Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorShahzad, Sally
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, John
dc.contributor.authorTheodossopoulos, Dimitris
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Ben
dc.contributor.authorCalautit, John Kaiser
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-15T19:47:21Z
dc.date.available2016-10-15T19:47:21Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationShahzad, S.S., Brennan, J., Theodossopoulos, D., Hughes, B., Calautit, J.K. 2016. Building Related Symptoms, Energ, and Thermal Comfort in the Workplace: Personal and Open Plan Offices. Sustainability Journal: 8: 4: 331en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/620580
dc.description.abstractThis study compared building-related symptoms in personal and open plan offices, where high and low levels of control over the thermal environment were provided, respectively. The individualized approach in Norway provided every user with a personal office, where they had control over an openable window, door, blinds, and thermostat. In contrast, the open plan case studies in the United Kingdom provided control over openable windows and blinds only for limited occupants seated around the perimeter of the building, with users seated away from the windows having no means of environmental control. Air conditioning was deployed in the Norwegian case study buildings, while displacement ventilation and natural ventilation were utilized in the British examples. Field studies of thermal comfort were applied with questionnaires, environmental measurements, and interviews. Users’ health was better in the Norwegian model (28%), while the British model was much more energy efficient (up to 10 times). The follow-up interviews confirmed the effect of lack of thermal control on users’ health. A balanced appraisal was made of energy performance and users’ health between the two buildings.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/4/331/htmen
dc.subjectbuilding-related symptomsen
dc.subjectthermal comforten
dc.subjectindividual controlen
dc.subjectworkplaceen
dc.titleBuilding Related Symptoms, Energ, and Thermal Comfort in the Workplace: Personal and Open Plan Officesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Edinburghen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Sheffielden
dc.identifier.journalSustainability Journalen
html.description.abstractThis study compared building-related symptoms in personal and open plan offices, where high and low levels of control over the thermal environment were provided, respectively. The individualized approach in Norway provided every user with a personal office, where they had control over an openable window, door, blinds, and thermostat. In contrast, the open plan case studies in the United Kingdom provided control over openable windows and blinds only for limited occupants seated around the perimeter of the building, with users seated away from the windows having no means of environmental control. Air conditioning was deployed in the Norwegian case study buildings, while displacement ventilation and natural ventilation were utilized in the British examples. Field studies of thermal comfort were applied with questionnaires, environmental measurements, and interviews. Users’ health was better in the Norwegian model (28%), while the British model was much more energy efficient (up to 10 times). The follow-up interviews confirmed the effect of lack of thermal control on users’ health. A balanced appraisal was made of energy performance and users’ health between the two buildings.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record