbulence intensity of natural wind is also believed to enhance the feeling of comfort, for it intensifies the heat convection between people and the environment. Therefore, natural ventilation is better than mechanical ventilation on the whole (Su et al. 2009). ASHRAE (Std-55, 2004) indicates that acceptable indoor air speed in warm climates should range from 0.2 to 1.50 m/s; yet 0.2 m/s for air conditioned environments. These ranges specified by ASHRAE do not explicitly address air movement acceptability, but focus mainly on overall thermal sensation and comfort. Zain et al. (2007)4 find that in warm humid climes an increase in air movement from 0.0 m/s to 0.7 m/s has substantially increased the PPS from 44% to 100% at temperatures around 28.69 C. Maarof and Jones (2009) point out that at high temperature (>30 C) and high humidity (>70%), continuous air moment is important, rather than spasms of air drafts. While investigating the relation between air movement acceptability and thermal comfort inside buildings, Cndido et al., (2010) 5 have found that, at operative temperatures above 24 C, building occupants preferred mean air speeds up to 1 m/s. It has also been observed that complaints of draft did not occur in significant numbers until air speeds exceeded 1 m/s; and natural ventilation combined with solar protection, is the most efficient building design strategy to achieve thermal comfort without (Stein and Reynolds, 2000, p. 57) resorting to mechanical cooling in warm humid climes. Similarly, Cheng and Ng (2006) reported that, when airspeed was increased to about 1.5 m/s, the upper comfort temperature limit further moved up by 1.5 degC to about 33.5 C and the predicted comfort range far above the maximum outdoor air temperature. This study suggested that, indoor natural ventilation of airspeeds up to 1.0 - 1.5 m/s is likely to be satisfying the thermal comfort requirement of 80% of the occupants in hot summer period. Interestingly, Heidari (2008) found increased air movement above 37 C to be counterproductive, resulting in heating sensation. Brager et al. (2004), report from their field study of NV office buildings that peoples preferences for higher air movement have increased with increase in thermal sensation. They also show that people consciously recognize air movement as having a direct impact on their thermal comfort, and that their air movement preferences are for a change of air movement as needed to return to comfort quickly, especially in warm humid climates (Feriadi et al., 2004).
It well accords with the 1/f rhythm of body also Thermal comfort field study of residential environments in Malaysia 5 Studied the effects of natural ventilation on thermal comfort and air movement acceptability of a large number of university students inside naturally ventilated buildings in Brazilian hot humid zone
4 3

Perception of Air Movement It is based on several parameters such as air velocity, air velocity fluctuations, air temperature, and personal factors such as overall thermal sensation, clothing insulation and physical activity level (metabolic rate) (Toftum, 2004). Even for the same individual, sensitivity to air movement may change from day to day as a result of, e.g., different levels of fatigue. Draught is defined as an unwanted, local cooling of the body caused by air movement. Toftum (2004) reports that, at temperatures up to 22-23 C, at sedentary activity and with occupants feeling neutral or cooler, there is a risk of air movement being perceived as unacceptable, even at low velocities. Supplementing this, he points that, a cool overall thermal sensation negatively influences the subjective perception of air movement. When occupants feel warmer than neutral, at temperatures above 23 C or at raised activity levels, humans generally do not feel draught at air velocities typical for indoor environments (up to around 0.4m/s). In the higher temperature range, very high air velocities up to around 1.6m/s have been found to be acceptable at air temperatures around 30C. However, at such high air velocities, the pressure on the skin and the general disturbance induced by the air movement may cause the air movement to be undesirable (Toftum, 2004). Cena and de Dear (1999) have observed in their Karlgoorlie study that 40% of the occupants who preferred higher temperatures also asked for more air movement regardless of the fact that this would make them feel even cooler. This may indicate that field study respondents find it difficult to balance and express their thermal preferences. Thus, in field settings, the interaction between draught and thermal sensation is not as clear as in the laboratory studies, but a warmer thermal sensation results in a preference for higher air velocities, as also found in other studies (Toftum 2004). While Cena and de Dear (1999) point out the incongruence between draught and thermal sensation in a field study, and recommend a climate chamber for better results, Toftum (2002) finds that climate chamber studies for activity and air movement interaction do not yield realistic results. He notes that subjects in real environments are exposed to interrupted exposure to air movement and non-sedentary tasks without any stabilization of metabolic rate. These occupants activity level is higher than the level corresponding to stationary, seated work in a climate chamber. Methods The hot- humid climate and the composite climate (experienced in Chennai and Hyderabad respectively) represent about 80% of the geographic area in India. The authors are conducting a thermal comfort research in offices in these climates after Indraganti (2010b) has identified the vital absence of thermal comfort field work in India. Indragantis (2010a) residential buildings field study was conducted in Hyderabad (1727 N, 78 28 E). This study involved over 100 occupants of naturally ventilated (NV) apartment buildings in summer, monsoon and post-monsoon period. Hand-held digital instruments were used to measure the environmental variables while the questionnaires recorded clothing, activity, sensation, preference and adaptation in both longitudinal and transverse surveys, yielding about 4000 data sets. Table 1 presents the scales used in this study. 5

Methodology adapted for further studies in India The hot humid climate and the composite climate (experienced in Chennai and Hyderabad respectively) represent about 80% of the geographic area in India. The authors are conducting a thermal comfort research in offices in these climates after Indraganti (2010a) identified the vital absence of thermal comfort field work in India. About 20 office buildings are selected for yearlong comfort studies in two Indian cities (Chennai and Hyderabad) from January 20122012 January 2013. Most of these buildings have air conditioning, onditioning, although its use is limited to the hot periods in majority of them. The survey is planned in two levels: transverse and longitudinal. While the former is done once a month in all the offices involving a large subject sample, the latter is conducted ucted throughout the year and is limited to about half of the total buildings and a limited number of occupants in each of these buildings. All the four environmental variables, (viz: temperature, humidity, air speed and globe temperature) coupled with CO2 CO2 levels, clothing, metabolic activity, and adaptation are recorded through field measurements and data loggers following standard Class I I protocols. We expect to analyse the change in comfort vote in conjunction with the air/ globe temperature, humidity, air movement and adaptation, both environmental and behavioural. Results Outdoor mean temperature during the study ranged between 27.427.4- 35.2 C during the survey period, with indoor temperature ranging between 26.6 42 C. Indoor relative humidity ty varied substantially (15 76%) as the summers in Hyderabad are quite dry. Thermal sensation (TS) varied with globe temperature (Tg) resulting in a comfort equation of TS = 0.31Tg - 9.06 (r= 0.61, p<0.001) (Figure 1, 1 Table 1) as presented in Indraganti (2010b). (2010 ). The present discussion focuses on the role of air velocity in achieving comfort at high temperatures.

Figure 1: : Linear regression of TS and PMV on indoor globe temperature (all data, p<0.001)

Effect of Air Velocity Air velocity is one of the very significant environmental variables contributing to the thermal comfort of occupants ccupants in naturally ventilated spaces in hot climates, where it varied significantly during the survey (0 ~ 4 m/s). It is noted that people are much more tolerant of high air speeds and are quite discerning about the high air speeds. The requirement of air ir movement changed with the thermal sensation. 6

As seen in figure 2, in May, air velocity at neutrality (median VA = 0.27 m/s, n= 108) is low, with a slow increase in air velocity as the TS increases to 1 (median VA = 0.3 m/s n= 438), to 2 (median VA = 0.4 m/s n= 480) and 3 (median VA =0.41 m/s, n=361), which is achieved by using fans most of the time. This is equivalent to an increase in comfort temperature by about 2-3 C (Nicol and Roaf, 1996). It is also important to note that in May at thermal sensation of 2 and above, higher air velocities have caused discomfort, as the humidity is very low and it produced undesirable effects like dryness etc. A few votes in May could be recorded when people sitting in front of a high efficiency air cooler had experienced cold discomfort i.e. at thermal sensation -1 at slightly higher velocity (median VA = 0.3 m/s n= 14) and at -2 (median VA =0.58 m/s n=4), i.e. air movement requirement increases at TS 2 and 3 in June, in July higher air velocity at TS - 2 is not desired. The requirement for higher air velocities significantly increased as the humidity increased from May to June. This is due to the fact that mean indoor temperature is around average skin temperature (32 34 C) and humidity is also high (mean 55%). The only way subjects can achieve physiological comfort under these conditions is through increased ventilation. This is achieved by using the ceiling fans and a few subjects have also used air coolers, in roof exposed flats where the radiant heat from ceiling at midday caused most discomfort than high humidity. High air velocity is no
Median square root of air velocity in m/s 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 -3

May June July -2 -1 0 1 Thermal sensation (TS) 2 3

Figure 2: Relationship between thermal sensation and air velocity (May, June and July - all data)

longer required as mean thermal sensation (and Tg) falls down in July, although the humidity is still high (~72%). As the room temperature is below the skin temperature in July, air velocity beyond 0.2 m/s induces drafts and causes cold discomfort (see figure 2) at normal activities . Conversely, at high metabolic rates (>1.7 met) and at TS (2 and 3) higher air velocities are preferred for short periods to provide physiological comfort through increased ventilation. Air Movement Sensation (AMS) and Preference and Preference (AMP) Air movement sensation and preference were evaluated based on the responses to the questions How do you find the air movement and How would you prefer to have? (Refer Table 1). AMS correlated well with TS (r= 0.43) and with OC (r= 0.42). It has correlated robustly with median of square root of air velocity (r= 0.87) and with AMP (r= 0.71). Peoples preferences for higher air movement increased with increase in thermal sensation (Brager et al., 2004). Toftum (2002) found clear impact of activity and overall thermal sensation on human sensitivity to air movement. 7

The subjects voted the air movement low when voting hot on TS scale (mean AMS vote = -1.42). When the AMS vote was 1 and above the subjects preferred the air movement to be lesser. Similarly the subjects voted in the comfort range on the overall comfort (OC) scale (OC = 4, 5 and 6 on a scale 1 to 6) when the AMS was between 0 and lower coinciding with neither high nor low, high, very high sensations. Air movement sensation correlated positively with the thermal effect on productivity (r= 0.15). When the air movement sensation vote was low, the self declared productivity vote was also low. The air movement sensation correlated well with globe temperature (r= -0.35) and with relative humidity (r=0.23). June and July recorded very high relative humidity coupled with moderate temperatures. This allowed the occupants to adaptively open the windows, promoting cross ventilation.
Table 1: Thermal comfort Scales employed (Transverse and longitudinal surveys)
Scale value ASHRAE 's Thermal sensation (TS) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 Hot Warm Slightly Warm Neutral Slightly Cool Cool Cold Description of scale Air movement sensation (AMS) Very high High Slightly high Neither high nor low Slightly low Low Very low Much less air movement A bit less air movement No change A bit more air movement Much more air movement Air movement preference (AMP)

Moreover, high humidity prompted the subjects to use the fans more, increasing indoor air velocities. As a result, AMS vote moved up with the relative humidity. Conversely, at high indoor temperature most of the natural cross ventilation ceased, due to the adaptive closure of windows. This prompted most of the subjects to give a low AMS vote, even when the percentage of subjects with fan on was high. This was due to the fact that, at high levels of thermal distress, the air movement requirements of the subjects could not be satisfactorily met by the ceiling fans alone. Figure 3 shows the distribution of AMS vote and its relationship with median of square root of air velocity. Understandably, as air velocity reduced, AMS vote has also reduced indicating a need for higher air movement. Conversely, 27% of the subjects voted -2 and -3 (low and very low), on the AMS scale even when the recorded (median) air velocities were between 0.4~ 0.7 m/s. The highest percentage of subjects has felt the air movement to be neither high nor low (38%). Similarly, Ogbonna (2008) found a weak relationship between the actual vote and the air-velocity in his Jos, Nigeria study. It is essential to note that, the air movement sensation related strongly with thermal discomfort. Only when a subject was under thermal distress, he/she gave a very low air movement sensation vote (-3). At all other times, the majority (52%) found the air movement lower, but voted in the central zone, with a skew towards the right side of AMS scale. This was partially due to the fact that, the air movement induced by the natural ventilation in summer was less dependent and was variable. 8

Moreover, the efficacy of the ceiling fans also was non-uniform, resulting in inconsistent levels of satisfaction (Indraganti, 2010c). Therefore, the subjects always desired cooler air movement in hot summer rather than just increased air movement. The ceiling fans or natural wind drafts in hot weather could not provide this. The ceiling fans re- circulated the hot air around, causing further discomfort to the subjects. Correlation between air movement preference, temperature and relative humidity
Median of square root of air velocity (m/s)-1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 38 25 19 Median of square root of air velocity (m/s)-1 7 Trend line 2 1 Slightly low Low Neither high nor low High Slightly high Very high 40

Frequency (%)

20 8

10

0 Very low

Air movement sesnation (AMS)

Figure 4: Distribution of AMS and its relationship with median of square root of air velocity

Interestingly, peoples preferences for air movement (AMP) changed with the indoor globe temperature (r = -0.25) and relative humidity (r = 0.17). The correlation figures indicate that at higher temperature, the subjects desired increased air movement (refer
3 Air Movement Preference (AMP) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 y = -0.0955x + 2.3848 (AMP) R = 0.0618 40 20 y = -5.7881x + 230.03 (RH) R = 0.5724 25 30 35 40 Indoor Globe Temperature ( C) 45 0 AMP RH Linear (AMP) Linear (RH) 60 100 80

Figure 5: Influence of Fan on the comfort temperature

Relative Humidity (%)

Frequency (%)

30

32.0 Griffith's comfort temperature C 31.5 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 25 26

Fan on Fan off Linear (Fan on) Linear (Fan off)

Fan on: y = 0.2303x + 23.543 R = 0.5363 Fan off: y = 0.3309x + 20.345 R = 0.593 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Mean out door temperarure (binned data) C

Figure 6: Influence of Fan on the comfort temperature

Figure 4). On the contrary, increased humidity had little effect on the air movement preference, which returned a low positive correlation value (r = 0.17). The positive trend reflects a desire for reduced air movement during period of moderate temperatures experienced by the subjects in the humid season. It is imperative to note that higher temperature in Hyderabad is usually associated with low humidity (hot-dry season), while humid periods have moderate to low temperature. The following observations prove the existing standards redundant: the subjects voted neutral on much wider higro-thermal regime. When voting neutral, the indoor globe temperature varied between 26.6 36.9 C, while the relative humidity ranged 17% - 76% and the air velocity was in between 0.00 m/s to 2.8 m/s. This can be attributed to very high levels of adaptation (through reduced clothing and metabolism) and acclimatisation coupled with moderate expectations from the domestic environments. Effect of air movement (ceiling fan) on comfort temperature Comfort temperature is a simple consequence of people optimizing comfort under the various constraints of fashion, fuel, costs, climate, available technology, climate, cost of clothing, etc. Humphreys (2008) In naturally ventilated buildings, comfortable indoor temperatures are shown to follow the seasonal shifts in outdoor climate and often fall beyond the stipulated comfort zones of ASHRAE Standard-55. Steady state comfort theory based on human physiology cannot completely account for this. Griffiths (1990) method is suggested as an alternate method in the literature to evaluate comfort temperature when the field data constitutes a smaller sample (Nicol, 1995 p. 151, Rijal et al., 2008, 2010). A detailed discussion on the Griffiths method can be found in (Rijal et al., 2008). Equivalence between changes in comfort vote and the measured temperature are assumed first. Nicol (1995) modifies this method further by applying it to the centroid 10

of the body of data instead of applying it to the individual votes. He uses a Griffiths equivalence ivalence coefficient of 0.33 in his Pakistan studies, which is derived from Fanger (1972), who through climate chamber experiments deduced that, that for a unit rise in comfort vote, a three degree rise in temperature is needed. However, , as we have obtained an equivalence coefficient of 0.31 in the present study, we used the same in the Griffiths method. It is important to note that neutral temperature obtained in this method may not be valid if the mean thermal sensation is beyond the comfort zone (i.e. beyond bey -1.5 1.5 to +1.5) where Fangers prediction is invalid (Nicol et al, 19951995 pp 152). Hence we have eliminated the outliers from the analysis (for ex: cases when the TSmean was 1.5 and more). In addition, when the mean thermal sensation is close to zero, Griffiths comfort temperature shows realistic results. This is due to the fact that the mean thermal sensation of acclimatised population hovers around the neutral point on the sensation scale of ASHRAE, ASHRAE (Nicol and Humphreys, 2002). Brager et al. (2004) in in their California study have noticed that ideal comfort temperatures are not only influenced by season but by the degree of personal control. Subjects who have more control over thermal conditions of their workplace (in particular, the operable window) have have a neutral temperature that is 1.5 C (2.7 F) warmer than subjects with minimal control, even though they experienced the same thermal environments and exhibited no differences in clo or met. Griffiths comfort temperature (TnG = T g_mean + (0 TSmean/ R), with R = 0.31) is evaluated for all the mean outdoor temperature bins at one degree periodicity with their corresponding thermal ermal sensation votes. The data is grouped under two categories: fan on and fan off. Figure 5 shows the variation in the comfort temperature and the mean outdoor temperature (To_mean).

Figure 7: NBC (India) and the comfort zone of Hyderabad juxtaposed on the ASHRAEs ASHRAE adaptive model

As the outdoor temperature increased, the comfort temperature is increased in all the cases. More importantly, the use of fan pushed the comfort temperature up, without any significant increase in clothing etc, although the subjects are more 11

sensitive to the changes in the temperature (slope = 0.23), than the subjects without the use of fans (slope = 0.33). This clearly renders support to the argument that the use of fans not only provides comfort at elevated temperatures but also without the escalation of energy bills emanating from the use of air-conditioning. The findings recorded by Sharma and Ali (1986) and Nicol (1974) in office buildings of Roorkie in North India, are particularly interesting in this context. While Nicol (1974) reported reduced skin moisture when the indoor temperature ranged between 31-40 C, Sharma and Ali observed a decrease of 1.4 to 3.2 degC in the Tropical Summer Index (TSI)6, (a measure for indoor comfort) for an increase in air velocity from 0.5 to 2.5 m/s, all else remaining unchanged in addition. Rijal et al., (2008) analysed the Pakistan data (Nicol 1996) separately for cases with fan on and fan off. They corroborated the earlier findings, in addition to defining equations for estimating the indoor comfort temperature with ceiling fan in use. They used the concept of running mean temperature for factoring in the outdoor conditions in their equations. When the running mean temperature was 30 C, the indoor comfort temperature with fan on was 31 C, which is 2.2 degC more than when the fan was off (Rijal, 2012). It is important to note that the comfort temperatures to the tune of 31.5 C with or without the use of fan were achieved in indoor environments in our Hyderabad study, as against the stipulated standard comfort zone of (23-26 C)(refer Figure 6). This finding calls for a revision of standards. Conclusions This paper discusses in detail the relevance of increased air movement at elevated indoor temperatures and humidity, usually encountered in warm climates in the tropical subcontinent. A thermal comfort field study in residential buildings conducted by the authors in India revealed the following: (1) Higher comfort temperatures are successfully obtained through the use of fans, (2) The subjects are comfortable at much higher indoor temperatures than those specified in the standards (NBC, 2005), (3) They achieved higher indoor air velocities in the months when the humidity was very high, through the use of many adaptive controls (fans, air-coolers, windows and balcony doors and (4) The residents displayed a proclivity for higher air movement indoors. (5) The air movement preference varied with temperature, while humidity had a little effect on the air movement preference. These findings call for the development of thermal comfort standards custommade to in Indian subjects and climates. The authors are now conducting a thermal comfort survey in the composite and warm-humid climates of India from Jan 2012 to Jan 2013.
The tropical summer index is defined as the air/globe temperature of still air at 50% relative humidity which produces the same overall thermal sensation as the environment under investigation.
6

12

Acknowledgements We wish to profoundly thank Michael Humphreys and Fergus J Nicol, who advised, e-mailed and generously sent papers and books during our Hyderabad survey in 2008. The present thermal comfort research in Indian offices is funded by the Japanese Society for Promotion of Science, Japan and The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. The authors sincerely thank these two institutions. References ASHRAE. (2004). ASHRAE Standard- 55, American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc., Atlanta. BIS. (2005). National Building Code (NBC). Bereau of Indian Standards. Brager, G. S., and de Dear, R. J. (2000). A standard for natural ventilation. ASHRAE Journal , 42 no10 O 2000, pp 21 - 28. Brager, G. S., Paliaga, G., and de Dear, R. (2004). Operable Windows, Personal Control. ASHRAE transaction , Vol.110, Part 2, pp 17-35. Candido, C, de Dear, R. J, Lamberts, R, Bittencourt, L (2010), Air movement acceptability limits and thermal comfort, Building and Environment, 45(2010) 222-229. in Brazils hot humid climate zone Cena, K., and de Dear, R. (1999). Field study of occupant comfort and office thermal environments in a hot arid climate. ASHRAE Transactions , 105 (2) (1999) 204217. (RP-921). Cheng, V., and Ng, E. (2006). Comfort Temperatures for Naturally Ventilated Buildings in Hong Kong. ArchteCtulal Science Review , Volume 49.2, pp 179182. Fanger, P. O. (1972). Thermal Comfort, Analysis und Applications in Environmental Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill . Feriadi, H., & Wong, N. H. (2004). Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated houses in Indonesia. Energy and Buildings , 36 (2004) 614626. Givoni, B. (1969). Man Climate and Architecture. Elsevier.
Griffiths ID (1990) Thermal comfort in buildings with passive solar features: Field studies. Report to the Commission of the European Communities, EN3S-090, UK.

Heidari, S. (2008). A big problem an easy solution. Proceedings of Conference: Air Conditioning and the Low Carbon Cooling Challenge . Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 27-29 July 2008: Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, London. Holm, D., and Engelbrecht, F. (2005). Practical choice of thermal comfort scale and range in naturally ventilated buildings in South Africa. Journal Of The South African Institution Of Civil Engineering , Vol 47 No 2 2005, Pages 914, Paper 587. Humphreys, M., & Nicol, F. (2008). Adaptive Thermal comfort in Buildings. The Kinki Chapter of the society of heating, Air -conditioning and Sanitary Engineers of Japan (pp. 1-43). Kyoto, Japan: SHASE, 17th October, 2008. 13

Indraganti, M. (2010a). Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated apartments in summer: Findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India. Applied Energy , 87 (2010) 866 - 883. Indraganti, M. (2010b). Using the adaptive model of thermal comfort for obtaining indoor neutral temperature: findings from a field study in Hyderabad. Building and Environment , 45 (2010) 519-536. Indraganti, M. (2010c). Adaptive use of Natural ventilation for thermal comfort in Indian apartments. Building and Environment 45 (2010) 519-536. Krishnan, A. (2001). Introduction. In A. Krishnan, N. Baker, S. Yannas, and S. Szokolay, Climate responsive architecture, A design hand book for energy efficient buildings. Tata Mc Graw Hill. Mallick, F. H. (1996). Thermal comfort and building design in the tropical climates. Energy and Buildings , 23 (1996) 161-167. Markus,T. A., and Morris, E. N. (1980). Buildings, climate and energy, London: Pitman Publishing Maroof, S., Jones, P., Thermal comfort factors in hot humid region: Malasia, 3rd CIB International conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments, June 15-19, 2009, Delft. Nicol, J F, (1995) Thermal comfort and Temperature standards in Pakistan, 149 156.
in: Standards for Thermal Comfort, Eds: Nicol F, Humphreys M, Sykes O, Roaf S. E & F N Spon (Chapman & Hall).

Nicol, J. (2004). Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hothumid tropics. Energy and Buildings, 36 (2004) 628637. Nicol, J. F. (1993). Thermal comfort: A handbook for field studies toward an adaptive model. London: University of East London. Nicol, J. F., Raja, I. A., Allaudin, A., & Jamy, G. N. (1999). Climatic variations in comfortable temperatures: the Pakistan projects. Energy and Buildings , 30(1999) 261- 279. Nicol JF (1974) An analysis of some observations of thermal comfort in Roorkee, India and Baghdad, Iraq. Annals of Human Biology 1 (4): 411426. Nicol, J., and Humphreys, M. (2002). Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy and Buildings , 34(2002) 563- 572 . Nicol, J., and Roaf, S. (1996). Pioneering new indoor temperature standards: the Pakistan project. Energy and Buildings , 23(1996) 169- 174. Ogbonna, A. C., and Harris, D. J. (2008). Thermal comfort in sub-Saharan Africa: Field study report in Jos-Nigeria. Applied Energy , 85 (2008) 111. Olgyay, V. (1963). Design with Climate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Rijal, HB, Tuohy, P G, Nicol, J F, Humphreys, M A, Samuel, A, Raja I A, Clarke, J.A, (2008). Development of adaptive algorithms for the operation of windows, fans and doors to predict thermal comfort and energy use in Pakistani buildings, ASHRAE Transactions, Volume: 114, Issue: 2, Publisher: American 14

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Pages: 555-573. Rijal H.B., Yoshida H., Umemiya N. (2010), Seasonal and regional differences in neutral temperatures in Nepalese traditional vernacular houses, Building and Environment 45(12), pp. 2743-2753.Stein, B., and Reynolds, J. (2000). Rijal H.B. (2012), Chapter 3: Thermal adaptation outdoors and the effect of wind on thermal comfort, In: S. Kato, K. Hiyama, Ventilating Cities Air-flow Criteria for Healthy and Comfortable Urban Living, Springer. Stein, B., and Reynolds, J. (2000). Mechanical and electrical equipment for buildings. John wiley and Sons , Inc. Sharma MR, Ali S (1986) Tropical Summer Indexa study of thermal comfort of Indian subjects. Building and Environment 21 (1): 1124. Su, X., Zhang, X., and Gao, J. (2009). Evaluation method of natural ventilation system based on thermal comfort in China. Energy and Buildings , 41 (2009) 6770. Toftum, J. (2002). Human response to combined indoor environment exposures. Energy and Buildings , 34 (2002) 601606. Toftum, J. (2004). Air movement - good or bad? Indoor Air , Volume 14, Supplement 7, August 2004 , pp. 40-45(6). Wang, J., and Wang, Z. (2005). Field Studies of Subjective Effects on Thermal Comfort in a University. Maximize Comfort: Temperature, Humidity and IAQ , Vol.I-6-4. Zain, Z. M., Taib, M. N., and Baki, S. M. (2007). Hot and humid climate: prospect for thermal comfort in residential building. Desalination , 209 (2007) 261268, Elsevier.

15