Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorShahzad, Sally
dc.contributor.authorTheodossopoulos, Dimitris
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Ben
dc.contributor.authorCalautit, John Kaiser
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, John
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-15T19:49:18Z
dc.date.available2016-10-15T19:49:18Z
dc.date.issued2016-03-05
dc.identifier.citationShahzad, S.S., Brennan, J., Theodossopoulos, D., Hughes, B., Calautit, J.K. 2016. 'Energy and Comfort in Contemporary Open Plan and Traditional Personal Offices.' Applied Energy Journal. Vol. 185, Part 2, pp. 1542-1555. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/620586
dc.description.abstractTwo office layouts with high and low levels of thermal control were compared, respectively traditional cellular and contemporary open plan offices. The traditional Norwegian practice provided every user with control over a window, blinds, door, and the ability to adjust heating and cooling. Occupants were expected to control their thermal environment to find their own comfort, while air conditioning was operating in the background to ensure the indoor air quality. In contrast, in the British open plan office, limited thermal control was provided through openable windows and blinds only for occupants seated around the perimeter of the building. Centrally operated displacement ventilation was the main thermal control system. Users’ perception of thermal environment was recorded through survey questionnaires, empirical building performance through environmental measurements and thermal control through semi-structured interviews. The Norwegian office had 35% higher user satisfaction and 20% higher user comfort compared to the British open plan office. However, the energy consumption in the British practice was within the benchmark and much lower than the Norwegian office. Overall, a balance between thermal comfort and energy efficiency is required, as either extreme poses difficulties for the other.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916302562en
dc.subjectThermal comforten
dc.subjectenergyen
dc.subjectindividual controlen
dc.subjectpersonal officeen
dc.subjectopen plan officeen
dc.titleEnergy and Comfort in Contemporary Open Plan and Traditional Personal Officesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Edinburghen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Sheffielden
dc.identifier.journalApplied Energy Journalen
html.description.abstractTwo office layouts with high and low levels of thermal control were compared, respectively traditional cellular and contemporary open plan offices. The traditional Norwegian practice provided every user with control over a window, blinds, door, and the ability to adjust heating and cooling. Occupants were expected to control their thermal environment to find their own comfort, while air conditioning was operating in the background to ensure the indoor air quality. In contrast, in the British open plan office, limited thermal control was provided through openable windows and blinds only for occupants seated around the perimeter of the building. Centrally operated displacement ventilation was the main thermal control system. Users’ perception of thermal environment was recorded through survey questionnaires, empirical building performance through environmental measurements and thermal control through semi-structured interviews. The Norwegian office had 35% higher user satisfaction and 20% higher user comfort compared to the British open plan office. However, the energy consumption in the British practice was within the benchmark and much lower than the Norwegian office. Overall, a balance between thermal comfort and energy efficiency is required, as either extreme poses difficulties for the other.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record