field study of occupant comfort and office thermal environments … et al 1996 field... · occupant...

Field Study of Occupant Comfort and Office Thermal Environments in a Cold Climate

Final Report ASHRAE RP-821

May 1996

Giovanna Donnini \ Jean Molina 2*, Carlo Martello 2*, Dorothy Ho Ching Lai 2 \ Kit Ho Lai2*, Ching Yu Chang \

Michel Laflamme \ Van Hiep Nguyen3, Fariborz Haghighat 2

1 ADN Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada

2 Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (* = ASHRAE student members)

3 School of Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Results of Cooperative Research between the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and ADN Inc.

COPYRIGHT AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATING,

AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS, INC. 1791TULUE CIRCLE, ATLANTA, GA 30329

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of ASHRAE research project RP-821; a field study of occupant comfort and office thermal environments in 12 mechanically ventilated office buildings in southern Quebec. This study is the third of a series of ASHRAE projects (RP-462 and RP-702) which investigated the indoor environment in temperate and hot-humid climates.

A total of 877 subjects were surveyed during the hot summer months of June, July, and August and the cold winter months of January, February, and March. Each interview provided a set of responses to a questionnaire and a set of physical indoor climatic measurements (from mobile instrumentation). Metabolic rate and clothing insulation estimates were based on the methods of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-92. Since all subjects were seated, the incremental effect of chairs was included in the clo value estimates.

The measured and calculated thermal environmental results were compared with the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 and with the ISO 7730 guidelines. Thermal neutrality, thermal preference, and thermal acceptability results were compared with existing models (laboratory-based) and standards. Gender, ethnicity, season, length of residence in Canada, health, and acclimatization were examined as to their effect on thermal response to the indoor climate. Job satisfaction and perceived levels of environmental control were also examined with respect to subjective assessments of indoor climatic conditions.

Thermal neutrality on the ASHRAE seven-point sensation scale occurred at about 24.1°C in the summer/hot season, and at about 22.8°C in the winter/cold season. The preferred temperature was 23°C in the summer/hot season, and 22°C in the winter/cold season. Direct assessments of thermal acceptability peaked at 90% and fell at 23°C. These observed temperature optima are somewhat consistent with the predictions of comfort models and standards based on mid-latitude climate chamber experimental data. They differ by as much as -2°C from the earlier Townsville project's findings, yet are relatively similar to those from the yet earlier San Francisco project's findings. Most of this offset can be explained by differences in clothing.

The Montreal subjects' thermal sensation and acceptability ratings were much less accepting of non-neutral temperatures than either PPD index or Standard 55 predicted. The only exception is for the operative temperature range of 22 - 24°C, where the PPD index matched the direct acceptability vote by the subjects. About 14 - 18 % of the Montreal subjects who were exposed to thermal environments within the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55's summer and winter comfort zones expressed thermal dissatisfaction, whereas the Standard's margins correspond to only 10 % whole-body thermal dissatisfaction. About 1 to 3 % of those expressing dissatisfaction experienced uncomfortable vertical temperature gradients. However, there was a consistent request for higher air velocity (55 to 89 %)

i

indicating that air movement guidelines may be too restrictive, as set out by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7730.

The effects of Montreal's hot/cold seasonality on thermal comfort responses of office workers was minor, amounting to less than a 1.5°C shift in neutrality; well within the range expected on the basis of the clothing insulation differences of approximately 0.3 clo between seasons. Job satisfaction, general health status and perceived levels of personal control were moderately correlated with overall generalized assessments of the workplace physical environment. Lighting levels and exposure to humidifiers outside the workplace had some relationship to specific environmental conditions occurring at the time of the interviews. Physical fitness, length of residence in Canada, and exposure to air-conditioning outside the workplace were largely unrelated to the responses of the subjects to their offices' indoor thermal environment. Ethnicity effects could not be examined due to a small amount of non-caucasian subjects.

There was little difference between the sexes in terms of thermal sensation, although there were significantly more frequent expressions of thermal dissatisfaction from the females in the sample, despite their thermal environments being no different from the males'.

Suggestions for future work include metabolic rate, chair insulation, and clothing perception estimates, and air movement preferences. Recommendations also include specifications for occupant surveys.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank our colleagues and associates without whom this work could not have been completed: Ms. Annie Ouellette, Mr. Marc Cazelais, Ms. Julie Ouellette, and Mr. Giovanni Giorgi. All hand drawings were produced by Ms. Julie Ouellette.

We would like to acknowledge Mr. Jean-Guy Gelinas and Mr. Yves Lacharite, of the SIQ, for their management of this project on the building owner and employee sides. Special thanks are owed to all of the 533 employees who volunteered their time to this project Furthermore, the building managers are thanked for their invaluable help while on site.

in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES x

CHAPTER 1 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Literature Review 2

1.2.1 Temperature and humidity on perception of air quality . . . 4 1.2.2 Perception of temperature and humidity 5 1.2.3 Males versus females 6

1.3 Objective and Scope 7

CHAPTER 2 8 2. METHODS 8

2.1 Climatic Environment 8 2.2 Outdoor Meteorological Measurements 9 2.3 Buildings 14 2.4 The Subjects 16 2.5 Measurements of Indoor Climates 16

2.5.1 Mobile measurement system (CHARIOT) 16 2.5.2 CHARIOTs sensors 17 2.5.3 Stationary measurement system . . . . r 18

2.6 Questionnaires . 19 2.6.1 The ONLINE section 19 2.6.2 The BACKGROUND section 20

2.7 Measurement Procedure 21 2.8 Effect of Chair Insulation 21 2.9 Collected Data 23 2.10 Comfort Indices 23

CHAPTER 3 25 3. RESULTS 25

3.1 Sample Size 25 3.2 Description of Sample 25 3.3 Occupant Work-Area Satisfaction 37 3.4 Thermal Environment Control 45 3.5 Indoor Climates 48 3.6 Clothing and Metabolic Factors •-. 53 3.7 Calculated Comfort Indices 54

iv

3.8 Subjective Assessment of Workstation Thermal Environments . . . 57 3.8.1 Thermal sensation and neutrality 58 3.8.2 Thermal acceptability 61 3.8.3 Thermal preference 64

3.9 Subjective Assessment of Workstation Air Movement Characteristics 66

CHAPTER 4 75 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 75 4.1 Comparisons Between Indices, Models, and Observed Data 75 4.2 Comparisons Between Observed Comfort Data and the

Standards 76 4.3 Comparison Between the Seasons 77 4.4 Comparisons Between Thermal Neutrality, Preference, and

Acceptability 77 4.5 Effects of Gender, Personal, Contextual, and Psychological

Factors 77 4.5.1 Gender effects 77 4.5.2 Ethnicity 78 4.5.3 Job satisfaction . . 78 4.5.4 Health effects 79 4.5.5 Acclimatization 79 4.5.6 Personal environmental controls 80 4.5.7 Illuminance 80

4.6 Comparisons with Previous Thermal Comfort Field Studies 80

CHAPTER 5 r . 83 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83

5.1 Conclusions of RP-821 83 5.2 Suggestions for Future Work 85

REFERENCES . 87 APPENDIX A Al APPENDIX B Bl APPENDLX C CI APPENDIX D Dl APPENDIX E . . . ; El APPENDIX F Fl

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Climatic regions of Canada (Information Canada, 1962) - dots of cities tested 8

Figure 2.2: Daily maximum and minimum exterior temperatures recorded during summer/hot tests. (Environment Canada, 1994) 10

Figure 2.3: Daily maximum and minimum exterior relative humidities recorded during summer/hot tests. (Environment Canada, 1994) 11

Figure 2.4 Daily maximum and minimum exterior temperatures recorded during winter/cold tests. (Environment Canada, 1995) 12

Figure 2.5 Daily maximum and minimum exterior relative humidities recorded during winter/cold tests. (Environment Canada, 1995) 13

Figure 2.6: CHARIOT - mobile measurement system 16 Figure 3.1: Categories used to sort data (season, gender, age) 26 Figure 3.2: Length of residence in Canada . . 28 Figure 3.3: Ethnic composition of the sample 29 Figure 3.4: Usage of home air-conditioning in the hot season 30 Figure 3.5: Usage of home humidifier in the cold season 30 Figure 3.6: Job satisfaction ratings (summer/hot season) 31 Figure 3.7: Job satisfaction ratings (winter/cold season) 32 Figure 3.8: Environmental sensitivity ratings (summer/hot season) 33 Figure 3.9: Environmental sensitivity ratings (winter/cold season) 33 Figure 3.10: Self-reports of health symptom frequency (summer/hot season) 34 Figure 3.11: Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter/cold season) 35 Figure 3.12: Self-reports of headaches and type of office space 36 Figure 3.13: Work-area satisfaction ratings (summer/hot season) 38 Figure 3.14: Work-area satisfaction ratings (winter/cold season) 38 Figure 3.15: Privacy dissatisfaction ratings and type of office space 39 Figure 3.16: Ratings of overall office acceptability . . . 40 Figure 3.17: Ratings of overall office comfort 41 Figure 3.18: Ratings of overall office temperature 42 Figure 3.19: Ratings of overall office humidity 43 Figure 3.20: Ratings of overall office air movement levels . 44 Figure 3.21: Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability 44 Figure 3.22: Ratings of overall office lighting levels 45 Figure 3.23: Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal

environments of their workstations 46 Figure 3.24: Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation

thermal environments 46 Figure 3.25: Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer/hot

season) . . . 47 Figure 3.26: Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (winter/cold

season) 48

vi

Figure 3.27: Results of indoor climatic data (CHARIOT) for both summer/hot and winter/cold seasons on the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 chart. . . 52

Figure 3.28: Probit regression model (thermal sensation and operative temperature) 58

Figure 3.29: Probit regression model (thermal sensation and ET*) 59 Figure 3.30: Mean binned thermal sensation votes and PMVF and DISC

calculations related to operative temperature 60 Figure 3.31: Observed thermal acceptability related to operative temperature

(summer/hot season) 61 Figure 3.32: Observed thermal acceptability related to operative temperature

(winter/cold season) 62 Figure 3.33: Observed and predicted thermal acceptability related to operative

temperature 63 Figure 3.34: Probit regression models fitted to thermal preference percentages

(summer/hot season) 65 Figure 3.35: Probit regression models fitted to thermal preference percentages

(winter/cold season) 65 Figure 3.36: Air movement acceptability ratings binned according to operative

temperatures 66 Figure 3.37: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned

by operative temperature (both seasons) 68 Figure 3.38: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned

by operative temperature (summer/hot season) 69 Figure 3.39: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned

by operative temperature (winter/cold season) 70 Figure 3.40: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities

binned by operative temperature (both seasons) . r 71 Figure 3.41: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities

binned by operative temperature (summer/hot season) 72 Figure 3.42: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities

binned by operative temperature (winter/cold season) 73 Figure 3.43: Cross-tabulated air movement and temperature preferences 74 Figure A.l External and typical internal views of BUILDING 1 . A2 Figure A.2 Typical floor plan of Building 1 A3 Figure A.3 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary

instrument in Building 1 - Summer season A4 Figure A.4 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary

instrument in Building 1 - Winter season A4 Figure A.5 External and typical interna] views of BUILDING 2 A5 Figure A.6 Typical floor plan of Building 2 A6 Figure A.7 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary


instrument in Building 2 - Winter season A7

vii

Figure A.9 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 3 A8 Figure A.10 Typical floor plan of Building 3 A9 Figure A. 11 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary

instrument in Building 3 - Summer season A10 Figure A. 12 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary

instrument in Building 3 - Winter season A10 Figure A. 13 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 4 Al l Figure A.14 Typical floor plan of Building 4 A12 Figure A. 15 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary


instrument in Building 4 - Winter season A13 Figure A.17 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 5 A14 Figure A.18 Typical floor plan of Building 5 A15 Figure A. 19 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary


instrument in Building 5 - Winter season A16 Figure A.21 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 6 A17 Figure A.22 Typical floor plan of Building 6 A18 Figure A.23 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary



instrument in Building 7 - Summer season . A22 Figure A.28 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary

instrument in Building 7 - Winter season A22 Figure A.29 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 8 A23 Figure A.30 Typical floor plan of Building 8 • A24 Figure A.31 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary




instrument in Building 9 - Winter season A28 Figure A.37 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 10 A29 Figure A.38 Typical floor plan of Building 10 A30

viii

Figure A.39 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 10 - Summer season A31

Figure A.40 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 10 - Winter season A31

Figure A.41 External and typical internal views of BUILDING 11 A32 Figure A.42 Typical floor plan of Building 11 A33 Figure A.43 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary



instrument in Building 12 - Summer season A37 Figure C.l Typical Summer Office Attire C2 Figure C.2 Typical Winter Office Attire C4 Figure D.l Chairs encountered in this study classified using McCullough (1994) . . D2 Figure F.l Length of residence in Canada F5 Figure F.2 Ethnic composition of the sample . F8 Figure F.3 Usage of home air-conditioning in the hot season F l l Figure F.4 Usage of home humidifier in the cold season F13 Figure F.5 Job satisfaction ratings (summer season) F15 Figure F.6 Job satisfaction ratings (winter season) . . . F19 Figure F.7 Environmental sensitivity ratings (summer season) . . . . F23 Figure F.8 Environmental sensitivity ratings (winter season) F27 Figure F.9 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (summer season) F31 Figure F.10 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter season) F35 Figure F.l l Work area satisfaction ratings (summer season) F39 Figure F.12 Work area satisfaction ratings (winter season) F43 Figure F.13 Ratings of overall office acceptability F47 Figure F.14 Ratings of overall office comfort . . . . , F50 Figure F.15 Ratings of overall office temperature F53 Figure F.16 Ratings of overall office humidity F56 Figure F.17 Ratings of overall office air movement levels F59 Figure F.18 Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability F62 Figure F.19 Ratings of overall office lighting levels F65 Figure F.20 Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal

environments of their workstations F68 Figure F.21 Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation

thermal environments F71 Figure F.22 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer

season) F74 Figure F.23 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (winter season) . F78

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Table 2.2: Table 3.1: Table 3.2:

Table 3.3:

Table 3.4: Table 3.5:

Table 3.6:

Table 3.7:

Table 3.8: Table 3.9:

Table A.l Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8 Table A.9 Table A. 10 Table A. 11 Table A.12 Table E.l Table E.2 Table F.l

Table F.2

Summary of building characteristics 15 Added insulation of chairs 23 Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents 27 Results of Indoor Climatic data collected by CHARIOT during the summer/hot season 49 Results of Indoor Climatic data collected by CHARIOT during the winter/cold season. 50 Clothing insulation and metabolic rates of respondents 54 Statistical summary of calculated indoor climatic and thermal comfort indices (summer/hot season) 55 Statistical summary of calculated indoor climatic and thermal comfort indices (winter/cold season) 56 Statistical summary of ONLINE workstation responses (summer/hot) 57 Statistical summary of ONLINE workstation responses (winter/cold) . 57 Air movement preferences at the time of the ONLINE questionnaire 67 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A3 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A6 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A9 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A12 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A15 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A18 Meteorological conditions during the experiment . 7 A21 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A24 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A27 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A30 Meteorological conditions during the experiment A33 Meteorological conditions during the experiment. A36 Code Names for OLSIQ file E2 Code Names for BGSIQ file . E5 Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents (by season and gender) F3 Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents (by season, gender, and age) F4

x

1

CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-92 "Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy" (ASHRAE, 1992) is used extensively in Canada. Each city/province has its own building, ventilation, and safety standards to be respected, yet ASHRAE 55-92 is widely used as a reference for comfort levels. As more and more studies of Canadian buildings in the cold climate are emerging, it is apparent that the measured parameters satisfy the comfort limits as set out by ASHRAE, yet it is found that less than 80% of the occupants are satisfied (Donnini et al.1994). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-92 is based almost entirely on data from climate chamber studies performed in temperate climates. This perhaps explains the discrepancies between occupant satisfaction in a cold climate and satisfaction of workers in a temperate climate. ISO Standard 7730 (ISO, 1984) is also used as a comfort reference in Canada. Yet, it is also based on the same type of experimental data as the ASHRAE Standard. ASHRAE recognized a definite need to validate the comfort zones within different external climates. This study is the third of a series of ASHRAE projects (RP-462 and RP-702) which investigated the indoor environment in temperate and hot-humid climates. To ensure comparability, the three projects used similar methodologies.

1.1 Background

The first project, RP-462, monitored the indoor environment and occupant responses in 10 office buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area (Schiller et al.-1988). Protocols were developed for measuring the detailed physical environment of the occupants' workstation, and for gathering the occupants' opinions and relevant personal data. It obtained valuable information about the requirements for comfortable and acceptable office work environments in one climate region (Mediterranean):

typical environmental conditions in modern offices, the match of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-81 comfort zone (ASHRAE, 1981) and of the various comfort indices to occupant comfort perceptions, the effect of seasonal change on comfort requirements, a range of other physical and psychological attributes affecting the occupants' acceptance of the work environment (Schiller, 1990; Brager et al., 1994).

However, since it was carried out in only one climate region, it could not be generalized to the thermal characteristics of work environments in other regions, or for characterizing responses of occupants acclimatized to more extreme hot or cold climates.

The second project, RP-702, monitored the indoor environment and occupant responses in 12 air-conditioned office buildings in Townsville, located in Australia's tropical north (de Dear et al., 1994). It duplicated the earlier ASHRAE investigation in San Francisco,

2

the primary aim being to examine the effects of a hot-humid climate on human thermal responses to the indoor climates of air-conditioned buildings. Its main points were:

the incremental effect of chairs was included in the clo value estimates, the thermal environmental results were compared with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 and ISO 7730 guidelines. thermal neutrality, preference and acceptability results were compared with laboratory-based models and standards, the effects of gender, ethnicity, season, length of residence in the tropics, health, acclimatization on thermal response to indoor climate were examined, psychological factors such as job satisfaction and perceived levels of environmental control were examined for their relationships with subjective assessments of both general and specific indoor climatic conditions.

Also of particular interest to the hot-humid climate was the effect of air movement on comfort; especially since ANSI/ASHRAE 55-92 contained new limits on air movement to reduce the risk of uncomfortable drafts.

It ended with some suggestions for future revisions of the comfort standards, singling out metabolic rate and chair insulation estimation procedures, along with air movement preferences. It also recommended various issues to be addressed in the cold climate field study:

special attention to sensitivity to draft and unwanted air movements in the cold season, the degree of congruence between temperature optima derived from: a) thermal preference votes, b) thermal acceptability votes, and c) thermal sensation votes. It was interpreted, in the tropical study, that semantics of the thermal sensation scale may be affected by climatic context,

- • the use of shorter questionnaires, eliminating unnecessary information and reducing the irritation of the occupants, the discontinuation of repeated workstation visits; only one visit per season, to again reduce the irritation of the occupants.

This third project, RP-821, monitored the indoor environment and occupant responses in 12 air-conditioned office buildings in Southern Quebec, Canada. It provides information on office thermal environments and occupant response in a climate with a severe dry, cold winter and a hot summer.

1.2 Literature Review

Davidge (1986) found that meeting current air quality and ventilation standards did not ensure a reasonable level of occupant satisfaction. A major Canadian government office building was studied in the winter of 1984/85. A questionnaire was administered to more

3

than 600 employees (approximately 36% of the employees were smokers). It was found that the ASHRAE ventilation, air quality, thermal comfort, and acoustic requirements were generally met (a few exceptions; acoustical privacy between adjoining workstations remained poor). The IES illumination requirements were also met. Background ratings indicated that the building overall, the workspace layout, the workspace colour, the window accessibility, and the lounge availability fared worst than maintenance, workspace separation, amount of space, screen arrangement, and circulation in the workspace; job satisfaction was rated the best. Acoustics and privacy ratings showed the occupants were most dissatisfied with noise distractions, the general noise level, the voice privacy, the telephone privacy, and visual privacy. The air system noise was rated not a problem, and the oral communication was rated as being clearly audible. Illumination performance ratings showed that the respondents were moderately satisfied. Thermal performance ratings showed that the occupants were moderately satisfied, leaning towards discomfort due to temperatures that were too warm. The air quality and ventilation ratings showed that the occupants found the ventilation, the air freshness, and the air movement poor. Ambient indoor air temperature was measured and ranged between 22°C and 25°C with the majority of the workstations having ambient temperatures of less than 24 °C. Furthermore, the temperatures generally varied by less than 0.5°C during the working day. The relative humidity ranged between 22% and 30%. The apparent dissatisfaction of the occupants compared with the apparent healthy and comfortable environment questions 1) the validity of the performance measurement tools, 2) the compounded effect of satisfying only 80% for each individual criteria, 3) the criteria used to develop the standards, insinuating that a lack of perceived air motion may result in the perception of poor air quality, and 4) the unreasonable expectations of the building occupants. It was suggested that the standards should be carefully re-examined; ensuring that the level of satisfaction the individual standards tend to create is appropriate, that they address all necessary factors, and that they interrelate, or at least, do not conflict.

A similar conclusion was arrived at by Haghighat et al.(1992). They examined the relationships between the indoor environment parameters on two floors of a Canadian eleven-story building, as perceived by the occupants and as measured objectively. They showed that complaints reported by the occupants were associated with perceived rather than measured levels of indoor environmental parameters. The study was conducted over a 4-week period and consisted of measuring environmental parameters, and of administering a questionnaire on comfort and health, to 450 occupants. Most noteworthy in the responses was that more than 34% of the occupants expressed that the air was dry. The measured relative humidity ranged from 40 to 65%. More than 32% of the occupants expressed that in general, the thermal environment was unsatisfactory, even though almost all the measured thermal comfort parameters complied with the ASHRAE comfort standard. ASHRAE defines an acceptable thermal environment as "an environment that at least 80% of the occupants would find thermally acceptable" (ASHRAE 1992).

As was testified in the questionnaire responses, more than 20% of the occupants were neither satisfied with the indoor air quality, nor the thermal environment. However, the results of the measured parameters should satisfy at least 80% of the occupants.

4

The absence of complaints, or occupant acceptance of the environment, is in general a collective judgment based on perceptions that may include thermal sensation, air freshness, air motion, perceived air quality, humidity level, and skin, nasal, and eye moisture levels. Berglund (1994) suggested that occupant acceptance of both the thermal environment and perceived air quality are affected by the common environmental parameters of temperature, humidity, and air motion. Therefore, improving the thermal environment for comfort considerations would also improve acceptability of ventilation and air quality related perceptions.

1.2.1 Temperature and humidity on perception of air quality

Berglund and Cain (1989) and Berglund (1991) found that in recent laboratory studies, air was perceived to be fresher and less stuffy with decreased temperature and humidity. They found that the effect of temperature was linear and stronger than that of humidity (for summer conditions). The subjective responses of the occupants indicated a transient component, such as thermal sensation, while perceived air freshness was constant. The responses indicated that humidity made the subjects feel warmer, and to perceive the air as being less fresh. Furthermore, it was determined that increasing temperature, humidity, and activity resulted in increased thermal sensation and the perception that the air was less fresh. It was also found that temperature was a much more important contributor to thermal sensation than humidity; a 1°C change in temperature had the same effect on thermal sensation as a 6°C change in dew point With respect to perception in air freshness, a 1°C in air temperature had the same effect as a 4°C change in dew point; perceived freshness was more sensitive to humidity and less sensitive to activity. The adequacy of the perceived air motion decreased with increasing temperature and humidity. The perceived humidity as well as the perceived skin moisture level increased with activity. The acceptability of the air quality was affected strongly by humidity. The 20°C dew point condition (relative humidity over 65%) was associated with the perception of unacceptable air quality. This quantifies and verifies that colder, dry air is judged to be fresher than similar clean, warmer air.

Seppanen and Jaakkola (1989) polled 2150 employees of a modern 8 floor office building in Helsinki for SBS symptoms during the winter months of January to April. The air quality was deemed satisfactory since the measured parameters (particle concentration, biological contaminants, C02, radon, and formaldehyde concentrations) were far below the guideline values, and the ventilation rates per person exceeded the minimum requirements. The relative humidity in the building was the lowest in February (10 to 15%), yet it was still low in April (20%). The room temperature varied from 20°C to 26°C, with an average of 23°C. They found that the SBS symptoms increased slightly but significantly with decreased ventilation. However, there was a linear correlation between increased symptoms and the increase in room temperature. Humidification and air recirculation seemed to reduce the perceived air quality.

5

Wyon et al. (1991) studied a healthy building (a large new hospital in Malmo, Sweden) where 250 of the 1000 employees had registered SBS claims. Raising the relative humidity from 15% to 25% produced some benefits, but it was reduced lighting glare, air ionization, and reducing room temperature by 1.5 °C that had the most significant effect.

In Washington, D.C., during the winter months of February and March of 1989, two large federal government building complexes were studied (Crandall et al. 1990; Fidler et al. 1990; Nelson et al. 1990; Selfridge et al. 1989). Almost 50% of the respondents felt that the environment was often or always too stuffy, with too little air movement, and wanted to adjust the temperature in their immediate environment It was found that warm temperatures and the perception of being too warm were related to responses of too little air movement and of being too stuffy.

Ventresca (1991) reported that in Columbus, Ohio, complaints about air quality and stuffiness would be generated by the occupants if it was too warm. Most of the complaints surfaced in the afternoons, in the spring and fall seasons, when the buildings were operating on the economizer cycle. The complaints were fewer in the summer when hot outside conditions precluded using the economizer cycle for the mechanical refrigeration, resulting in minima] ventilation, yet cooler (and stable) indoor temperatures. He also found that in another building, complaints of stuffiness peaked during winter afternoons in areas of the building that became overheated (25 to 27 °C) when the ventilation system operated on the economizer cycle.

Molhave et al. (1993) studied ten healthy humans in a Danish laboratory. They were exposed to clean air and air containing a 10 mg/m3 of 22 volatile organic compounds, at various temperatures. From the subjective responses, it was found that the odour intensity of the clean air was unaffected by temperature, but it increased with temperature for the VOC mixture. The perceived air quality decreased with increasing temperature for both the clean and the VOC-air mixture.

1.2.2 Perception of temperature and humidity

Typical office environments during the cold season are characterized by relatively high temperatures and low relative humidities. Gothe et al (1987) studied the subjective sensation of "dry air" and the relative humidity in indoor environments in Sweden, during the cold season. The subjective perception of temperature and humidity on visual analogue rating scales of 108 persons working in four large offices were coupled with measurements using a psychrometer. The statistical calculations comprised of regression analysis and two-sided t-tests. They found that the women experienced a more intense sensation of "dry air" than men at equivalent humidity and temperature conditions, but there were no simple correlations found between this subjective sensation and the relative humidity. For women, it was also found that the combined effect of high humidity and high temperature associated with tendency to increased sensation of "dry air". For the women, the relative humidity correlated negatively with the subjective evaluation of humidity. The subjective sensation

6

of "dry air" seemed mainly to depend on other conditions than the water content of the air. It was found that it was difficult for the occupants to evaluate the relative humidity. It was suggested that when there is a high frequency of complaints due to "dry air" in centrally heated indoor environments, the primary measure ought not to be humidification of the air but adjustment of the temperature to about 20 - 21°C combined with recommendations to adjust the dress to prevent any discomforts due to cold. During the tests, the temperature and humidity spanned respectively 20.4 - 24.3 °C and 15 - 36%.

1.23 Males versus females

Several studies have shown that females tend to report more health symptoms and a greater dissatisfaction with their working environment than males do (Hedge 1994; Finnegan and Pickering 1987; Hedge 1984a, b; Hedge et al. 1987; Honeywell Technalysis 1985; Woods et al. 1987). The possible causes for the differences observed were described as being the differences in the working conditions, the differences in the sensitivity to building-related illnesses, and the differences in psychosocial characteristics. Kleven and Sterling (1989) questioned 1760 office workers in 7 buildings throughout Canada, England, and the United States. The sample included full-time employees between the ages of 18 and 65. The majority of the females fell within the 18 and 35 years range, while the majority of the males between 26 and 45 years of age. The majority of the females occupied clerical positions, while the majority of the males held professional/technical positions. Each questionnaire included 22 perceived health symptoms and 19 environmental indicators. The chi-square analysis was used to determine that there were indeed sex differences for 21 out of 22 of the health symptoms and for 15 out of the 19 environmental perception indicators. The Mantel-Haenszle chi-square analysis was used to show that these differences could not be accounted for by age or job type, except for one indicator; difficulty concentrating. The largest sex ratio (the ratio of female to male prevalence) was found for the following symptoms: cold extremities, nausea, dizziness, skin dryness, chest pain, muscle ache, weakness, and neck ache. For the environmental factors, the largest sex ratio was found for too little noise, too much air movement, temperature just right, and air moisture just right It was found that the clerical workers studied had the highest prevalence of health symptoms, and were the least satisfied with their environment. However, they also had the least difference between sexes. The age distribution of the sexes differed, however once the adjustment for age was done, it was found that it had little effect on the sex ratio. It was found that job type was associated with the prevalence of health and comfort complaints of office employees, with health more strongly associated than comfort. When only the female data set was considered, it was found that management and clerical workers reported the highest prevalence of health symptoms and were the most dissatisfied with their work environment. However, male management workers had the lowest prevalence of health symptoms and were the least dissatisfied with their work environment. The observed sex differences between the workers appeared to be attributed to management. The existing sex differences between the office workers, after controlling for age and job type, were explained by the following factors: males and females tend to have different job characteristics in offices, (which are not examined by using job titles); a true sex difference

7

may actually exist; females may report more than males; and additional factors, such as stress, may influence the reporting.

1.3 Objective and Scope

Detailed sets of field data derived from laboratory-grade instrumentation applied to existing buildings in the Mediterranean climate and in the tropics have been established. Those measurements have been made in full compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992, ISO 7726, and ISO 7730 standards (ASHRAE, 1992; ISO, 1985; ISO, 1984). A third set of field data using similar or more stringent criteria is presented in this report.

This project provides information on office thermal environments and occupant response in a climate with a severe dry, cold winter (hot summer). The cities studied (Montreal, Longueuil, Gramby, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Shawinigan, Trois-Rivieres, Hull, and Maniwaki) have four to five months whose mean daily temperatures are below 0°C. The study has followed, as much as possible, the methods used for measurement and analysis in 462-RP and in 702-RP. All the major measurements are included, to at least the same levels of accuracy and intensity of sampling. This resulted in the development of a data base of the thermal environments and subjective responses of occupants in the existing office buildings. It was provided to ASHRAE in a spreadsheet format on diskette. The occupant background survey used was that used in 702-RP, but translated into french. The 12 office buildings studied include both old and new construction, and the workstations include individual and open plan offices in the building core and perimeter. A total of 445 places of work were studied in the summer months of June, July, and.August, 1994. The tests were repeated during the winter months of January, February, and March, 1995. Each volunteer was interviewed only twice (once per season), as recommended in 702-RP. The daily outdoor maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidities were also included in the database. The study determines, for summer and winter, both the preferred thermal conditions for occupancy and the range of conditions found thermally acceptable by the occupants. The findings are compared to the conditions required by the ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7730. The effectiveness of existing predictive thermal indices (ET*, SET, DISC), as computed by the J.B. Pierce 2-node model, and the ISO Standard 7730 algorithms shall be examined in light of the occupant's subjective responses. The influence of age, clothing and gender, and the potential acclimatization effects by correlating occupant responses with the prevailing outdoor conditions in the region, and by comparing this data base with the earlier two databases (462-RP and 702-RP) are investigated. Air velocity preferences are also compared with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55.

8

CHAPTER 2

2. METHODS

2.1 Climatic Environment

Canada is comprised of six climatic regions: Arctic, Northern, Pacific, Cordillera, Prairie, and Southeastern. Each region is dependent on its geographic location and topography, as can be seen in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Climatic regions of Canada (Information Canada, 1962) - dots of cities tested

The westerlies provide the basic influence. The Western Cordilleras interfere with the general westerly flow of air from the Pacific Ocean and encourage intrusions of cold Arctic air and warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. The interference between these three

9

streams produces a succession of cyclones and anticyclones. The cyclones, characterized by low pressure and counter-clockwise rotation, are the result of the northern projection of tongues of warm air. The anticyclones, with high pressure and clockwise rotation, result from the intrusion of air from the North. The cold, high-pressure areas dominate the interior of the continent in winter, while in summer, the migrant low-pressure areas travel across on more northerly paths.(Hutcheon et al, 1983)

The cities chosen for the study are Montreal, Longueuil, Gramby, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Shawinigan, Trois-Rivieres, Hull, and Maniwaki. They are all located along the border of the Northern and Southeastern limits. These cities have dry-bulb temperatures of 30°C or over, which are exceeded for 2.5 % of the hours in July, while in January, they have dry-bulb temperatures of -25°C or lower, which are exceeded for 2.5% of the hours in that month.

The solar energy falling on the outside of buildings in summer in countries with cold climates is almost as great as for areas much closer to the equator. The use of added insulation and multiple glazing and shading will determine how much the solar energy contributes to the cooling load. Cloud cover is a major factor in determining the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. The hours of bright sunshine are 80 to 100 hours in December.

A building is usually required to provide an indoor environment that can be maintained within certain limits as required by the occupancy. In Canada, this means that most buildings must be heated in winter, and sometimes cooled in summer.

The current project involved two series of tests, one in each extreme season; summer/hot (June, July, and August) and winter/cold (January, February, and March).

2.2 Outdoor Meteorological Measurements

The meteorological parameters recorded were hourly temperatures, wind speed and direction, relative humidity, daily precipitation, start and stop times of precipitation, and general conditions. These recordings were purchased from the closest meteorological observation site to each building tested. The daily minimum and maximum temperature and relative humidity recordings for the cities in question are shown in Figures 2.2 to 2.5. The mean temperature and relative humidity (average of mean daily minima and maxima) for the summer season was 18°C and 74%, respectively. For the winter season, the mean temperature and relative humidity was -7°C and 72%, respectively.

10

Figure 2.2: Daily maximum and minimum exterior temperatures recorded during summer/hot tests. (Environment Canada, 1994)

Summer Season (June) building 2

temperature (C)

35 -r

30 - T

2 5 - - " • • •'••-

20 • f] -

r i l l 5 - - ,

I o M • • ' ' i : : i i : i ' • : '—'—. : : • ; . - : ' — !

i i -, * s a r 9 > <o <i t i it <• is :i n 't 11 » » n a » » u i ' » » u

day

Summer Season (July) buildings 3,4,5,6

temperature (C) 3 5 - 1

Summer Season (August) buildings 1,7,8,9,10,11,12

temperature (C) 35-i

Pill!"!

11

Figure 2.3: Daily maximum and minimum exterior relative humidities recorded during summer/hot tests. (Environment Canada, 1994)

Summer Season (June) building 2

relative humidity (%) 120

3 3 t 9 t ' » » (4 •! I I U U IS I I i f 11 l l S } l l t a ) t M 3 1 1 t N » »

day

Summer Season (July) buildings 3,4,5,6

relative humidity (%) 120

100

» 3 a 3 8 r • , i t I I I I t l 1 * I I i | I I I f H » » » t> » B 3t » H I I tt »

day

Summer Season (August) buildings'1,7,8,9,10,11.12

relative humidity {%) 120-

100 -

80-

60-

40-

20-

0-

'n

* 9 « » 9 t i » io i i <a t i i4 t i i | m i •« to ai a n 14 JS M i? » a N i t

day

12

Figure 2.4 Daily maximum and minimum exterior temperatures recorded during winter/cold tests. (Environment Canada, 1995)

Winter Season (January) buildings 2,6,7,9

temperature (C) 20

10

-io-

•20

JH

- 3 0 " . ; •' ! : : i i i i ! ! ' r • : i i i • i i r ;. ;-•: ; i I 1 > * • * I t ' 9 » t | Q M t | i | I? t | i t » » » H H S M V » a » «

day

Winter Season (February) buildings 1,5,10,11

temperature (C) 10-T

r :: o •

p. -S - • - •" - - ; - \ i

:n " n' IO- - : - n

1 5 - - •••f| u |_ u U u

2 0 - - LI- •

. - • : • .

n IT n-

n f

' fH • U - - L*. * - *•* - •

" .

i t 4 s 9 f t i >o ii u t ii it ii ir is i» » « a » M as » it » day

Winter Season (March) buildings 3,4,8

temperature (C) 30

2 0 - 1 -

10-

0

-10-

-20 - t - Ur \M

ftiiipft n

-30 |;! I ! I I : i i• :' i I I ! I I• I I ; I I I I { ] I I !• I i I ! • s > • % • r • 9 it n i i » M if i» I I I I i» is n a la M a » i) n a » n

day

13

Figure 2.5 Daily maximum and minimum exterior relative humidities recorded during winter/cold tests. (Environment Canada, 1995)

Winter Season (January) buildings 2,6,7,9

relative humdity (%) 120-

100

80

60-

40

20-

1 • fin- n„ f DB flIIDODQn . 111

- — ! — ' ' i I » 3 4 S 9 ' 9 9 19 II '3 13 14 19 IQ If ' • '« » I I a 13 14 U H 17 n » 3S 31

day

Winter Season (February) buildings 1,5,10,11

relative humidity {%) 120

3 J * 3 » T » B '0 M »a i> 1* IS 18 'T '9 «fl » 2< JJ » J« » M *•* »

day

Winter Season (March) buildings 3,4,8

relative humidity (%) 120-

100-

80-

60-

40-

20-

o- -i—!—i—HH—i—r—i—i '• I—i—(—!- • , . i i . i i 3 3 « 9 • I f 3 10 I I I I » 14 I I t l I f I I I I » » a D H » B I T N » M 11

day

14

2.3 Buildings

The Principal Investigator approached several building owners about this research project. The owner that was selected is the largest in the province of Quebec. Due to project constraints, it was advantageous to work with this organization since the building owner arranged all of the initial meetings and coordinated the site visits. In exchange for this service, we monitored some air quality parameters along with the thermal comfort. Together with the building owner, 11 buildings were chosen within a 100 mile radius. A 12,h

building, owned by a second company, was added to the study later on, and this only for the summer season.

The twelve buildings vary greatly in surface area, occupant density, and building use. These details can be found in Table 2.1. Meetings with each building operator provided basic details of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems. Basic system descriptions, internal and external photographs, building floor plans, outdoor meterological conditions and internal temperature data have been prepared for each building (see Appendix A).

Table 2.1: Summary of building characteristics

15

code

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

city

Montreal

Montreal

Cap-de-la-Madeleine

Shawinigan

Trois-Rrvieres

Longueuil

Longueuil

Manhvaki

Gramby

Montreal

Hull

Montreal

use (tenant)

offices (gov)

jail (gov)

police station (gov)

court house (gov)

offices (gov)

court house (gov)

offices (gov)

offices (gov)

court house (gov)

offices (gov)

court house (gov)

offices (private)

ctn date

1960

1967

1992

1983

1979

1987

1965

1974

1980

1945

1977

1972

#of floors

(layout)

5 + SB* (mixed)

14 + SB (mixed)

3 (mixed)

3 (mixed)

4 + SB (mixed)

2 (mixed)

7 + SB (mixed)

2 + SB (mixed)

3 + SB (mixed)

3 (mixed)

10 (mixed)

25 + SB (mixed)

total area (m2)

7220

68 198

3963

5265

10 451

14 980

12 500

3500

8784

3006

32 345

37 325

number of

questionnaires

79

77

79

82

88

82

81

61

80

79

83

6

HVAC type

free cooling, VAV

double duct, CAV

free cooling, CAV

free cooling, VAV and CAV

free cooling, VAV

free cooling, VAV

double duct, VAV and free cooling, CAV

free cooling, VAV

double duct, VAV

free cooling, VAV

double duct, VAV and CAV

double duct, CAV and free cooling, VAV

: *S.B.: SUB-BASEMENT

16

2.4 The Subjects

The target sample size was 400 office workers, or 40 occupants in each of 10 buildings. In reality, 445 occupants were surveyed throughout the 12 buildings, during the summer/hot season, and 432 during the winter/cold season.

2.5 Measurements of Indoor Climates

Two types of indoor climatic measurement systems were used; a mobile and a stationary system. The mobile system (CHARIOT) was wheeled into each subject's workstation. The stationary system was placed in a representative location within each building during the workstation visits, to record variations in the indoor climate.

2.5.1 Mobile measurement system (CHARIOT)

The mobile measurement system, CHARIOT, was used to collect readings of the physical environment (see Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: CHARIOT - mobile measurement system

17

The CHARIOT was designed and constructed by a student of Concordia University. The CHARIOT is mobile and portable. The battery power was capable of a full day's operation. The system collected concurrent physical data (air temperature, dew-point temperature, vapour pressure, globe temperature, radiant asymmetry, air velocity, and turbulence). Furthermore, the following parameters were added to the CHARIOT: temperature of air supply, air return, and room; illuminance; carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds; and tracer gas decay. The transducers and measurement points were placed to represent the immediate environment of the seated subjects. The transducers meet the ASHRAE 55-92 (1992) and ISO 7726 (1985) standards for accuracy and response time.

The physical measurements were made at the exact physical position of the subject completing the subjective questionnaire, and as soon as the ONLINE portion of the questionnaire was completed. The whole process of subjective evaluation and physical measurements was completed in 9 minutes per workstation.

All physical data was collected in machine-readable form. The data acquisition system also provided real-time displays of measured values. These values were also manually recorded in notebooks to allow for early detection of any abnormal readings. These values were always hidden from the subjects to avoid bias in their answers on the survey.

2.5.2 CHARIOTs sensors

All of the necessary equipment was mounted onto a triple decker, four-wheeled cart. A hard chair was attached to the front of the cart to simulate the shielding effect of the occupant's chair. The CHARIOTs transducers meet the response time and accuracy requirements of ASHRAE Standard 55-92 and ISO Standards 7726 and 7730.

The air temperature was measured at three heights by three Dan tec 54R10 thermistors. The temperature sensors are accurate to within 0.2°C and have a time-constant of less than 1 second (63% value). The team was careful not to place them along a window or directly under an air current, or next to a heating element.

Globe temperatures were measured at three heights by three Bruel and Kjaer globe temperature sensors (MM 0030). Each consists of a PtlOO (platinum resistance) temperature sensing element situated in the centre of a 150 mm diameter globe. The globe is made from 0.4 mm copper sheet, coated with optically black lacquer which has an emission coefficient of 0.98. The temperature measured at the globe centre is an equilibrium temperature caused by radiative and convective heat exchange between the globe and the environment; It has an accuracy of 0.5°C, with a response time of 7 minutes.

Air velocity and turbulence were measured at three heights by three Dan tec 54R10 anemometers. The 54R10 is an omnidirectional fully temperature-compensated sensor with

18

a time constant of 0.1 second. Each anemometer has two nickel-plated quartz spheres supplied with a small electrical current. The current heats the spheres which, in turn, are cooled by the passing airstream. Velocity is measured by regulating the electrical current to maintain the spheres at a constant temperature. Melikov et al. (1992) compared various low-velocity anemometers under controlled and equal conditions. They found that the anemometers measured different mean velocities and turbulence intensities due to the different calibrations they had. They also found that the special protective elements around the velocity sensor had an impact on the measured turbulence intensity. Also, the omnidirectional sensors were found to be sensitive to the velocity direction in the plane of the transducer axis (yaw sensitivity). This confirmed that, for this project, the velocity probes be placed horizontally. The sensors were factory calibrated the week preceding the start of the site visits.

The dew point temperature and vapour pressure were measured at one height by a Bruel and Kjaer air humidity transducer (MM 0037). The transducer operates by cooling a conical mirror until dew is formed on the mirror surface. The appearance of condensation is sensed by the light from an LED being reflectively scattered by the dew into a light sensitive transistor. A temperature sensitive element below the mirror then determines the temperature. The sensor is accurate to within 0.5°C, with a measuring time of 25 seconds.

Radiant asymmetry was measured by a Bruel and Kjaer plane radiant asymmetry sensor (MM 0036). This transducer simultaneously measures plane radiant temperature in two opposite directions. The difference between the transducer surfaces is the radiant temperature asymmetry. It has an accuracy of within 1°C and a response time of 1 minute (90%). Asymmetry was measured in the horizontal direction, since the buildings are not equipped with radiant heating on the ceilings or in the floors.

Illuminance, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde, and volatile organic compounds were parameters recorded for possible use in later analyses. The tracer gas decay method was used to determine an average air exchange rate for each building. The three temperature measurements' (air supply, return, and room) were also collected. Some of these recordings are included in the database for this project.

2.5.3 Stationary measurement system

Variations in the indoor climates of the buildings sampled were recorded for each measurement period. A data logger consisted in measuring temperature and relative humidity for the total duration of the site visit (usually 2 to 3 consecutive days). The system was placed in a representative location of each building sampled; usually at 0,6 m above floor level, as close as possible to a subject's workstation. The system monitored during the night-time also, when most HVAC systems may have been shut down.

19

The temperature was measured with a negative temperature coefficient thermistor having an accuracy within 0.2 °C, with a response time of 5 minutes (in still air). The relative humidity sensor was based on a sulfonated polystyrene wafer. Its accuracy was within 4% RH. Changes in relative humidity cause the resistance of the electrically-conducting surface of the wafer to vary. This resistance is measured and converted to percentage of RH. All RH readings are then temperature-compensated by simultaneously-taken temperature readings. The response time of the sensor is shorter for increasing RH excursions due to the fact that water is adsorbed rapidly but released relatively slowly; it is approximately 5 minutes in still air.

Both thermistor and RH sensors in the stationary system were interfaced to a data logger with a memory capacity of 32 000 data readings. The logger's scan rate was set to 10 minutes.

2.6 Questionnaires

For compatibility reasons, the questionnaire used in the present study was essentially the same as the one used in the earlier Townsville study (702-RP). However, since the official language of business is french in Quebec, the questionnaire was translated into french. This translation was validated by bilingual volunteers.

The subjective survey was divided into two parts, BACKGROUND and ONLINE (see Appendix B for a sample of the questionnaire). The BACKGROUND questions covered areas such as demographics, contextual and psychological factors. -The ONLINE questions related to the subject's assessment of their immediate thermal environment at that point in time. The questions in the present form do not follow the same order as in the previous Townsville format At the request of the building owner, the more personal questions were placed at the end of the questionnaire. Furthermore, the building owner requested that there be only one survey. So, both ONLINE and BACKGROUND questions were joined onto one paper format. The ONLINE section consisted in the first three pages of the form. Once those three pages were completed, the occupant was asked to move so as to place the CHARIOT at the workstation. The occupant was then asked to complete the BACKGROUND section immediately. This avoided any losses or misplacement of surveys.

In total, there were 445 questionnaires distributed and completed during the summer/hot season and 432 during the winter/cold season.

2.6.1 The ONLINE section

The questions included in the ONLINE section of the survey consisted in the traditional scales of thermal sensation and thermal preference, personal comfort, metabolic activity checklist, and two scales focusing on air movement. The current clothing garment checklist

20

was placed in the BACKGROUND portion of the survey, due to the building owner's request for grouping the more confidential questions towards the end of the form. Since we asked the occupant to complete the BACKGROUND portion while the measurements were being taken, the placement of the clothing checklist within the form was irrelevant. Some of the BACKGROUND questions (from the Townsville study) were placed in the ONLINE section, to facilitate the reading of the survey. The thermal sensation scale was the ASHRAE 7-point scale of warmth ranging from cold (-3) to hot (+3) with neutral (0) in the middle. We depicted this as a continuous scale so that the occupants could check their sensation anywhere along the range. As in the previous Townsville study, the item immediately following thermal sensation dealt with acceptability, with subjects being asked if the current thermal environment was acceptable to them or not. The thermal preference scale asked on a three-point scale whether the respondent would like a change (want warmer, no change, want cooler). The air movement scales replicated the temperature preference and acceptability items.

As done previously, metabolic rates were assessed by a checklist of office activities referring to four distinct time-brackets in the hour preceding the testing; 0 to 10 minutes, 10 to 20 minutes, 20 to 30 minutes, and 30 to 60 minutes before. The quantification of the responses was based on the databases found in the ASHRAE Standard 55-92 and in ISO 7730.

2.6.2 The BACKGROUND section

The questions included in the BACKGROUND section of the survey included, in this order:

1) some demographics, 2) health, 3) environmental sensitivity, 4) work area satisfaction, 5) personal control of the workstation's environment, 6) other, more personal, demographics 7) current clothing garment, and 8) job satisfaction.

Most of the questions were identical to the Townsville study, except for certain modifications pertaining specifically to the province of Quebec; ie schooling level, language use, and ethnic background. The clothing garment checklists were the same as those used in the Townsville study, incorporating the extensive lists published in ASHRAE Standard 55-92. Figures of the typical summer/hot and winter/cold office attire in Montreal can be seen in Appendix C.

Most subjects completed the ONLINE portion within 5 minutes. The BACKGROUND section usually took about 15 minutes. When the occupant was asked to leave their workstation, we asked them to sit at an adjacent, vacant workstation to complete the form.

21

Each occupant was told that "IN AVERAGE" or "EN MOYENNE" encompassed the past 3 to 4 weeks. This was specified since the occupants felt very differently as the seasons changed. It was expected to see these large differences in the results. After picking up each filled-out survey, the researcher checked to see that every question was answered. Furthermore, the answers to the clothing section and to the demographic sections were quickly verified to correct any gross misunderstandings, on the subject's part.

2.7 Measurement Procedure

The summer/hot data was collected by a research assistant (from Concordia University) and the principal investigator. This was done to establish proper sampling procedures. The principal investigator was replaced by a second research assistant (also from Concordia University) for the winter/cold session. The procedure followed at each workstation is depicted below:

1) principal investigator approaches subject, asks if time is convenient, and presents the questionnaire;

2) as subject completes ONLINE portion of survey, principal investigator makes a few notes (such as location of thermostat, type of chair occupied by subject, area in building, gender, presence of computers, personal desk lamps, fans, portable heaters, obstructed diffusers, type of workstation, presence of window shading, window and door positions, location of diffuser and return, direct sunlight, draughts, abnormal clothing of subject) and draws the workstation in plan view; research assistant approaches workstation with CHARIOT, allowing sensors to stabilize;

3) once subject has completed ONLINE portion of survey, principal investigator asks subject to vacate station and complete BACKGROUND portion of survey at adjacent vacant station;

4) once subject has liberated station, research assistant puts CHARIOT in place; research assistant waits approximately 2 to 3 minutes before taking measurements. A 3- to 5- minute sample of workstation's thermal environment is recorded; principal investigator photographs any abnormality and then leaves to scout for next subject;

5) once measurements are complete, research assistant reminds subject to complete survey for it will be picked up within quarter hour;

6) principal investigator returns to guide research assistant to next station, then returns to pick up completed survey.

2.8 Effect of Chair Insulation

The previous Townsville study incorporated the notion of chair insulation to the "CLO" levels used in the data analysis. They used the most recent quantitative data they had which

22

were based on a chamber experiment (Shin-ichi Tanabe, pers. comm. 1993). This experiment compared a clothed manikin's heat loss whilst sitting in an office chair to its heat loss in a string chair. The incremental insulation effects of three broad categories of chair, regardless of the clothing ensemble being worn, were determined to be 0.05,0.15, and 0.20 clo.

The site visits in this Montreal study indicated a large variety of chairs being used by the occupants. Figures showing the different chairs can be found in Appendix D.

The different chairs found in this study were categorized as to the amount of contact the person had with the chair. Due to project constraints, certain assumptions were made. The recent work of McCullough et al. (1994) was used to determine the additional clo values of the chairs. These chair clo values were added to the garment clo values of the occupants.

McCullough et al. (1994) reported that clothing insulation values increased 0.1 to 0.3 clo when a manikin sat in real chairs. The amount of the increase was related to the amount of chair surface area in contact with the body. The authors stated that to determine the intrinsic insulation around a person, the Idu clo values for chair insulation should be added to the Idu clo values for garments. In their study, six different types of chairs were evaluated:

- a wooden stool, - a metal folding chair, - a computer chair, - a carrel chair, - a desk chair, and - an executive chair.

They used four different types of clothing ensembles:

- a heavy business suit (briefs, t-shirt, long-sleeved dress shirt (shirt collar), necktie, belt, suit jacket (single-breasted), long dress trousers, calf-length dress socks, hard-soled street shoes)

- a shirt and trousers (briefs, short-sleeved shirt (shirt collar), long trousers (thin)* calf-length dress socks, hard-soled street shoes)

- a blouse and a straight skirt (panties, long-sleeved shirt (shirt collar), straight skirt (knee length), pantyhose, hard-soled street shoes)

- a blouse and a pleated skirt ( panties, long-sleeved blouse (shirt collar), pleated skirt (knee length), pantyhose, hard-soled street shoes).

The following table summarizes their results, for our purposes:

23

Table 2.2: Added insulation of chairs

ensemble

suit

trousers

straight skirt

pleated skirt

clothing area

factor Fd

132

1.15

1.29

1J3

IT standing

insulation (do)

1.60

1.14

1.10

1.13

Id standing

insulation (clo)

1.11

057

0.60

0.64

added insulation of chairs relative to no chair (clo)

stool

0.13

0.11

-

-

folding

0.10

0.10

-

-

computer

022

0.18

-

-

carrel

032

0.19

-

-

desk

026

0.17

-

-

executive

033

0.22

0.17

0.17

2.9 Collected Data

The research team familiarized itself with the data base created by the previous Townsville study, and with the related software (SAS). For comparative reasons, similar databases were developed. The raw data collected in the form of written questionnaires, data recordings, and researcher notes was compiled into permanent data sets for detailed statistical analyses (SAS Institute Inc., 1994).

Two databases were developed: OLSIQ and BGSIQ, as in the Townsville study. There were 877 sets (rows) of results in the final data matrix for this project. The first 445 rows pertain to the summer/hot season, the final 432 rows to the winter/cold season. The column headings repeat, as much as possible, those of the Townsville study; however our additional measured parameters are included as close to the tail end of the databases as possible. These details are enumerated in Appendix E.

2.10 Comfort Indices

The data from the ONLINE questions were matched with their corresponding CHARIOT data. Following the same programs as those used for the previous studies (RP-462 and RP-702), the environmental and comfort index calculations were performed for each workstation. The indices included:

- Operative temperature (t0) Chapter 13, ASHRAE 1993 Fundamentals - Mean radiant temperature (tr) (ASHRAE, 1993)

24

- Effective Temperature (ET*) - Standard Effective Temperature (SET) - DISC

- Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) - Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied (PPD)

[2-node model pom the J.B.Pierce Laboratory (Gagge et aL,1986 and Doherty,1988) using Fountain et al, 1995]

(ISO 7730 (ISO, 1984) algorithms)

- Predicted percent dissatisfied due to Draft (PD)

[equation B-la from Appendix B ofASHRAE Standard 55-1992 (ASHRAE, 1992)J

25

CHAPTER 3

3. RESULTS

3.1 Sample Size

The minimum sample size required was 400 subjects in 10 buildings; ideally 40 occupants per building. The subjects were to be studied twice, once in summer and once in winter. In effect, for the summer/hot season, 445 subjects were studied throughout 12 buildings, and 432 subjects were studied throughout 11 buildings in the winter/cold season. The summer/hot season survey took place during the months of June, July and August 1994. The winter/cold season survey took place during the months of January, February, and March 1995. After discussions with the RP-821 Project Monitoring Committee (Bjarne Olesen, January 31, 1995), we sought to sample in the winter/cold season, as much as possible the same subjects and workstations as for the summer/hot season. Finally, out of the 432 winter/cold subjects tested, 344 were re-used from the summer/hot sample (80% of winter/cold sample).

Each of the individuals completed the ONLINE and BACKGROUND portions of the questionnaire. Unlike the previous Townsville study, the BACKGROUND portion of the questionnaire was completed twice by the occupants. This was done since the occupants strongly insisted that there was a big difference between average summer/hot and average winter/cold conditions. The questions remained the same, except for number 27 on page 4, where the use of home "air-conditioning" was replaced for home "humidifying". Each questionnaire was accompanied by a set of CHARIOT measurements of workstation environmental conditions.

3.2 Description of Sample

It was suggested, during the TC2.1 meeting held in January 1995, that the data be analyzed in six different categories for each season (Byron Jones, January 31, 1995). Figure 3.1, clearly shows these divisions. To facilitate the presentation of the results, the gender and age sorting can be found in Appendix F. The results shown in this main report are only divided as to season.

Figure 3.1: Categories used to sort data (season, gender, age)

26

J < 1 1

f 1 V

r male

- < 40 yrs

- 40-55 yrs

- > 55 yrs

SUMMER J SEASON

1 female

- < 40 yrs

- 40-55 yrs

- > 55 yrs

DATA

V r

male

- < 40 yrs

- 40-55 yrs

- > 55 yrs

' WINTER SEASON

V 1 — p female

- < 40 yrs

- 40-55 yrs

- > 55 yrs

A summary of the occupant surveys is shown in the following table:

27

Table 3.1: Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents

SEASON

SAMPLE SIZE

GENDER (%)

Age (yr)

Height (cm)

Weight (kg)

Number of years in Canada (yr)

Highest education level (%)

Primary language (%)

MALE

FEMALE

mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

high school

diploma/degree

postgrad university

french

other

SUMMER/HOT

445

50

50

41.2

8.4

16.0

65.0

167.9

9.5

147.0

193.0

68.8

15.2

44.0

120.0

34.8

11.9

1.0

65.0

20

65

15

97

3

WINTER/COLD

432

49

51

41.9

7.9

22.0

64.0

168.4

9.9

147.0

194.0

69.0

15.7

44.0

130.0

40.8

8.9

7.0

64.0

23

63

14

98

2

28

The gender group was split in half, 49-50% male and 50-51% female. The average age of the subjects was 41-42 years, with a range of 16 to 65. The average age of the males was 43-44 years and of the females was 39-40 years; slightly younger. All of those questioned had attained high school education levels or better. Sixty-four percent of them had post-secondary education, while 14-15% had attained graduate studies. Overall, the males had attained higher levels of education than the females. French was the primary language for 97-98% of the occupants. The average amount of time lived in Canada is 35 to 41 years. The males have been in this climate longer, however this is most probably due to the fact that they are older than the females. As can be seen in Figure 3.2, more than 96% of the respondents have been living in this climate for more than 15 years. Therefore, the sample can be safely regarded as being naturally acclimatized to this climate.

Figure 3.2: Length of residence in Canada

• summer

13 winter

* total

As is seen in Figure 3.3, 97% of those questioned were Caucasian.

29

Figure 3.3: Ethnic composition of the sample

• summer

0 winter

* total

In the summer/hot season, 48% of the occupants responded that they had air-conditioning systems installed in their homes, but only 56% of them actually used it during the summer/hot season (see Figure 3.4). This is most apparent for the older females, who responded that only 33% of them actually used i t In the winter/cold season, 80% of the occupants responded that they had humidification systems installed in their homes, but only 35% of them actually used it during the winter/cold season (see Figure 3.5). Both of these findings are surprising; however, the general consensus from the researcher's observations is that the home units are generally quite noisy (impeding sound sleep), and require weekly maintenance (which can be tedious).

30

Figure 3.4: Usage of home air-conditioning in the hot season

I summer

Figure 3.5: Usage of home humidifier in the cold season

31

To rate job satisfaction, fifteen questions were asked and rated from (1) very dissatisfied to (6) very satisfied. The highest possible job satisfaction index would be 90 (or 6 x 15), while the lowest would be 15 (or 1 x 15). The mean across the entire sample was 69 on 90 (69 in summer/hot and 68 in winter/cold). However, those over 55 years of age consistently voted higher than the younger age groups (72 to 75 on 90). Therefore, in general, the occupants were (5) moderately satisfied with their job in both the summer/hot and winter/cold seasons.

Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show the ratings for each question ranked according to aggregate dissatisfaction (very + moderately + slightly dissatisfied). Chances for career advancement rated worst in all cases except for those over 55 years of age (time pressures and job security). Pay was rated second-worst in the summer/hot except for those over 55 years of age (quality of equipment and company policies), while time pressures was rated second-worst in the winter/cold. Co-worker relations, interaction with co-workers, the job overall, and supervisor relations rated the highest in all cases.

Figure 3.6: Job satisfaction ratings (summer/hot season)

SUMMER

m very satisfied

E3 moderately sat

H slightly satisfied

0 slightly dissat

E2 moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

percent 100

32

Figure 3.7: Job satisfaction ratings (winter/cold season)

Several studies (Hedge, 1994, Hedge et al., 1989a; Skov et al., 1989) found that job dissatisfaction correlated with symptom reports. The same was not found in this project The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the job index and the health index (shown later in this chapter) was practically nil (r=-0.08; Prob<0.01; df=871).

The occupants' environmental sensitivity was rated using a group of 8 questions; with ratings ranging from (1) very insensitive to (6) very sensitive. The ratings were ranked in terms of aggregate sensitivity scores (very + moderately + slightly sensitive). Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show that the occupants felt they were most sensitive to poor air quality, low air movement, and heat and least sensitive to high air movement

Figure 3.8: Environmental sensitivity ratings (summer/hot season)

percent 100

<*-.:; iST: :-" '--.U> - JS>';:''-:;';;k« : . _*• I& c$*

. # • • • • . * '

# . * • • < * •

SUMMER

D very sensitive

moderately sensitive

slightly sensitive

Ds l igh t ly insensitive

moderately insensitive

• very insensitive

J

Figure 3.9: Environmental sensitivity ratings (winter/cold season)

percerit lob

^ ; ! ^ r >::•=,# .J> :#-...V J? ^

#

WINTER

Overy sensitive moderately sensitive

slightly sensitive

CD slightly insensitive



34

Ten symptoms were rated by the occupants to assess their health status. The questions were rated from (1) never to (5) very often. By summing the "very often", "often", and "sometimes" responses together, the most frequently occurring symptom was "fatigue", in both seasons (except for those 55 years and older; "concentration lapses" and "sore throat"); and the least occurring symptom was "dizziness", in both seasons (see Figures 3.10 and 3.11). There was also a difference in gender; females noted "dry skin" and "headaches" more often than males. Males noted "sore throats" and "eye irritation" more often than females. Furthermore, occurrences of "sore throat" increased with age whereas "fatigue" and "sleepiness" decreased with age. There is a definite seasonal pattern in the graphed data; "dry skin", "nose irritation", and "sore throats" were more frequent during the winter/cold season, as was to be expected. However, "concentration lapses", "trouble focusing eyes", "eye irritation", "sleepiness", and "headaches" were more frequent during the summer/hot season. On the basis of the ratings across all 10 symptoms, individual subjects got an overall health rating on 50 (or 5 x 10). The average for the group approximated the "sometimes" frequency rating across all ten items; with males voting "rarely" and females voting "sometimes".

Figure 3.10: Self-reports of health symptom frequency (summer/hot season)

SUMMER

ED very often

often

03 sometimes

U rarely

never

35

Figure 3.11: Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter/cold season)

It was surprising to the investigators that "eye irritation" seemed to be less frequent in the winter/cold season than in the summer/hot season. The actual, measured relative humidities were much lower in the cold season than in the hot season (to be shown later in this chapter). The only other variable within this project's scope thought to influence "eye irritation" was cigarette smoke. However, this did not yield an explanation; on average, 5.5 cigarettes were smoked per day in the hot season, whereas an average of 5.1 cigarettes were smoked in the cold season. Looking at the original "eye irritation" self-reports more closely, it was found that the frequency of reports did not actually decrease in the cold season; the category moved to a lesser importance on the whole of self-reported symptoms. In effect, the "eye irritation" self-reports were quite similar in both seasons.

WINTER

ED very often

Sof ten

ED sometimes

E) rarely

I never

36

The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the actual, measured relative humidity and 4 health symptom frequencies (sore throat, nose irritation, eye irritation, and skin irritation) were quite weak (r=-0.10, -0.12, 0.06, and -0.17, respectively; Prob<0.01, df=870).

Hedge (1994), in administering a questionnaire survey in 6 office buildings, found that reports of headache were more prevalent in deep, open-plan office spaces than in private offices. A similar phenomenon was noted in our findings, as can be seen in Figure 3.12. Of all the occupants working in open-plan offices with partitions, 51% of them voted they "sometimes + often + very often" experienced headaches. Of those working in closed offices, 43% of them voted as experiencing headaches.

Figure 3.12: Self-reports of headaches and type of office space

Hedge (1994) also found that more symptoms were reported by workers who perceived IAQ to be poor. This is quite true for this study. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between

37

the health index and the perception of indoor air quality (shown later in this chapter) was moderately negative (r=-0.33; Prob<0.01; df=874). In other words, the more dissatisfied with the indoor air quality was the occupant, the more often the occupant self-reported health symptoms.

A Danish study found that whether or not the worker drank coffee correlated with symptom reports (Skov et al., 1989). However the same was not found in this study. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the health index and the number of caffeinated beverages consumed per day was almost nil (r=-0.05; Prob<0.01; df=876).

Hedge (1994) also found that more symptoms were reported by smokers. However, this was not apparent in our study. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the health index and the number of cigarettes smoked per day was almost nil (r=0.02; Prob<0.01; df=876), assuming that the subjects did not under-report their smoking habits.

3.3 Occupant Work-Area Satisfaction

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with eleven aspects of their workstation environment. The rating scale used ranged from (1) very dissatisfied to (6) very satisfied. The results are shown in Figures 3.13 and 3.14. By adding together all the dissatisfied responses (very + moderately + slightly dissatisfied), it was found that the occupants most complained about ventilation, air quality, temperature, and privacy, in both seasons (the males were more dissatisfied with smoking areas than with temperature, during the winter/cold season). The most satisfactory aspects of the respondent's work environments were lighting, furniture, chairs, and colours, in both seasons.

Figure 3.13: Work-area satisfaction ratings (summer/hot season)

SUMMER

CD very satisfied

Q moderately sat

S3 slightly satisfied

ED slightly dissat

0 moderately dissat

1 very dissatisfied

Figure 3.14: Work-area satisfaction ratings (winter/cold season)

percent 100i

** _«* _.*• > .* J>* fSS&/**'/ *•* s f

4

WINTER

m very satisfied

moderately sat

Hslightly satisfied

• slightly dissat

moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

39

Of particular interest to the investigators, the satisfaction with non-smoking areas was analyzed against cigarettes smoked per day. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the two variables was moderately positive (r=0.25; Prob<0.01; df=865). This means that those who did not smoke were very dissatisfied with the non-smoking areas, since there were none assigned. In all of the buildings tested, smoking was allowed in all spaces, however only 31% reported that they smoked. And those who did smoke were very satisfied with the non-smoking areas, since there were none - they could smoke everywhere.

Another relationship thought to be of interest was the dissatisfaction with privacy and the type of office space. As can be seen in Figure 3.15, the dissatisfaction rate increased by about 20% when the office space was of the open-plan type.

Figure 3.15: Privacy dissatisfaction ratings and type of office space

c. o C0

• ^ CO

to CO CO

•o

?0

10

0 o*C

c>° y •

J> * &

p *

^

type of office space

40

The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the satisfaction with air quality and 4 measured parameters (relative humidity, temperature, velocity, and turbulence) was quite weak (r=0.08, -0.19, 0.16, and 0.08 respectively; Prob<0.01; df=874).

Respondents were asked to give an "overall office acceptability" rating to their office work area. The scale ranged from (1) very unacceptable to (6) very acceptable. On a separate page of the questionnaire, the occupants were asked to rate their "overall office comfort" from (1) very uncomfortable to (6) very comfortable. The responses are shown in the following figures. Like the previous Townsville study, the pattern of response on both scales is not identical, however, the trend is similar, with the majority of the sample being "moderately comfortable" and rating the office as being "moderately acceptable".

Figure 3.16: Ratings of overall office acceptability

41

Figure 3.17: Ratings of overall office comfort

It was of interest to see if sitting next to a window made a difference to the occupant's comfort satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the satisfaction of the overall comfort and the office's physical area (ie whether the office was in the centre of the floor or whether it was along the window-covered periphery) was nil (r=-0.05; Prob<0.01; df=866). However, the perceived overall comfort, and this only during the cold season, was slightly negative (r=-0.11; Prob<0.01; df=428). This indicates, though rather loosely, that occupants perceive themselves being more comfortable when along the periphery.

The overall thermal characteristics, such as temperature, humidity, air movement levels and acceptability were assessed. Figure 3.18 shows the overall temperature rating from (1) very cool to (6) very warm. The majority response in both seasons was (4) slightly warm for the males, and (3) slightly cool for the females. The responses were almost evenly split between the cool and warm sides of the ratings scale during both seasons; the males voted more

H summer

1Z3 winter

* total

42

often on the warm side while the females voted more often on the cold side. In the case of humidity, the majority response (as can be seen in Figure 3.19) in both seasons was (3) slightly dry; with females voting on the dry side more often than males. However, the percentage of "dry" responses increased from 56% to 81% during the winter/cold season survey, as was to be expected. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between perceived relative humidity and measured relative humidity yielded a moderately positive dependence (r=0.30; Prob<0.01; df=876).

Figure 3.18: Ratings of overall office temperature

I summer

winter

* total

43

Figure 3.19: Ratings of overall office humidity

Figure 3.20 shows that the majority of the respondents (over 58%) rated the overall level of air movement as being "too little" (the females voted thus more often than the males). The remaining responses were split approximately 2.3:1 between "just right" and "too much", respectively, in the summer/hot season. In the winter/cold season, a discernable difference was noted as the ratio changed to 1.4:1; ratings of "too much" air movement increased in the winter/cold season. However, Figure 3.21 indicates that the responses were almost evenly split between the acceptable and unacceptable sides of the ratings scale during both seasons (54% in the summer/hot and 51% in the winter/cold voted on the acceptable side). Therefore, not only are the air movement levels not right, they are not acceptable by almost half of the sample.

• summer

winter

* total

Figure 3.20: Ratings of overall office air movement levels

percent 70

too little just right too much

Figure 3.21: Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability

percent

• summer

0 winter

* total

• summer

(Z3 winter

* total

45

Figure 3.22 shows that the majority of the respondents considered the lighting levels in their offices to be "moderately" and "very bright". Less than 10% of the respondents rated the lighting levels to be "dim".

Figure 3.22. Ratings of overall office lighting levels

3.4 Thermal Environment Control

More than 60% of the occupants responded that they had no control over the thermal environment of their workstation (see Figure 3.23). Only 1% said they had "complete control". Figure 3.24 shows that more than 65% of the respondents stated they were dissatisfied with the low level of perceived control, in both seasons (females tended to be more dissatisfied than males).

46

Figure 3.23: Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal environments of their workstations

• summer

(3 winter

* total

Figure 3.24: Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation thermal environments

• summer

winter

* total

47

U.K. studies have shown that personal control over the environment correlate with symptoms (Hedge et al., 1989a). For this project, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient between these two variables was slightly negative (r=-0.12; Prob<0.01; df=875). In other words, very loosely, it can be said that self-reports of health symptoms seem to decrease with an increased amount of control over the thermal environment

Seven items of control most likely to be found in offices are: windows, doors (inside and out), thermostats, drapes, heaters, and fans. Subjects were asked to rate each control in terms of the frequency of usage. Figures 3.25 and 3.26 show that drapes was the most frequently cited local thermal environmental control, with less than 30% stating that they were unavailable. However, over 18% claimed they never used the drapes, despite their availability. The next most frequently used personal thermal controls were internal doors and thermostats. The responses were almost identical in both seasons.

Figure 3.25: Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer/hot season)

percent

100

SUMMER

CD always

El often

S sometimes

E3 rarely

0 never

H not available

48

Figure 3.26: Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (winter/cold season)

percent 100

* * « - ° .«,*• ^ .6*

WINTER

CD always

HO often

£3 sometimes

ED rarely

0 never

1 not available

3.5 Indoor Climates

Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show the statistical summaries of the CHARIOT indoor climate measurements for the summer/hot and winter/cold seasons, respectively. Mean air and radiant temperatures (averaged across the three heights of 0.1, 0.6, and 1.1 m) generally fell within 21 and 28°C (summer/hot season) and 20 and 28°C (winter/cold season). Vertical air temperature gradients were, on average, about 0.67 °C/m in the occupied zone. Average relative humidities fell within 30 and 62% (summer/hot season) and within 10 and 39% (winter/cold season). Mean air velocities (average over the three heights) were quite low; they averaged 0.09 m/s and ranged from 0.04 to 0.24 m/s (summer/hot season) and averaged 0.08 m/s and ranged from 0.03 to 0.29 m/s (winter/cold season); while turbulence intensities fell within 9 and 59% (summer/hot season) and 6 and 66% for the winter/cold season; averaging 32 - 33 % for both seasons (ASHRAE, 1993, 1985).

49

Table 3.2: Results of Indoor Climatic data collected by CHARIOT during the summer/hot season.

building

sample size

air temperature (C) mean

(average of 3 heights) standard deviation

minimum

maximum

mean radiant mean

temperature (C) standard deviation

(calculated) minimum

(average of 3 heights) maximum

plane radiant mean

asymmetry (C) standard deviation

(above 1.1 m) minimum maximum

dew point mean temperature (C) standard deviation (at 0.6 m) minimum

maximum

relative humidity (%) mean (calculated) standard deviation

minimum maximum

vapor pressure (kPa) mean

(at 0.6 m) standard deviation minimum maximum

air velocity (m/s) mean

(average of 3 heights) standard deviation minimum maximum

turbulence intensity (%) mean

(calculated) standard deviation

(average of 3 heights) minimum

maximum

1

40 23.3

0.7

21.5

24.7

22.9

1.0

20.9

26.7

1.4

1,5

0.0 6:0 8.9

1.0 7.5

•10.2

39.5

3.6

33.0

45.9

1.1

0.1 1.0 1.3

0.10

0.03

0.06

0.21

31.6 5.7

21.0

49.0

2

39 23.3

0.8

21.2

25.3

22.5

0.8 20.7

24.4

0.6

0.5? 0.0 2:1:

8.9

2.2 5.4

12.5 39.7

5.3

29.5

47.8 1.2

0.2

0.9

1.5 0.11

0.03 0.06

0.22

33.1

5.8

22.0

43.0

3 40

22.7

0.5 21.7

23.4

22.0 0.4

21.2

23.1

1.0 0:7

0.0

3.3 13.8 0.4

13.0

14:8 56.7

2.0

53.5

62.2

1.6

0.0

1.5 1.7

0.09

0.02

0.05 0.14

31.2

4.7

23.0

44.0

4

41

24.0

0.6

21.7

24.9

23.4

0.5

22.3

24.1

0.6 0.7

0.0

4.3: 12.5

1.3

9.9

14.8

48.3

4.3

39.5

55.5

1.5

0.1

1.2 1.7

0.08

0.03

0.05 0.24

32.0

8.5

9.0

55.0

5 44

25.1 0.7

23.4

26.5

24.8

0.6 23.4

25.8

0.8

0.8 0.0

: 3.1 13.8

0.8

12.5

15.4

49.2

2.7

45.0

54.0

1.6

0.1 1.5

1.8 0.11

0.02

0.06

0.16 33.6

5.8

22.0

45.0

6 41

23.4

0.7

21.7

25.1

22.7

0.6

21.5

2S.1

0.6

0.5

0.0 2.2

8.9

1.0

7.1

11.9

39.3

2.8

34.3

52.2

1.1

0.1 1.0 1.4

0.08

0.03 0.05

0.19

30.0

6.0

20.0

45.0

7

40

23.1

0.5

22.1

24.3

22.6

0.5

21.6

23:7

0.9 0:7

0.0 2.5

14.7

0.3

14.0

15.2

58.7

1.5 54.7

61.4

1.7

0.0

1.6 1.7

0.08

0.02 0.04

0.11

33.6

6.0

20.0

49.0

8 31

26.4

0.7

24.6

27.5

25.3

0.6

23.6

26,4

0.7

0;4

0.0

1.5 11.9

1.4

10.2

15.1 40.2

3.7

36.9

49.3 1.4

0.1

1.2 1.7

0.07

0.01

0.05

0.11

33.5

7.0

22.0

49.0

9 40

23.7

0:7

22.1

25.2

23.0

0.6

21.6

24.5

0.6 0.4

0.1 1.6:

10.2

0.5

9.5

11.0 42.1

1.6

37.2

44.6

1.2

0.0 1.2

1.3 0.09

0.02

0.06

0.13

34.3

7.3

23.0

59.0

10 40;

25.5

1.0

23.3 27.4

24.8

0.9

23.0

26.5::

1.3 1.4

0.0 5.3

10.4

1.3. 8.0

12.0

38.6 4.5

32.3

45.7

1.3

0.1 1.1 1.4

0.08

0.02

0.05

0.14

33.0

6.8

20.0

56.0

11

43 23.4

0.8

21.9

25.1

23.0

1.0

21.7

27.1

1.5 1.9

0.0 10:3

9.9

0.6

9.3

11.3 42.1

3.1

37.7

50,4

1.2

0.1

1.2 1.3

0.09

0.02

0.06 0.14

32.1

4.8

22.0

44.0

12

6 23.5

0.6

22.6

24.3;

22.7

0.7

22.0

23.6

0.9

1.0:

0.3 2.9

10.2

0.2

10.0

10.5

42.5

1.5

40.3

44.8

1.2

0.0 1.2 1.3

0.09

0.03

0.06

0.13

34.5

7.8

23.0

TOT

445

23.9

1.3

21.2

27.5

23.3

1.2

20.7 i

27.1

0.9 1.0

0.0 : 10.3 11.3

2.3 5.4

15.4

45.0

7.6

29.5

62.2

1.4

0.2 0.9

1.8 0.09

0.03 0.04

0.24

32.6 6.4

9.0

46.0 59.0 i

50

Table 3.3: Results of Indoor Climatic data collected by CHARIOT during the winter/cold season.

building sample size

air temperature (C) mean (average of 3 heights) standard deviation

minimum maximum

mean radiant mean temperature (C) standard deviation (calculated) minimum (average of 3 heights) maximum

plane radiant mean asymmetry (C) standard deviation (above 1.1 m) minimum

maximum dew point mean temperature (C) standard deviation (at 0.6 m) minimum

maximum relative humidity (%) mean (calculated) standard deviation

minimum maximum

vapor pressure (kPa) mean (at 0.6 m) standard deviation

minimum maximum

air velocity (m/s) mean (average of 3 heights) standard deviation

minimum maximum

turbulence intensity (%) mean (calculated) standard deviation (average of 3 heights) minimum

maximum

1 39

22.9 0.4

21.9 23.9 22.7

1,2 21.6 28.3

1.2 1.4 0.0 5,9 6.5 2.2 1.3 9.1

16.5 8.0

10.0 31.5

0.5 0.2 0.3 0.9

0.10 0.03 0.06 0.17 33.0 5.8

18.0 44.0

2 38

23.2 1.0

21.1 25.1 22.6 0.9

20.8 24.9

1.2 1.6 0.0

10:0 2.5 2.0 0.3 6.8

17.8 3.0

11.7 23.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7

0.11 0.05 0.05 0.24 32.6 5.5

21.0 44.0

3 39

23.2 0.5

21.9 24.2 22.5 0.5

21.2 23.6 0.6

. 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.2 3.2

23.5 1.2

21.5 26.7 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.8

0.09 0.03 0.05 0.20 29.3 4.6

21.0 44.0

4 41

22.7 0;5

21.3 23.7 21.5 0.5

19.8 22.4

1.0 1.0. 0.0 3.9 1.4 0.6 0.1 2.7

19.5 1.0

16.9 22.9 Q.5 0.0 0.5 0:6

0.06 0.01 0.05 0.10 29.6 5.5

20.0 42.0

5 . '44: 23.1 0.7

21.7 24.6 22.4 0.6

21.2 23.8

1-2 1.0 0.0 4.2 5.5 2.3 0.3 8.8

13.7 2.8

10.0 20.7 0.4 0,1 0.3 0.6

0.08 0.02 0.05 0.12 31.3 4.8

21.0 42.0

6 40

22.8 0.6

21.2 23.8 21.8 0.5

20.7 22.8 0.7 0.5 0.0 2.2 3.9 0.6 2.4 5.1

28.8 1.2

26.0 31.8

0.8 0.0 0.7 0.9

0.07 0.02 0.04 0.12 30.8 6.8

16.0 46.0

7 41;

23.2

o.a 21.0 26.3 22.2 0.7

20.1 23.7

1.2 1;0 0.0 4^1 0.7 0.5 0.1 2.0

22.4

1.4 19.9 25.9

0.6 0.0 0.6 0.7

0.08 0.04 0.05 0.29 32.0 7.1

12.0 48.0

8 i 30. 22.7

1.0 21.3 24.6 21.8 0;9

20.2 23.7 0.9

: 0:7 0.1 3.0 5.6 t;6. 0.8 7.8

32.7 3.5

21.5 39.2 0.9 0-1: 0.6 1.1.:

0.07 0.03 0.04 0.16 34.9 8.4

19.0 52.0

9 40

23.7 0.7

22.2 24.9 22.6 0.6

20.8 23.7

1.4 1.1 0.0 4.0 6.2 1.3 3.9 8.9

12.3 1-0 9.7

14.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4

0.08 0.03 0.03 0.15 30.9

9.1 6.0

54.0

10 39

22.2 1.0

20.3 23.7 21.6 1.0

19.5 23:3.

1.5 1.4 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.8 0.1 4.6

20.8 1.2

17.3 23.3 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.7

0.07 0.03 0.04 0.16 33.4 9.2

18.0 66.0

11 '-, 40 23.3 0.7

21.4 S24.5 22.9 0.5

21.4 23.8 0.8

.: o.6 0.1 2.6 5.1 0.9 2.1 6.7

30.5 1.7

26.9 34.8

0.9 0:1 0.7 1.0:

0.09 0.03 0.05 0.19 31.4 4.9

21.0 46.0

TOT 431

23.0 0.8

20.3 26.3 22.2 0:9:

19.5 28.3

1.1 1.1 0.0

10.0 3.6 2.5 0.1 9.1

21.4 7.0 9.7

39;2 0.6 0.2 0.3

:• 1.1 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.29 31.6 6.8 6.0

66.0

51

The data for each season is compared to the ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 comfort standard in the following figure. The indoor thermal environments are plotted on the psychrometric charts for both the summer/hot and winter/cold seasons.

As the results are superimposed onto the chart for the summer/hot season, 63.4% of the measurements fall within the ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992's summer comfort zone (shaded area). The remaining 33.3% fall to the left of the comfort zone (within cooler temperatures). During the winter/cold season, 26.9% of the measurements fell within the ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992's winter comfort zone (shaded area). The remaining 73.1% fell below the 2.5°C dewpoint level (with 0.7% within cooler temperatures and 0.7% within warmer temperatures) indicating the difficulty in humidifying building operators experience in our cold season.

52

Figure 3.27: Results of indoor climatic data (CHARIOT) for both summer/hot and winter/cold seasons on the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 chart

SUMMER

I00%th 60%(h

15 20 25 30 Operative Temperature (degC)

WTNTER

100%rh 607.<h

Ucr/ooint

2.5 dcQC

0.7%

15 20 25 30 Operative Temperature (degC)

35

53

3.6 Clothing and Metabolic Factors

A summary of the main personal thermal variables of clothing insulation and metabolic rates is presented in Table 3.4. Intrinsic clothing insulation was estimated using the garment values published in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992. The intrinsic clothing value averaged 0.62 clo (males) and 0.53 clo (females) in the summer (about 16% higher than the 0.5 clo assumed in the standard), and averaged 0.93 clo (males) and 0.81 clo (females) in the winter (about 3% lower than the 0.9 clo assumed in the standard). As the chair insulation value is added to the clothing values, it is seen that average levels increased by 0.22 clo (males) and 0.09 clo (females) in the summer and 0.26 clo (males) and 0.14 clo (females) in the winter; lifting the insulation values to 0.84 clo (males) and 0.62 clo (females) in the summer and 1.19 clo (males) and 0.95 clo (females) in the winter. The clothing insulation values were much higher (about 0.11 clo) for the males than for the females, in both seasons. This difference was even greater when the effect of chairs was included (about 0.23 clo). Metabolic rates of the subjects were estimated using the typical tasks also published in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992. The occupants were asked to identify their activity up to one hour prior to filling the questionnaire. The metabolic rate, on average, was 1.2 met in both seasons and for both sexes (equivalent to light, primarily sedentary activity as assumed in the standard).

54

Table 3.4: Clothing insulation and metabolic rates of respondents

SEASON

GENDER

SAMPLE SIZE

intrinsic mean

, p standard deviation

insulation ( c l o ) minimum

maximum

c lo th ing + mean

standard deviation insulation ( c l o ) minimum

maximum

metabolism mean

^ ' standard deviation

minimum

maximum

HOT

Male

221

0.62

0.24

0.30

1.60

0.84

0.28

0.30

1.92

1.21

0.19

1.00

1.60

Female

224

0.53

0.19

0.30

1.30

0.62

0.23

0.30

1.52

1.22

0.16

1.00

1.60

Combined

445

0.58

0.22

0.30

1.60

0.73

0.28

0.30

1.92

1.22

0.18

1.00

1.60

COLD

Male

212

0.93

0.30

0.40

1.80

1.19

0.34

0.40

2.13

1.18

0.18

1.00

1.60

Female

220

0.81

0.24

0.30

1.80

0.95

0.28

0.40

2.02

1.23

0.18

1.00

1.60

Combined

432

0.87

0.28

0.30

1.80

1.06

0.33

0.40

2.13

1.20

0.18

1.00

1.60

3.7 Calculated Comfort Indices

A statistical summary of the thermal environmental and comfort indices is shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. On average, operative temperature, ET*, and SET values fell within the 22 -24°C range. The PMV calculations fell within the -0.2 to -0.3 range, indicating marginally cooler-than-neutral conditions. The corresponding PPD ranged from 13.1 to 13.6 %. The last 4 items of the table show the effect of adding the chair insulation values. This resulted in a 1.2 - 1.3°C increase in SET, and a 0.2 - 0.3 increase in PMV units. The corresponding PPD decreased by 2.0 - 2.4 %.

55

Table 3.5: Statistical summary of calculated indoor climatic and thermal comfort indices (summer/hot season)


operative temperature mean (C) standard deviation

minimum maximum

ET* (C) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

SET (C) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

DISC (from 2-node) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

PMVF mean standard deviation minimum maximum

PPDF (%) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

predicted draught mean dissatisfaction (%) standard deviation

minimum maximum

SET (C) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum DISC (from 2-node) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum PMVF mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum PPDF (%) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) - minimum

maximum

1 40

23.1 0.8

21.3 25.6 23.0

! 0.8 21.2 25.6 23.3 1.8

20.8 27.2 -0.1 0.2

-0.3 0.6

-0.4 0.5

-1.7 0.5

14.3 12.8 5.0

60.0 7.6 3.1 2.3

17.6 24.5 2.1

20.8 2&7 0.1 0.3

-0.3 0.9

-0.1 0.5

-1.4 0.7

10.8 8.1 5.0

47.0

2 39

22.9 0.8

21.0 24.6 22.8 0.8

20.9 24.5 23.1 2.0

19.4 29.2 -0.1 0.3

-0.4 1.1

-0.4 0.6

-2.2 0.7

15.2 16.4 5.0

84.0 8.2 4.7 2.2

26.3 24.3 2.4

20.4 31.1 0.1 0.4

-0.3 1.7

-0.1 0.6

-1.3 1.0

12.6 9.9 5.0

41.0

3 40

223 0.4

21.4 23.1 22.4 0.4

21.6 212 23.0 23

20.2 2a6

0.0 0;3

-0.3 0.8

-0.4

m -1.5 0.7

15.7 125 5.0

53.0 6.4 2.5 0.0

11-8 24.5 2.8

20.4 31.0 0.1 0.5

-0.2 1.6

-0.1 0.6

-1.0 0.9

11.6 6.3 5.0

27.0

4 41

23.7 0.5

22.2 24.5 23.6 0.5

22.2 24.4 23.0

1.1 21.2 25.6 -0.1 0.1

-0.3 0.1

-0.4 0.4

-1.3 0,4

11.0 8.7 5.0

42.0 5.0 5.5 0.0

35.3 24.2

1.3 21.8 27.2

0.0 0.1

-0.2 0.5

-0.1 0.3

-0.8 0.7 7.5 3.6 5.0

18.0

5 44

24.9 0.6

23.5 26.1 24.9

0.6 23.5 26.5 24.0

12 21.9 27.4

0.0 0.2

-0.2 0.6

-0.1 0 4

-1.3 0.7 8.7 6.6 5.0

40.0 6.6 2.6 1.8

12.9 25.1

1.5 21.9 28.6:

0.1 0.3

-0.2 0.9 0.1 0.4

-1.3 0.9 8.6 6.5 5.0

40.0

6 41

23.1 0.6

21.7 25.1 22.9 0.6

21.6 25.0 23.1

2.3 19.6 30.4 -0.1 0.3

-0.5 1.4

-0.5 0.7

-2.1 0.9

18.3 20.1 5.0

81.0 4.5 3.7 0.0

16.8 24.4 2.7

19.8 32.2

0.1 0.4

-0.5 2.0

-0.2 0.7

-2.1 1.0

14.2 15.0 5.0

79.0

7 40

22.8 0.5

21.9 24.0 22.9

0.5 22.0 24.1 22.7

1-7 20.1 27.7 -0.1 0.2

-0.4 0.7

-0.4 0.5

-1.8 0.8

13.5 12.2 5.0

68.0 5.4 1.9 2.4 9.8

23.9 2.1

20.1 30.5

0.0 0.3

-0.4 1.6

-0.1 0.5

-1.8 1.0

10.9 12.2 5.0

68.0

8 31

25.8 0.6

24.1 26.9 25.6 06

23.7 26.6 25.6 1.7

22.9 30.8

0.2 0.4

-0.2 1.6 0.3 0.5

-0.9 ::";:1.2-11.5

?a 5.0

33;0 2.3 1.7 0.0 7.8

26.7 2.0

22.9 30.8 0.4 0.5

-0.2 1.7 0.5 0.5

-0.9 1.2

15.3 9.7 5.0

37.0

9 40

23.3 0.6

21.8 24.9 23.2 0.6

21.7 24.6 23.5 2.0

19.8 29.2

0.0 0.3

-0.4 1.0

-0.4 0.6

- 2 0 0.9

15.0 14.5 5.0

74.0 5.4 1.9 2.1 9.9

24.5 2.4

19.8 31.2

0.1 0.5

-0.4 1.7

-0.1 0.6

-2.0 1.1

12.9 13.8 5.0

74.0

10 40

25.1 0.9

23.2 26.9 24.9 0.8

23.1 26.5 24.3

1.4 21.3 28.1

0.0 0.2

-0.2

o.a 0.0 0.5

-1.0 0.9 9.8 5.7 5.0

24.0 4.3 2.7 0.0

11,3 25.5

1.7 21.3 30.2 0.2 0.3

-0.2 1.4 0.2 0.4

-0.8 1.1

10.2 6.0 5.0

31.0

11 43

23.2 0.9

21.9 25.6 23.1 0:9

21.9 25.7 23.5

1.5 20.4 26.7 -0.1 0-1

-0.3 0.4

-0.3 0.5

-1.5 0.5

12.3 10.9 5.0

53.0 6.0 2:3 2.0

12.1 24.7

1.6 21.8 28.6 0.1 0.3

-0.2 0.8

-0.1 0.4

-1.1 0.7 9.1 5.6 5.0

28.0

12 6

23.1 0.6

22.3 23.9 23.0 0.6

22.2 23.7 24.0

1.9 21.8 27.1

0.0 02

-0.2 0.5

-0.2 0.4

-0.7 0.4 8.8 3.9 5.0

14.0 6.2 2.9 2.2

10-1 24.5

1.9 21.8 27.1 0.1 0.3

-0.2 0.5

-0.1 0.4

-0.7 0.4 8.0 3.2 5.0

14.0

TOT 445 23.6 1.2

21.0 26.9 23.5 1.2

20.9 26.6 23.5 1.9

19.4 30:8

0.0 0.2

-0.5 1.6

-0.3 0.6

-2.2 1.2

13.1 12.5 5.0

84.0 5.7 3.5 0.0

35.3 24.7 2.2

19.8 322 0.1 0.4

-0.5 20 0.0 0.5

-2.1 1.2

11.1 9.5 5.0

79.0

56

Table 3.6: Statistical summary of calculated indoor climatic and thermal comfort indices (winter/cold season)


operative temperature mean (C) standard deviation

minimum maximum

ET* (C) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

SET (C) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

DISC (from 2-node) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

PMVF mean standard deviation minimum maximum

PPDF (%) mean standard deviation minimum maximum

predicted draught mean dissatisfaction (%) standard deviation

minimum maximum

SET (C) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum DISC (from 2-node) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum PMVF mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum PPDF (%) mean (including chair standard deviation insulation) minimum

maximum

1 39

22.8 0.7

21.9 25.9 22.2 0.8

20.9 24.8 24.6

1.8 21.0 28-1 0.1 0.3

-0.3 0.8

-0.2 0.5

-1.6 0.7

11.7 9.8 5.0

55.0 8.0 3.1 2.5

16.3 25.9

1.9 21.0 30.5 0.2 0.4

-0.3 1.5 0.1 0.5

-1.6 1.0

10.2 9.8 5.0

55.0

2 38

22.9 0.9

21.1 25.0 22.2 0.9

20.4 24.5 25.0 2.4

20.5 29.8 0.2 0.4

-0.3 1.3

-0.1 0r6

-1.9 0.9

12.9 13.6 5.0

71.0 8.5 5.4 0.0

23.5 26.2 2.7

20.5 31.2 0.4 0.5

-0.3 1.8 0.1 0.6

-1.9 1.1

13.1 13.7 5.0

71.0

3 39

22.9 0.5

21.6 23.8 22.3 0.5

21.3 23.5 25.0 2.1

20.8 29.7 0.1 0.3

-0.3 1.1

-0.1 0.6

-1.6 0.7

12.0 10.6 5.0

56.0 6.3 3.0 0.0

16.1 26.6 2.3

22.4 31.3 0.4 0.5

-0.2 1.7 0.2 0.5

-1.0 0.9

10.7 5.2 5.0

26.0

4 41

22.1 0.5

20.5 23.0 21.6 0.5

20.2 22.5 23.6 2.1

20.0 27.7 -0.1 0.2

-0.4 0.6

-0.5 0.6

-1.9 0.6

17.6 16.7 5.0

70.0 Z7 2.1 0.0 8.0

24.9 2.1

21.4 29.3 0.1 0.4

-0.3 1.0

-0.2 0.5

-1.3 0.7

11.6 8.3 5.0

41.0

5 44

22.8 0.6

21.5 24.2 22.1 0.6

20.1 23.7 24.3 2.1

21.0 29.4 0.0 0.3

-0.4 1.1

-0.3 0.6

-1.5 0.7

13.8 11.7

5.0 51.0 5.0 2.8 0.0

10.9 25.5

2.2 21.4 30.9 0.2 0.4

-0.3 1.6 0.0 0.5

-1.4 0.9

11.2 8.3 5.0

48.0

6 40

22.3 0.5

21.1 23.3 21.9 0.5

20.9 22.9 24.1 1.9

21.2 29.8 0.0 0.3

-0.2 1.1

-0.3 0.5

-1.2 0.7

1Z4 8.4 5.0

35.0 3.3 3.1 0.0

10.5 25.3 2.2

21.6 31.4 0.2 0.4

-0.2 1.6

-0.1 0.5

-1.0 0.9 9.9 5.6 5.0

25.0

7 41

22.7 0.7

20.5 23.9 22.1

0.7 20.2 23.6 24.1 1.9

20.7 29.0 0.0 0.3

-0.4 1.0

-0.3 0.6

-1.6 0.8

13.6 11.7 5.0

58.0 5.0 3.8 0.0

20.2 25.1

2.2 20.7 30.6

0.1 0.4

-0.4 1.4

-0.1 0.6

-1.6 0.9

12.0 11.1 5.0

58.0

8 30

22.3 1.0

20.9 24.2 22.0

0.9 20.6 23.8 23.8 2.2

19.8 29.4 0.0 0.3

-0.4 1.2

-0.3 0.6

-1.9 0.9

14.6 16.5 5.0

73.0 3.8 3.8 0.0

15.7 25.3 2.3

21.2 31.6

0.2 0.5

-0.3 1.9 0.0 0.5

-1.4 1.1

10.9 9.5 5.0

43.0

9 40

23.2 0.6

22.0 24.3 22.4

0.7 20.1 23.7 24.5 2.3

20.7 30.5 0.1 0.4

-0.3 1.5

-0.3 0.6;

-1.4 0.8

13.9 9 7 5.0

46.0 3.9 3.0 0.0

11.1 25.6 2.4

21.5 32.1

0.2 0.5

-0.2 2.1 0.0 0.5

-1.1 0.9

10.9 6.5 5.0

2ao

10 39

21.9 1.0

19.9 23.3 21.4 0.9

19.5 22.9 24.5 2.1

20.7 29.3

0.0 0.3

-0.3

1.1 -0.3 0.6

-1.5 0,9;

12.7 102 5.0

51.0 4.7 3.8 0.0

16.3 26.1 2.2

22.4 30.8 0.3 0.5

-0.2 1.6 0.1 0.5

-1.0 1.0 9.7 5.6 5.0

26.0

11 40

23.1 0.6

21.5 24.1 22.7 0.6

21.3 2&8 25.0 2.5

18.9 30.4 0.2 0;5

-0.6 T.5.:

-0.1 0;7

-2.7

0 3 -14.6 15;7 5.0

97.0 6.3 3;2 0.0

16.9 26.1

£7 20.3 31.6

0.4 0.6

-0.4 1.9 0.1 0.6

-2.0 1.0

13.4 12.4 5.0

79.0

TOT 431

22.6 0.8

19.9 25.9 22.1 0;8

19.5 24.8 24.4 2.2

18.9 30.5 0.1 0,3

-0.6 : 1.5 -0.2

06 -2.7 0.9

13.6

mA 5.0

97;0 5.2 3;8 0.0

23.5 25.7 2.3

20.3 32.1 0.2 0.5

-0.4 2.1 0.0 0.5

-2.0

1.1 11.2 9.1 5.0

79.0

57

3.8 Subjective Assessment of Workstation Thermal Environments

The subjects assessed their workstation thermal environment at the time of the CHARIOT measurements. Several scales were used:

- thermal sensation (ASHRAE 7-pt scale), - thermal acceptability (binary), - thermal preference (warmer, cooler, no change), and - general comfort (6-pt scale ranging from very comfortable to very uncomfortable).

The statistical summaries of the thermal sensation and general comfort responses are shown in Tables 3.7 and 3.8.

Table 3.7: Statistical summary of ONLINE workstation responses (summer/hot)


Thermal Sensation mean (ASHRAE 7-pt) standard deviation

minimum maximum

Air Movement mean Acceptability standard deviation (1=very unacceptable, minimum 6=very acceptable) maximum General Comfort mean (1=very uncomfortable, standard deviation 6=very comfortable) minimum

maximum

1 40

-0.5 0.9

-2.0 2;0 4.8 1.3 1.0 6.0 4.7 1.0 3.0 6.0

2 39

-0.9 1y0

-3.0 2.0 4.4

1;5 1.0 6.0 4.8 1.2 2.0 6.0

3 40

-0.9 0;9

-3.0

1;0 4.7

,/:T.3,-1.0 6.0 4.6

:• i;t 1.0 6.0

4 ::''41:'; -0.4

:;.vT.r -2.0 2.0 3.5 1i5 1.0 6.0 4.3 1.1 2.0 6.0

5 44

0.2

1.1 -2.0 2.0 3.8 1.4 1.0 6.0 4.2 1.3 1.0 6.0

6 •V-:-.41V

-0.7 1.2

-3.0 2.0 4.1 1 5 1.0 6.0 4.6 1.2 2.0 6.0

7 40

-1.0 1.2

-3.0 1.0 3.7 1.6 1.0 6.0 4.4 1.5 1.0 6.0

8 31: 1.3 1.0:

-2.0 3.0 3.8 1.6 1.0 6.0 3.4 1.4 1.0 5.0

9 40

-0.6

wm--3.0

P2v0 3.9 1.6 1.0 6.0 4.5 13 1.0 6.0

10 40 1.1 1.0

-1.0 3.0 3.2 1i7 1.0 6.0 3.6 1.5 1.0 6.0

11 •:-: 48 -0.1

¥4.2 -3.0

£i-g»:? 3.9

-yzm..-1.0

$ 0 4.7

& # 2 . 2.0 6 0

12 - • • & :

-0.5 1.2

-2.0 1V0 3.2

1.0 2.0 AM 4.2

1-2 3.0 6.0

TOT 445 -0.3 13

-3.0 3.0 4.0 1.6 1.0

: 6.0 4.4

I-i.3 1.0 6.0

Table 3.8: Statistical summary of ONLINE workstation responses (winter/cold)


Thermal Sensation mean (ASHRAE 7-pt) standard deviation

minimum maximum

Air Movement mean Acceptability. standard deviation (livery unacceptable, minimum 6=very acceptable) maximum General Comfort mean (1=very uncomfortable, standard deviation 6=very comfortable) minimum

maximum

1 39

-0.3 1.1

-3.0 2.0 4.5 1.3 1,0 6.0 4.6 1.4 1.0 6.0

2 38

-0.1 1.0

-3.0 2.0 3.8 1.5 1.0 6.0 4.6 1.1 1.0 6.0

3 39 0.0 0.9

-2.0 2.0 4.2 1.3: 1.0 6.0 4.7 1.0 2.0 6.0

4 41

-0.5 1.4

-3.0 2.0 2.9 1.5 1.0

6.0 3.6 1.4 1.0 6.0

5 44

-0.5 1.1

-3.0 1.0 3.5 1.4 1.0 6.0 4.3 1.1 2.0 6.0

6 40

-0.5 1.0

-3.0 1.0 4.3 1.1 1.0 6.0 4.5 1.3 1.0 6.0

7 41 0.0 1.1

-2.0 2.0 3.6 1.4

. 1.0 6.0 4.2 1.2 1.0 6.0

8 30

-0.4

1.4 -3.0 2.0 3.8 1.5 1.0 6:0 4.0 liS 2.0 6.0

9 40 0.1 1.3

-3.0 2.0 3.8 i;3 1.0 6.0 4.0 1.3 1.0 6.0

10 39

-1.0 1.0

-3.0 1-0 3.7 T:3 1.0 6.0 3.5 1.3: 1.0 6.0

11 40 0.0 1.1

-2.0 2.0 3.8 1.4 1.0 6.0 4.6 1.1 2.0 6.0

TOT 431 -0.3

1J2 -3.0 2.0 3.8 1.4 1.0 6.0 4.2 1-3 1.0 6.0

58

3.8.1 Thermal sensation and neutrality

Mean thermal sensations on the ASHRAE 7-point scale were marginally cooler than neutral, at -0.3, for both seasons. The data was binned into 0.5°C intervals. Percentages of subjects voting "warmer-than-neutral" and "cooler-than-neutral" for each bin were calculated. The subjects voting "neutral" were split in half. Each seasons's maximum likelihood probit model for these binned thermal sensation percentages against operative temperature is shown in Figure 3.28. Figure 3.29 shows the same analysis using ET* as the independent variable.

Figure 3.28: Probit regression model (thermal sensation and operative temperature)

29

27

§25

« © a. E 23 <D +^ <D

m>

to 21 <D Q. O

19

17

_ — - J ; — .

summer/hot season

winter/cold season

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% voting "warmer than neutral"

59

Figure 3.29: Probit regression model (thermal sensation and ET*)

29

27

25

O 2 3

*

UJ21

19

17

15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% voting "warmer than neutral"

The probit analysis was used to determine the thermal neutralities. These are temperatures most frequently coinciding with "neutral" thermal sensations (Ballantyne et al., 1977). These estimates are represented as temperatures corresponding to a 50 % response rate in the probit model. The operative temperature neutralities were 24.0°C in the hot season (with 95 % fiducial limits at 23.8 and 24.3°C) and 23.1°C in the cold season (with 95 % fiducial limits at 22.9 and 23.5°C). The ET* neutralities were 24.1°C in the hot season (with 95 % fiducial limits at 23.9 and 24.4°C) and 22.6°C in the cold season (with 95 % fiducial limits at 22.3 and 23.1°C).

Linear correlation/regression techniques were used to quantify the strength of association and sensitivity of thermal sensation votes to temperature variations. Mean votes within successive temperature bins (rather than individual votes) were used as the dependent variable. The effect of large residuals at the less frequently encountered temperature

summer/hot season

winter/cold season

60

extremes was de-emphasised by weighting each data pair with the number of subjects falling in that particular bin.

Figure 3.30 below shows the mean ASHRAE sensation votes for each half degree operative temperature bin. The regression line fitted to the bin means was highly significant (F=510.9; Prob<0.0001; r2=0.98) and a standard error on the regression coefficient was 0.02 (Prob<0.0001). The fitted equation was:

mean binned ASHRAE sensation vote = (0.493)(operative temperature) - 11.69.

Regression equations for mean binned PMVF and DISC index values, with the chair insulation included, are also shown in Figure 3.30. The graph duplicates what was found in the TownsvAle study, except that the neutral region is around 23.5°C (as opposed to 24.5°C in the Townsville). The regression gradients on the two models (PMVF and DISC) underestimate the observed sensitivity to operative temperature, especially away from the neutral region.

Figure 3.30: Mean binned thermal sensation votes and PMVF and DISC calculations related to operative temperature

• ASHRAE vote (obs)

"^corresponding line

* C_PMVF (calculated)

•**" corresponding line x C_DISC (calculated)

"•" corresponding line

20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27

operative temperature (C)

61

3.8.2 Thermal acceptability

In the ONLINE portion of the questionnaire, occupants were asked a direct thermal acceptability question (ie unacceptable/acceptable). Again, the data was binned by operative temperature. The following three figures show the resulting percentages of dissatisfaction plotted against operative temperature. Figure 3.31 shows that the minimum level of thermal dissatisfaction, for the summer/hot season, occurs at an operative temperature of 23°C; which is lower than the 24.5°C optimum (ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 standard, Table 3). Acceptability at 90 % seems to be achieved between 22.0 and 23.5°C; which is narrower and lower than the three degree band suggested in ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 (23 - 26°C).

Figure 3.31: Observed thermal acceptability related to operative temperature (summer/hot season)

© o >

CO +* Q. <D O O CO c 3

on yu

an ou

v n / u

o u

t^n ou

Afl-H *1-U

O f | -

on £\)

m _ I U

n

-

:

\f

• •

J

I

" summer/hot season

"^ corresponding line

20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27


62

Figure 3.32 shows that the minimum level of thermal dissatisfaction, for the winter/cold season, occurs at an operative temperature of 23.5°C; which is higher than the 22°C optimum (ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 standard, Table 3). Acceptability at 80 % seems to be achieved between 21.5 and 25.5°C; which is slightly wider and higher than the 3.5 degree band suggested in ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 (20 - 23.5°C).

Figure 3.32: Observed thermal acceptability related to operative temperature (winter/cold season)

(D +-* o > JD XI CO

•»-»

Q . CD O O CO C 3

100

90

80

70

60-

50

40

30-

20

10

N i

E

\

3

3

E

- • •

E

3

s '. •

' • • • : '

E

s 3 ^ 1 E

r-1 E

3

f — '

E r

^

•

s / ( . - , •

1 '/ 1

* winter/cold season

"•"corresponding line

20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27


Figure 3.33 shows the combination of both seasons with the "direct accept (obs)" notation. Acceptability at 90 % seems to occur at 23°C operative temperature. Acceptability at 80% occurs between 21.5 and 24.5°C.

The percentages of ASHRAE seven-point sensation scale votes outside the three central categories (ie "cold", "cool", "warm", and "hot") were binned to operative temperature. This

63

second-order polynomial weighted regression model (ASHRAE (obs) corresponding line) was superimposed onto Figure 3.33. This indirect assessment of thermal acceptability coincides closely with the direct assessment reported, but only for operative temperatures above 24°C.

The mean PPD index values binned to operative temperature (including the effect of chair insulation) are also plotted in Figure 3.33. This last curve resembles very closely the one plotted in the Townsville study.

Figure 3.33: Observed and predicted thermal acceptability related to operative temperature

(D

O > <D

J3 <C

•4-»

Q. <D O O as

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

* 30

20

10

: . . . ' . ' : • -

: . . " ' • . . . . . :

... . ...

- ^

\ \ "

" S. \

--0^J ( , 5!

; " " '. • _ • " ; ; • _ : • ; _ ; ; •

• J E

^•&,Mfi ' . ' a •-'".(•

' •• •••5£i

3 ^ _^^UJ:

::':

20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27


x direct accept (obs)

"•"corresponding line A ASHRAE (obs)

"^corresponding line

• C_PPDF (calculated)

"*• corresponding line

A total of 129 subjects (out of 872) voted directly that their thermal environments were unacceptable (67 in the summer/hot season and 62 in the winter/cold season). Of this group of dissatisfied subjects, more than 80 % (70 % in the summer/hot season and 94 % in the

64

winter/cold season) were in environments that fulfilled the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 whole-body comfort zone criteria, with respect to operative temperature. Of the total 743 subjects who voted directly that their thermal environments were acceptable (374 in the summer/hot season and 369 in the winter/cold season), 22 % were actually in conditions outside of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 comfort zone (41 % in the summer/hot season and 3 % in the winter/cold season). From this, it seems that the votes coincided with the comfort zone the best during the winter season, and that only for those voting acceptable thermal environments. In summary, 69 % of those surveyed agreed with the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 comfort zone (54 % in the summer/hot season and 84% in the winter/cold season).

3.83 Thermal preference

Another question in the survey asked the occupants their thermal preference; whether they would prefer to feel warmer or cooler. Their responses were binned into 0.5°C ET* intervals. A probit analysis was performed on the resulting percentages (shown in Figures 3.34 and 3.35). As in the Townsville study, it is assumed that the point of intersection between the "want cooler" and "want warmer" probit models represents the preferred temperature. In the summer/hot season, the preferred temperature is 23°C ET, and 22°C ET* in the winter/cold season. At this optimum temperature, in the summer/hot season, 32% of the occupants indicated a desire for either warmer or cooler conditions. In the winter/cold season, 40 % of the occupants indicated a desire for either warmer or cooler conditions.

65

Figure 3.34: Probit regression models fitted to thermal preference percentages (summer/hot season)

— 'want cooler*

•+• "want warmer1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% voting on the thermal preference scale

Figure 3.35: Probit regression models fitted to thermal preference percentages (winter/cold season)

— 'want cooler"

•+" 'want warmer*

10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100

% voting on the thermal preference scale

66

3.9 Subjective Assessment of Workstation Air Movement Characteristics

The mean air velocities at the workstations were measured to be 0.09 m/s (summer/hot) and 0.08 m/s (winter/cold). The mean turbulence intensities were 33% (summer/hot) and 32% (winter/cold). The values of both parameters are considered to be consistent throughout the 12 buildings, since the standard deviation was low; at 0.03 for air velocities and 6 to 7% for turbulence intensities.

The subjects were asked to assess the air movement at their workstations, in terms of acceptability and preference, at the time of the CHARIOT measurements. As was shown in the previous tables, the mean air movement acceptability ratings were classified as "slightly acceptable" in both seasons. By summing all the "acceptable" votes (very + moderately + slightly acceptable), 65 and 64 % of all subjects in the summer/hot and winter/cold seasons, respectively, found the air movement at their workstation acceptable.

Since the issue of air movement acceptability is related to temperature, the two values were binned. The results of both seasons were pooled, binning acceptability votes according to operative temperature (see Figure 3.36 below).

Figure 3.36: Air movement acceptability ratings binned according to operative temperatures

percent 100%H|:i i i l l


67

The "very unacceptable" ratings of air movement ranged from 7 to 18 % of the sample, increasing with temperature. By summing the ratings on the unacceptable half of the six-point scale (very + moderately + slightly unacceptable), a linear dependence of air movement dissatisfaction is found (unlike the parabolic dependence found in the Townsville work). The unacceptable votes peaked at 57 % in temperatures equal to or warmer than 26°C.

Immediately following the air movement acceptability question, the occupants were asked for their air movement preference: "want less air movement", "want no change", or "want more air movement". The percentages responding in each category are shown in Table 3.9. More than half of all subjects wanted "more air movement", an this for both seasons. About 32 % preferred no change in air movement, while the remainder (less than 17 %) wanted "less air movement".

Table 3.9: Air movement preferences at the time of the ONLINE questionnaire

SEASON

SAMPLE SIZE

prefer less air movement

prefer no change in air movement

prefer more air movement

SUMMER/HOT

443

12.0%

32.3%

55.8%

WINTER/COLD

431

16.5%

32.3%

51.3%

TOTAL

874

14.2 %

32.3%

53.5 %

The air movement preferences were binned with operative temperature measured at the same time. The data was analyzed in three parts: Figure 3.37 shows the percentage of subjects requesting "more air movement" for each half-degree (°C) temperature bin, for the total data sets of both seasons. Figure 3.38 replicates the analysis, but for the summer/hot season. And, Figure- 3.39 shows the winter/cold season. In all 3 figures, the linear regression fit to the data suggests a linear dependence of air velocity preference with temperature. As in the Townsville study, the warmer the operative temperature, the more people wanting air speeds higher than those being provided at their workstation.

68

Figure 3.37: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned by operative temperature (both seasons)

100

o

>

"CO 1 _

<D SI D)

C "C v_ <D

« • -

<D i _

Q.

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08 ity

(m

/s)

r ve

loc

'cd

c CO CD

E

BOTH SEASONS

velocity preference

~+~ corresponding line

* mean air velocity

"^corresponding line x velocity at 1.1 m

~*~ corresponding line

0.06

0.04 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


The mean air speed recorded in each temperature bin is also plotted on Figure 3.37. As was suggested during the TC2.1 meeting held in June 1995, the highest value (between the three heights) was used for velocity and turbulence intensity correlations (Bjarae Olesen, June 27,1995). For the total data sets of both seasons, the highest velocities and turbulence intensities occurred at a height of 1.1 m (also shown in Figure 3.37). In general, the average air velocities (range: 0.06 - 0.11 m/s; range at 1.1 m: 0.05 - 0.11 m/s) were much lower than those measured in the Townsville study (range: 0.12 - 0.21 m/s). It can be seen that at about 23°C or higher, more than half of the respondents were calling for greater air speeds than they were experiencing at the time (lower than 0.10 m/s). At the extremities of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone for both seasons (20 to 26°C), from 25 to 80 % of the occupants wanted higher air velocities.

69

Figure 3.38: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned by operative temperature (summer/hot season)

100

o o CD > l _

CO k_

CD x:

O)

c '»_ 1 _

CD CD i _

Q. >s°

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

:^^,_Z__^_ _______

0.3

0.27

0.24

CO 0.21"

0 . 1 8 ^

"o o 0.15 ©

>

0.12*5

c CO

-0 .09 <D

"0.06

0.03

20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27


SUMMER/HOT SEASON

velocity preference

~!~ corresponding line

* mean air velocity

""corresponding line

* velocity at 1.1 m

~*" corresponding line

For the summer/hot season, the average air velocities (range: 0.06 - 0.20 m/s; range at 1.1m: 0.08 - 0.26 m/s) were again much lower than those in the Townsville study. At about 23°C or higher, more than half of the respondents were calling for greater air speeds (experiencing less than 0.11 m/s). At the extremities of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone for the summer season (23 - 26°C), from 50 to 85 % of the occupants wanted higher air velocities.

70

Figure 3.39: Air movement preferences and concurrent air velocity averages binned by operative temperature (winter/cold season)

o

>

© XZ

C

Q .

yu

ftA-OU1

7(\-f\J

DU

ou

o n

C.M

1 f t . I t ) :

0-

* • • : •

- • * : i

• • • : ;

^

.: I . : / : ; : . •••

: .:;-''

_i-s

-: . : : ' : ' • • ' •

.. -

-

•-* ' : ; '

'—*—* L - * - ! > X ..i

'.

i

^ir-^

:

E

' *"H —« ,

l * "

0.6

0.54

0.48

0) 0.42'

0.36 £ »

'o 0.3 Q)

> 0.24'(0

c 0.18 <D

0.12

0.06

WINTER/COLD SEASON

velocity preference

""^ corresponding line

* mean air velocity


* velocity at 1.1 m


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


For the winter/cold season, the average air velocities (range: 0.06 - 0.13 m/s; range at 1.1m: 0.05 - 0.20 m/s) were again much lower than those in the Townsville study. At about 22°C or higher, more than half of the respondents were calling for greater air speeds (experiencing less than 0.10 m/s). At the extremities of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone for the winter season (20 - 23.5°C), from 35 to 55 % of the occupants wanted higher air velocities.

Figure 3.40, below, shows the percentage of subjects requesting "less air movement" for each half-degree (°C) temperature bin, for the total data sets of both seasons. Figure 3.41 replicates the analysis, but for the summer/hot season. And Figure 3.42 shows the winter/cold season. In all 3 figures* the linear regression fit to the data suggests a linear dependence of air velocity preference with temperature. The colder the operative

71

temperature, the more people wanting air speeds lower than those being provided at their workstation.

Figure 3.40: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities binned by operative temperature (both seasons)

100-

90-

80-

.2 70 o CD > .*= 60 co CD

C

CD

Q .

50

40-

30

20-

10-

0-

-10

:

•

!!

:

:

X

a

:

[—•*—•'

i

i

A i r H

m

. . * . . : •

) • -

• = • ' • • : ; : •

: : : " •

;:

-:•;•'.:• '£#*

:.

' • "

I ! ! 1

i

i

:

• • • * i

I

•

'-

' / '

1 • •• j

\ ;

x/:

I : ' .'

*::

0.48

0.46

0.44

0.42 w c CD

0.4 £ CD

0.38 o CD

0.36 "5 -Q

0.34 2 c

0.32 8 E

0.3

0.28

BOTH SEASONS

" velocity preference

~+~ corresponding line

* mean turbulence intens

"*" corresponding line x turbulence at 1.1 m

"*" corresponding line

0.26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


The mean turbulence intensity recorded in each temperature bin is also plotted on the above figure. For the total data set of both seasons, the highest turbulence intensities occurred at a height of 1.1 m (also shown in Figure 3.40). In general, the average turbulence intensities ranged from 0.28 - 0.39; and at 1.1 m: 0.27 - 0.47. It can be seen that at about 23°C or lower, more than 15 % of the respondents were calling for lower air speeds than they were experiencing at the time (turbulence intensities between 0.31 and 0.35).

72

Figure 3.41: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities binned by operative temperature (summer/hot season)

SUMMER/HOT SEASON

* velocity preference

"*" corresponding line


~*~ corresponding line x turbulence at 1.1 m

"•" corresponding line

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


For the summer/hot season, the average turbulence intensities ranged from 0.30 to 0.35; while at a height of 1.1 m, from 0.33 to 0.39. It can be seen that at about 23°C or lower, more than 15 % of the respondents were calling for lower air speeds than they were experiencing at the time (turbulence intensities between 0.32 and 0.37).

73

Figure 3.42: Air movement preferences and concurrent turbulence intensities binned by operative temperature (winter/cold season)

100

90

>, 80

o 70 o

± 60 (0

©

E 30

>_ Q.

50

40

20

10

0

-10

;:

3! .

J 3

X X

.

.

? :

.

s

.

•

>•• • a * a

s"

X

r £ • « -

3

:

> >

^ L t i

•

X^ v

^

, i . | .:

T:: :'

% .

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.15

0.1

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


V) c CD

o c J©

Si

0.2 ^

C (0 CD

e

0.05

WINTER/COLD SEASON

* velocity preference

"^"corresponding line


"•"corresponding line x turbulence at 1.1 m

"•"corresponding line

For the winter/cold season, the average turbulence intensities ranged from 0.28 to 0.39; while at a height of 1.1 m, from 0.22 to 0.47. It can be seen that at about 23°C or lower, more than 15 % of the respondents were calling for lower air speeds than they were experiencing at the time (turbulence intensities between 0.31 and 0.34).

The air movement preference scale and the temperature preference scale were cross-tabulated in Figure 3.43. Similar to the Townsville study, a clear majority of subjects (86%) requested cooler temperatures and more air movement However, a large minority (30 %) also requested more air movement but with warmer temperatures. So, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the air movement preference scale and the temperature preference scale, as suggested by heat-balance theories of thermal comfort.

74

Figure 3.43: Cross-tabulated air movement and temperature preferences

100%

to

snce

s

5

prel

V

mov

eme

75%

50%

25%

J L *

~ ^ u ~* _*

/ / / / / / /

////// ft

• < - . - ••-• * • . . . ' . £ •

'//ML / / / / / / •

• ~^^^^^H

f 0 % .

. /

^

air temperature preferences

El want less air movement

13 want no change

• want more air movement

Of particular interest to the investigators, the satisfaction with the air quality was compared to preferred air movement. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between these two variables yielded a moderately positive dependence (r=+0.26; Prob<0.0001; df=860). This suggests that the occupants were more dissatisfied with indoor air quality when they preferred more air movement (ie they felt too little air movement), and they were more satisfied with the air quality when they wanted less air movement (ie they felt too much air movement). In other words, the higher the perceived air movement, the greater the satisfaction with air quality.

75

CHAPTER 4

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Comparisons Between Indices, Models, and Observed Data

The average prediction on the basic PMV index in this study was almost identical to the average thermal sensation vote cast by the subjects on the ASHRAE scale (Tables 3.5 -3.8), and this for both seasons. When the incremental insulation effect of chairs was added into the PMV calculations, the results differed by 0.3 PMV units. As was seen in Figure 3.30, the PMV (including chair insulation) regression model on operative temperatures intersects the neutral mean thermal assessment 0.5°C cooler than the actual thermal sensation votes' regression model did.

The PMV index predicted neutralities well, with and without the effect of chair insulation. However, large discrepancies were found as the temperatures progressed away from neutral. At the lower margin of the winter comfort zone (20 - 23.5°C), the PMV index differed by about 1.5 sensation units. Similarly, at the higher margin of the summer comfort zone (23 to 26°C), the PMV index differed by about 1 sensation unit. This indicates that observed mean votes' sensitivity to temperature was more pronounced than theory (PMV) predicted. The regression model of DISC on operative temperature followed the PMV regression closely, however it differed by about a 0.5 sensation unit more than the PMV did from the observed data.

There was general agreement between the two common methods of empirical assessment for observed and predicted levels of thermal dissatisfaction (Figure 3.33). The direct approach "Is the thermal environment acceptable to you?" and the indirect approach of assuming ASHRAE sensation votes -3, -2, +2, and +3 to be unacceptable, both yielded optimum temperatures in the 23 to 23.5°C region. The PPD index also resulted in the same optimum temperature. The levels of dissatisfaction predicted by PPD (including the effect of chair insulation) estimated remarkably well the direct acceptability, within the 22 - 24°C range. Below 22°C, the PPD underestimated the direct acceptability by up to 24 %; above 24°C, the PPD underestimated the direct acceptability by up to 50 %. The PPD underestimated the unacceptable ASHRAE sensation votes by 6 % (towards the 23.5°C mark) to 52 % (away from 23.5°C, in both directions). At the extremities of the summer comfort zone (23 - 26°C), thermal dissatisfaction was observed to be as much as 7 % (at 23°C) to 29 % (at 26°C) above the predicted index. At the extremities of the winter comfort zone (20 - 23.5°C), thermal dissatisfaction was observed to be as much as 5 % (at 23.5°C) to 24 - 52 % (at 20°C) above the predicted index.

76

4.2 Comparisons Between Observed Comfort Data and the Standards

In Montreal, 398 of the 877 workstations visited had indoor climates within the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992's comfort zone (temperature and humidity); 282 on 445 in the summer/hot season, and 116 on 432 in the winter/cold season. About 85 % of the occupants of those workstations found them thermally acceptable (82 % in the summer/hot season and 86 % in the winter/cold season), which is lower than the 90 % suggested in the Standard for whole body comfort. The Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied, including the effect of chair insulation, (C_PPDF) was calculated for all 398 sets of observations meeting Standard 55's criteria. For the total, summer, and winter seasons, the CPPDFs were 11 %, 10 %, and 11 %, respectively; which underestimate the actual 15 %, 18 %, and 14 %, respectively.

It is expected that 10 % of thermal dissatisfaction within the comfort zone is due to inter-individual variability. However, there seems to be an additional 4 to 8 % in this study.

ANSI/ASHRAE 55 specifies that the maximum allowable vertical gradient within the occupied zone is 1.9°C/m. Upon closer scrutiny of the dissatisfied, it was found that 1 % (summer/hot season) to 3 % (winter/cold season) had vertical gradients surpassing the maximum allowable.

Standard 55 suggests that radiant temperature asymmetries in the horizontal plane may be a source of complaint, but only 0.4 % of the summer/hot season exceeded the limit of 10°C.

Unwanted local cooling due to excessive velocity or turbulence is defined as draft. Standard 55 recommends the use of the PD model (Fanger et al., 1988) of draft risk, which specifies that index values should not exceed 15 %. Of the 60 cases of unexplained thermal dissatisfaction, none were experiencing PD index values greater than the suggested limit. In contrast, 71 % of the thermally dissatisfied subjects within the comfort zone actually expressed a desire for higher, not lower, air speeds (89 % in summer and 55 % in winter).

The Townsville study implied that draft is not as important a comfort issue in the hot-humid climate zone as it can be in cooler regions. This is difficult to show in this study, since none of the workstations tested had PD index values surpassing the comfort limit.

Therefore, by considering the 1 - 3 % non-conforming vertical gradients and the 0.4 % nonconforming radiant temperature asymmetries, some of the causes for complaint within the comfort zone could be attributed to local discomfort causes. However, it seems that the most likely explanation is that air speeds and/or turbulence intensities were not high enough (even though the mean values complied with Standard 55, Table 3).

77

4.3 Comparison Between the Seasons

There is a definite difference between the hot and humid conditions of the summer/hot season and the cold conditions of the winter/cold season (Figures 2.2 - 2.5). In terms of clothing patterns in Montreal, average intrinsic insulation levels were increased by about 0.3 clo between the summer and winter seasons (Table 3.4). In terms of neutralities on the ASHRAE thermal sensation scale (Figures 3.28 - 3.29), thermal acceptability (Figures 3.31 -3.32), and thermal preferences (Figures 3.34 - 3.35), the inter-seasonal differences varied from 0.5°C to 1.5°C. This offset corresponds well with the clothing insulation/operative temperature relationship in ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 (Figure 1) and ISO 7730.

4.4 Comparisons Between Thermal Neutrality, Preference, and Acceptability

Neutrality, defined in terms of the 50 % effective dose on the ASHRAE thermal sensation scale, fell at 24.0°C (summer/hot) and 23.1°C (winter/cold) operative temperature and 24.1CC (summer/hot) and 22.6°C (winter/cold) ET*. The optimum temperature according to thermal preference votes, and the maximum thermal acceptability occurred at 23°C (summer/hot) and 22°C (winter/cold) ET*. This one degree offset is manifested in both seasons, with thermal neutrality being higher than both thermal preference and acceptability. A similar phenomenon was noted in the Townsville study, where de Dear et al. (1994) mentioned a possible explanation proposed by Mclntyre (1978). It was suggested that people in hot climates may describe their preferred thermal state as "slightly cool", while people in cold climates may use the words "slightly warm" to denote their thermal preference, instead of "neutral". Although the Townsville data was consistent with this hypothesis, the Montreal data is not. However, it does suggest that the acceptability/preference data should be used in setting up comfort zones rather than thermal sensation.

4.5 Effects of Gender, Personal, Contextual, and Psychological Factors

It is thought that contextual, personal, and psychological factors interact with occupants' responses to the physical characteristics of indoor climate. The BACKGROUND section of the Montreal questionnaire replicated that which was used in the Townsville and in the San Francisco studies, with the purpose of showing this interaction.

4.5.1 Gender effects

The thermal neutralities, as derived from weighted linear regressions on operative temperature, were 23.5°C for the males and 23.8°C for the females. Therefore there does not seem to be a difference in thermal requirements of the sexes.

78

The same could not be said of thermal acceptability. In the total sample of 877 subjects, of which 50 % were males and 50 % were females, the females were over-represented in the group expressing thermal dissatisfaction (63 % female; 37 % male; Chi2=8.9, df=l, Prob<0.003). However, the only difference found between the physical character of the environments occupied by each sex, between operative temperature, PMV index, and ET\ was for the PMV index (including the effect of chair insulation): females voted 0.9 units below the males.

4.5.2 Ethnicity

Ethnic differences in thermal response could not be examined in this study due to the extremely small numbers of non-Caucasian subjects (3 %) and office workers, in the sample and population, respectively.

4.53 Job satisfaction

The job satisfaction index, or the sum of all 15 items in the BACKGROUND questionnaire's job satisfaction question, was compared with general, overall assessments. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the job satisfaction index (sum of scores on 15, BACKGROUND) and the overall perception of work area comfort (PO) was practically nil (r=+0.11; Prob<0.001; df=871). The relationship was slightly more positive between job satisfaction and overall office work area acceptability (OVEA), (r=+0.29; Prob< 0.0001; df=867). This suggests that there was a moderate tendency for overall acceptability assessments to improve as job satisfaction increased.

Positive relationships were also observed between the job satisfaction index and satisfaction with office air quality (WAI), ventilation (WVE), work area temperature (WTE), and ratings of work area movement (PAIA). However, in aD cases, the correlation coefficients were relatively weak (r<+0.2; Prob<0.003).

The job satisfaction index was also investigated for associations with the assessments of the thermal conditions in the work area at the time of the interview (in the ONLINE section of the questionnaire). The correlation coefficient between the job satisfaction index and air movement acceptability (VENT) was relatively weak (r=0.12; Prob<0.0002; df=870). The relationship between the job satisfaction index and thermal sensation (ASH) was almost nil.

Therefore, job satisfaction appears to be related only to overall office work area acceptability. It is weakly related to generalized assessments of the overall quality of the physical environment, but not related to specific thermal environmental conditions occurring at the time of the interview.

79

4.5.4 Health effects

The health index, or the sum of all 10 items in the BACKGROUND questionnaire's health symptom frequency question, was investigated for correlations with several factors. The correlations between the health index and the ONLINE section of the questionnaire yielded only moderately negative relationships with ratings of air movement acceptability, VENT (r=-0.28; Prob<0.0001; df=875), and with ratings of general comfort, COMF (r=-0.22; Prob<0.0001; df=876). This suggested that subjects who recorded poor health were slightly more likely to rate the air movement as less acceptable and to rate their general comfort as less comfortable than those who recorded good health. Higher levels of dependency were found for correlations between the health index and the BACKGROUND section of the questionnaire. Work area satisfaction with temperature (WTE), air quality (WAI), ventilation and air circulation (WVE), and overall comfort (OVEA) all yielded moderately negative dependencies (-0.24<r<-033; Prob<0.0001; df=875). Perceived overall comfort (PO), air movement acceptability (PAIA), and perceived humidity (PHU) all yielded moderately negative dependencies (-0.26<r<-0.31; Prob<0.0001; df=876). The satisfaction with level of control (PCS) also yielded a moderately negative dependency (r=-0.25; Prob<0.0001; df=874). Finally, environmental sensitivity to cold, too little air movement, and poor air quality yielded moderately positive dependencies (0.20<r<0.26; Prob<0.0001; df=875).

4.5.5 Acclimatization

To assess if the number of years spent in Canada (CAN) had any influence on the response to workplace thermal environments, correlations were performed on several parameters. The was no statistically significant association between CAN and any environmental rating.

Subjects were asked in the BACKGROUND section of the questionnaire to indicate the number of hours per week they spent exercising (HEXER). There was no statistically significant association between HEXER and any environmental rating.

During the summer/hot season, the BACKGROUND section of the questionnaire included a question on the usage of home air-conditioning. It was expected that extensive exposure to air-conditioning might diminish physiological and psychological acclimatization to heat and humidity. There were 325 subjects who said they did not use or did not have such equipment, while 120 subjects did use it. Their respective mean thermal sensation (ASH) votes were -0.3, -0.2, and -0.4, indicating that exposure to air-conditioning outside working hours has no effect on reactions to office indoor climates. A similar exercise was performed for the winter/cold season, except that "air-conditioner" was replaced with "humidifier". There were 311 subjects who said they did not use or did not have such equipment, while 121 subjects did use i t Their respective mean thermal sensation (ASH) votes were -0.4, -0.4, and 0.0, indicating there may have been an extremely weak effect on the reaction to office indoor climates (by those having humidifiers).

4.5.6 Personal environmental controls

80

The degree of control that subjects perceived they had over their workstation's thermal environment was rated in the BACKGROUND section of the questionnaire on a 5-point scale (PCC). This personal control rating was positively correlated with several factors: overall satisfaction ratings of work area temperature (WTE), air quality (WAI), ventilation and air circulation (WVE), perceived overall comfort (PO), and acceptability (OVEA). However, all correlations were moderate (0.16<r<0.22; Prob<0.0001; df=875). So, perceived levels of personal control seem to have a small influence on office occupant evaluations of indoor climate.

4.5.7 Illuminance

The possibility that the visual environment inside buildings may interact with perceptions of their indoor climates was examined. Thermal sensation votes were correlated with the simultaneously measured lux value, to yield a weak, positive dependence (r=0.14; Prob<0.0001; df=874). This, in fact, suggests that the total amount of lighting falling on the horizontal plane may have an effect on thermal sensation.

4.6 Comparisons with Previous Thermal Comfort Field Studies

The first of the series of studies, the San Francisco Bay Area field experiment, RP-462 (Schiller et al., 1988; 1990), was re-analyzed. Brager et al. (1994) increased the clothing ensemble insulation estimates by applying revised ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 garment data, by factoring in the effect of chairs (+0.15 clo), and by revising the subjects' metabolic rates (+0.1 met). This resulted in bringing the PMV-predicted neutrality to within 0.2°C of the 22.4°C actually observed in San Francisco. The Townsville study (24.5°C) showed a 2°C difference between its findings and the San Francisco's (de Dear, 1994). It was explained by the physical input parameters of the comfort models (PMV), in particular, clothing. They said that office workers in tropical locations wore less clothing than those in San Francisco, and therefore needed temperatures 2°C warmer to feel "neutral" thermal sensations.

In this study, the operative temperature thermal neutralities were found to be 24.0°C (in summer/hot) and 23.1°C (in winter/cold). The ET* neutralities occurred at 24.1°C (in summer/hot) and 22.6°C (in winter/cold). The summer/hot neutralities are similar to those of the Townsville study. However, the winter/cold neutralities are similar to those of the San Francisco study. Again, this can be explained by the fact that Montrealers wear more clothing in the winter season, and therefore need lower temperatures to feel "neutral" thermal sensations.

81

The San Francisco subjects were less sensitive to temperature variations than the Townsville and Montreal subjects. A gradient of one sensation unit per 3°C was found in the San Francisco study. While a gradient of one sensation unit per 2°C was found in both the Townsville and Montreal studies.

Both the San Francisco and Townsville samples experienced lower levels of thermal acceptability than could be accounted for in terms of either general thermal discomfort (ie PPD index) or local factors such as draft, radiant asymmetry, and vertical temperature stratification. In the San Francisco study, the PPD index predicted that for the observations near neutrality (22.4°C), there should have been 5 % of subjects expressing thermal dissatisfaction, whereas in the actual sample there was 12 % dissatisfaction (based on votes outside the central three categories of the ASHRAE sensation scale). In the Townsville study, minimum dissatisfaction was predicted to be about 10 %, but the actual level of dissatisfaction was observed on both the ASHRAE sensation scale and also a direct acceptability question to be up to 10 % higher than PPD predictions. A majority of the unexplained thermal dissatisfaction was attributed to levels of air movement falling below the building occupants' preference. In the Montreal study, minimum dissatisfaction was predicted to be about 10 %. The actual level of dissatisfaction was indeed observed to be 10 % on a direct acceptability question. However, on the ASHRAE sensation scale, the actual level of dissatisfaction was observed to be 6 % higher than PPD predictions. Again, a majority of the unexplained thermal dissatisfaction can be attributed to levels of air movement falling below the building occupants' preference.

In all three studies, thermal dissatisfaction increased much more rapidly than was predicted by the PPD index as temperatures departed from neutrality. All three studies observed a significantly greater sensitivity of thermal dissatisfaction to temperature than expected by PPD index calculations. Both the San Francisco and Townsville studies found that this underestimation could amount to as much as 20 % of the sample when temperatures fell near the margins of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone. In the Montreal study, this underestimation was much higher; at the extreme higher margin of the summer zone, and at the extreme lower margin of the winter zone, it could amount to as much as 28 to 52 %, respectively, of the sample.

The same conclusion that was discussed in the Townsville sample can be repeated here. An important implication of this underestimation of dissatisfaction is that the 90 % or even the 80 % acceptability limits defining the current margins of both ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7730 comfort zones may be optimistic; a more realistic comfort zone should cover a narrower temperature range.

Auliciems (1983) regressed the neutralities observed in over 50 thermal comfort field studies on the mean indoor and outdoor temperatures recorded during the studies. Since its input data came from all around the world, the Auliciems regression equation provides an easy method of comparison between the Montreal data and those collected across a broad spectrum of climatic contexts:

82

tY = 9.22 + 0.48(ti) + 0.14(tm)

where tY = neutrality on the ASHRAE or Bedford 7-point scale, tj = mean air, globe or operative temperature, and tm = mean monthly temperature outdoors (average of mean daily minima

and maxima).

The tY predicted from the summer/hot season's data was 23.1°C, and the corresponding prediction for the winter/cold season was 19.1°C, indicating the effect of 1°C difference in tj and 25°C difference in tm between both seasons. Compared to the actual observations (Figure 3.28), the predicted tY for the summer season was a degree cooler than observed neutrality. While for the winter season, the predicted tY was almost 4 degrees cooler than observed neutrality. The Townsville study also observed differences in the dry season data, they explained that the model's overestimation was most probably due to the fact that input data to the regression were derived from both air-conditioned and naturally ventilated buildings. Occupants of naturally-ventilated buildings would be expected to demonstrate a greater sensitivity of clothing insulation, and therefore thermal neutralities, to outdoor climatic influences. In Townsville, there was a 0.1 clo decrement between seasons, despite an 8 degree difference in mean outdoor temperature, so the observed inter-seasonal difference in neutrality was less than half a degree. In Montreal, there was a 0.3 clo decrement between seasons, despite a 25 degree difference in mean outdoor temperature, so the observed inter-seasonal difference in neutrality was more than one degree.

Humphreys (1981) also regressed field study neutralities on prevailing warmth outdoors, but did so separately for "climate controlled" and "free running" building studies:

tY = 23.9 + 0.295(tm-22)exp(-((tm-22)/(24Xv'2))2).

For the Townsville study, the neutralities predicted (tY) with this model, using tm=19 and 27°C for the dry and wet seasons were 23.0 and 25.3°C, respectively. For the Montreal study, the neutralities predicted (tY) with this model, using tm=18 and -7°C for the summer and winter seasons were 22.8 and 19.8°C, respectively. Humphreys' model underestimated the summer season by more than a degree and the winter season by more than 3 degrees. As in the Townsville study, this model fared worst than Auliciems'.

83

CHAPTER 5

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions of RP-821

A replication of the ASHRAE-sponsored San Francisco (RP-462) and Townsville (RP-702) field experiments was performed in twelve air-conditioned office buildings located in and around the city of Montreal, Canada. A total of 877 subjects provided data for the two extreme seasons in this climate; summer/hot and winter/cold. The questionnaire used in the present study was essentially the same as the one used in Townsville (which used the San Francisco one, with some minor adaptations), except it was translated into french and had some minor adaptations to climatic conditions and education system. Indoor climatic data was collected by a mobile cart carrying laboratory-grade instrumentation complying with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7726 recommendations for accuracy and response time.

Clothing insulation levels (0.7 clo in summer and 1.1 clo in winter) were slightly higher than those assumed in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 of 0.5 clo in summer and 0.9 clo in winter. This was due to the fact that the clothing insulation effect of chairs added up to 0.15 clo in the summer and 0.19 clo in the winter. Metabolic rates were estimated to be 1.21 met.

Thermal neutrality, according to responses on the ASHRAE seven-point sensation scale, occurred at about 24.1°C in the summer and at about 22.8°C in the winter. Preferred temperature, defined as a minimum of subjects requesting temperature change, was approximately one degree cooler than neutrality in both seasons, at 23°C in the summer and 22°C in the winter. Direct assessments of thermal acceptability peaked at 90 % at 23°C, but fell off to 80 % at 21.4 and 24.7°C.

After the effects of chair insulation were accounted for, the PMV index adequately predicted optimum temperatures for the Montreal subjects, in terms of thermal neutrality, acceptability, or preference.

Only 63 % of the indoor climatic observations fell within the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 summer comfort zone; 27 % in the winter. Neither the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 nor the ISO 7730 Standard's PPD index matched observed levels of thermal acceptability with useful accuracy. The only exception is for the operative temperature range of 22 - 24°C, where the PPD index matched the direct acceptability vote by the subjects. Montreal office workers were generally much less accepting of non-neutral temperatures than either PPD index or Standard 55 predicted.

The observed air velocities and turbulence intensities respected the guidelines as set out in the standards. As was found in the Townsville study, draft or unwanted cooling due to

84

excessive air movement was much less of a problem than insufficient levels of air movement. The thermal dissatisfaction expressed by subjects whose thermal environments fell within the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 summer and winter comfort zones appeared to be related to not enough air movement This suggests that air movement and draft guidelines in Standard 55 and ISO 7730 may be inappropriate for both hot-humid and cold climate zones.

Group mean thermal sensations showed a heightened sensitivity to temperature, changing approximately one unit on the ASHRAE 7-point scale per 2°C change in operative temperature. The same was found in the Townsville study. In San Francisco, the ratio was slightly different; one unit per 3°C.

There was little difference between the sexes in terms of thermal sensation, although there were significantly more frequent expressions of thermal dissatisfaction from the females in the sample, despite their thermal environments being no different from the males'.

Apart from gender, other personal, contextual, and psychological factors investigated for relationship with thermal responses of building occupants included: job satisfaction, general health status, physical fitness, length of residence in Canada, exposure to air-conditioning and humidification outside the workplace, perceived levels of control over workplace thermal environments, and total amount of lighting. While job satisfaction was moderately and positively correlated with overall generalized assessments of the workplace physical environment, it is not possible to infer cause and effect from these data. Furthermore, job satisfaction had no relationship with assessments of specific environmental conditions occurring at the time of the interviews. General health status showed moderately negative dependencies with overall generalized assessments of the workplace physical environment. However, the only relationships found with assessments of specific environmental conditions occurring at the time of the interviews were air movement acceptability and general comfort (moderately negative). Perceived levels of personal control seem to have a small influence on office occupant evaluations of indoor climate. Physical fitness and length of residence in Canada registered no statistically significant association with any environmental rating. Exposure to air-conditioning outside the workplace did not register any relationship with both generalized and specific assessments of workplace thermal environments. However, exposure to humidification outside the workplace and lighting levels did indicate effects on thermal sensation.

Ethnic differences in thermal response could not be examined in this study due to a small amount of non-caucasian subjects.

The effects of Montreal's hot/cold seasonality on thermal comfort responses of office workers was minor, amounting to less than a 1.5°C shift in neutrality; well within the range expected on the basis of the clothing insulation differences of approximately 0.3 clo between seasons.

85

In comparison to the earlier ASHRAE field experiments in San Francisco (RP-462) and in Townsville (RP-702), summer neutralities in Montreal approximated those from the Townsville study, while winter neutralities were closer to the San Francisco study. However, the relatively good prediction of all three neutralities by the PMV model suggests that most of this offset can be explained by differences in clothing.

5.2 Suggestions for Future Work

As was found in the Townsville study, metabolic estimates need further attention in the field research methodology since they appear to be a major source of confusion when one compares different field studies. For example, San Francisco initially estimated 1.1 met for office workers, Townsville estimated 1.3 met, and Montreal 1.2 met. It is thought that the three samples of office workers are essentially doing the same type of work. As in the Townsville study, this study took into account activities within the hour leading up to the interview. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 is not very specific on how such estimates might be calculated.

Only recently has the importance of considering the incremental effect of chairs on the clothing insulation of office workers been acknowledged. The Townsville study suggested a set of photographs of various types of chairs annotated with their incremental clothing insulation might prove a valuable addition to the clothing section in future revisions to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 and also Chapter 8 of the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. The Montreal study also incorporated the effect of different types of ensembles sitting on different chairs. This relationship should also be included in the future revisions. Furthermore, more detail is needed to explain the differences in clothing perceptions from one climate to another. For example, a "heavy" Montreal garment may not necessarily be the same as a "heavy" Townsville garment.

Further work on air movement preferences is required. Montreal office workers were not accepting of the air movement levels at their workstations, even though they satisfied the standards. As in the Townsville study, the concept of draft risk does not appear to be relevant in Montreal's climate.

This northern project replicated work conducted in a mediterranean climate zone (RP-462), and in a tropical climate zone (RP-702). Further replication is desirable in a hot-dry climate. This would complete the climate variations to be considered in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 revisions. This extreme cold climate study has shown that occupants' responses to indoor climates differ from those in mid-latitude and tropical climate zones.

As stated in the Townsville study, subjects in Montreal did not enjoy taking the time to fill out the survey, and in several cases, were quite critical of the questions which appear somewhat irrelevant to the stated objectives of the research project. In the future, questionnaires should be shorter, and should focus on the aims of the research project For

86

example, the job satisfaction section (which many subjects found too personal) may be eliminated, since in this and the previous studies, no relationship was found between then-job satisfaction and their thermal environment at the time of the interview.

In the Montreal study, repeated workstation visits were abolished (except for repeating the experiment in a different season). This protocol should be retained in future experiments. This will ensure a greater cooperation on the subject's part.

87

REFERENCES

ASHRAE. 1993. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 1992. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 1985. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 1981. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1981, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Auliciems, A., 1983. "Psychophysical criteria for global thermal zones of building design." Biometeorology, No.8 Part 2: Supplement to Vol.26 (1982), International Journal of Biometeorology, pp.69-86.

Ballantyne, E.R., Hill, R.K. and J.W. Spencer. 1977. "Probit analysis of thermal sensation assessments", International Journal of Biometeoroglogy. Vol.21(l), pp.29-43.

Berglund, L.G., 1994. Common elements in the design and operation of thermal comfort and ventilation systems. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia 100 (1): 776-781. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Berglund, L.G., 1991. Comfort benefits for summer air-conditioning with ice storage. ASHRAE Transactions 97 (1). Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Berglund, L.G., and W.S. Cain. 1989. Perceived air quality and the thermal environment. The human equation: Health and comfort. Proceedings of ASHRAE/SOEH Conference, IAQ'89. pp.93-99.

Brager, G.S., M. Fountain, C.C. Benton, E. Arens and F.S. Bauman. 1994. "A comparison of methods for assessing thermal sensation and acceptability in the field", in Thermal Comfort: Past, Present and Future, edited by N.Oseland (in press).

Building Science for a Cold Climate. Hutcheon, N.B. and Hangegord, G.O.P. National Research Council of Canada, 1983.

88

Crandall, M.S., R. High smith, and R. Gorman. 1990. Library of Congress and U.S. EPA indoor air quality and work environment study: Environmental survey results in Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol.4, pp.597-602.

Davidge, R.O.C. 1986. ASHRAE Standards: A Guarantee of Occupant Satisfaction?, Proceedings of IAQ 86, pp.171-177.

de Dear, R.J., and M.E. Fountain. 1994. Field experiments on occupant comfort and office thermal environments in a hot-humid climate. ASHRAE Transactions 94(2). Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Doherty, T., 1988. "2-NODE MODEL equivalent to J.B. Pierce 1987 FORTRAN version", Centre for Environmental Design Research, Berkeley, CA. [The computer code used to calculate the 2-Node indices in the ASHRAE Thermal Comfort Program]

Donnini, G., V.H.Nguyen, and J.Molina. 1994. "Office Thermal Environments and Occupant Perception of Comfort". Proceedings of Healthy Indoor Air '94, La Riforma Medica, Vol.109, n.2, pp.257-263.

Environment Canada. Atmospheric Environment Service. 1995. Meteorological Observations for Quebec 1995. Quebec: Scientific Services Division - Region of Quebec.

Environment Canada. Atmospheric Environment Service. 1994. Meteorological Observations for Quebec 1994. Quebec: Scientific Services Division - Region of Quebec.

Fanger, P.O., Melikov, A.K., Hanzawa, H., and J. Ring. 1988. "Air turbulence and sensation of draught", Energy and Buildings, Vol.12, pp.21-39.

Fidler, A.T., T.G. Wilcox, B. Leaderer, O.J. Selfridge, and R.W. Honing. 1990. Library of Congress indoor air quality and work environment study: Health symptoms and comfort concerns, Proceedings of5lh International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol.4, pp. 603-608.

Finnegan, M.J., and Pickering, A.C. 1987. "Prevalence of symptoms of the sick building syndrome in buildings without expressed dissatisfaction." Indoor Air '87: Proceedings of the 4* International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Berlin (West) 17-21, August, pp.542-546.

Fountain, M.E., and C. Huizenga. 1994. "Using the ASHRAE Thermal Comfort Model - An ASHRAE Special Publication". Environmental Analytics.

89

Gagge, A.P. Fobelets, A.P., and Berglund, L., 1986. "A standard predictive index of human response to the thermal environment," ASHRAE Transactions, Vol.92, Pt.2, pp.709-731. [Standard reference for the Gagge 2-Node model].

Gothe, C.-J., K.Ancker, R.Bjurstrom, S.Holm and S.Langworth. 1987. "Relative Humidity, Temperature and Subjective Perception of Dry Air", Proceedings of the 4th

International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol.3, pp.443-447.

Haghighat, F., Donnini, G., and R.D'Addaria (1992). "Relationship between Occupant Discomfort as Perceived and as Measured Objectively. Indoor Environment, Vol.1, pp.112-118.

Hedge, A. 1984a. "Evidence of a relationship between office design and self-reports of ill health among office workers in the United Kingdom." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.1, pp.163-174.

Hedge, A. 1984b. "Ill health among office workers: an examination of the relationship between office design and employee well-being." In: Ergonomics and Health in Modern Offices, Grandjean, E. (ed.), pp.46-51. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Hedge, A (1994) "Sick Building Syndrome: Is it an environmental or a psychosocial phenomenon?" Proceedings of Healthy Indoor Air '94, La Riforma Medica, Vol.109, no.2, pp.9-21.

Hedge, A., Wilson, S., Burge, P.S., Robertson, A.S., and Harris-Bass, J. 1987. "Indoor climate and employee health in offices" Indoor Air '87: Proceedings of the 4"* International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Berlin (West), August 17-21, pp.492-496.

Hedge, A., Burge, P.S., Wilson, A.S., and J.Harris-Bass (1989) Work-related illness in office workers : a proposed model of the sick building syndrome. Environment International, Vol.15, pp. 143-158.

Honeywell Technalysis. 1985. "Indoor air quality: A national survey of office worker attitudes." Minneapolis, MN: Honeywell Inc.

Humphreys, M.A. (1981) "The dependence of comfortable temperatures on indoor and outdoor climates", in Bioengineering, Thermal Physiology and Comfort edited by K. Cena and J.A. Clark, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.229-250.

IES. 1987. IES Lighting Handbook, Application Volume. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

ISO. 1985. International Standard 7726, Thermal Environments - Specifications Relating to Appliance and Methods for Measuring Physical Characteristics of the Environment, Geneva: International Standards Organization.

90

ISO. 1984. International Standard 7730, Moderate Thermal Environments -Determination of the PMV and PPD indices and specification of the Conditions for Thermal Comfort. Geneva: International Standards Organization.

Kleven, S.R., and Sterling, T.D. 1989. "Prevalence of health and comfort complaints of office workers: Male and female differences." The human equation: Health and comfort: Proceedings of the ASHRAE/SOEH conference, IAQ '89, San Diego, April 17-20, pp.232-236.

McCullough, E.A., Olesen, B.W., and Hong, S. 1994. Thermal insulation provided by chairs, ASHRAE Transactions 100 (1): 795-802. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Mclntyre, D.A. 1978a. "Three approaches to thermal comfort", ASHRAE Transactions, Vol.84(l), pp.101-109.

Mclntyre, D.A. 1978b. "Seven point scales of warmth", Building Services Engineer, Vol.45, pp.215-226.

Mclntyre, D.A. 1978c. "Preferred air speeds for comfort in warm conditions." ASHRAE Transactions. Vol.84(2), pp.264-277.

Melikov, A.K. and Sawachi, T. 1992. "Low velocity measurements: Comparative study of different anemometers", ROOMVENT 92 - Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, Vol.3, pp.291-306.

Molhave, L., Z. Lui, A.H. Jorgensen, O.F. Pederson, and S.K. Kjaergaard. 1993. Sensory and physiological effects on humans of combined exposure to air temperatures and volatile organic compounds. Indoor Air 3 (3): 155-168.

Nelson, C.J., B. Leaderer, K. Teichman, L. Wallace, M.Kollander, and R.P. Clickner. 1990. Environmental Protection Agency indoor air quality and work environment study: Environmental survey results, Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol.4, pp.615-620.

SAS Institute Inc. 1994. Cary, NC 27513.

Schiller, G.E. 1990. A comparison of measured and predicted comfort in office buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 96 (1). Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Schiller, G.E., E.Arens, F.Bauman, C. Benton, M.Fountain, and T. Doherty. 1988. A field study of thermal environments and comfort in office buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 94 (2). Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

91

Selfridge, OJ., L.G. Berglund, and B.Leaderer. 1990. Thermal comfort dissatisfaction responses in the Library of Congress and Environmental Protection Agency indoor air quality and work environment study. In: Proceedings of 5"1

International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol.4, pp.665-670.

Seppanen, O., and J. Jaakkola. 1989. Factors that may affect the results of indoor air quality studies in large office buildings, in design and protocol for monitoring indoor air quality, ASTM STP 1002, N.L. Nagda and J.P. Harper, eds. pp.51-62. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Skov, P., Valbjorn, O., Pederson, B.V., and DISC (1989). Influence of personal characteristics, job related factors and psychosocial factors on the sick building syndrome, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, Vol.15, pp.286-296.

The Climate of Canada. Meteorological Branch, Department of Transport. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1962.

Ventresca, J.A. 1991. Operations and maintenance for indoor air quality, implications from energy simulations of increased ventilation. Healthy Buildings, IAQ '91, Proceedings ofASHRAE/CIB Conference, September 4-8, 1991.

Woods, J.E., Drewry, G.M., and Morey, P.R. 1987. "Office worker perceptions of indoor air quality effects on discomfort and performance." Indoor Air '87: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Berlin (West), August 17-21, pp.464-468.

Wyon, D.P., B. Anderson, and M.Soderling. 1991. Field trials of technical measures to reduce sick building syndrome in a Swedish hospital. Proceeding of CIB/W77 Indoor Climate Meeting, September 9-11, 1991.

Al

APPENDIX A

Building Descriptions

BUILDING 1

Summer Season Visit: August 23 - August 24, 1994 Winter Season Visit: February 13 - February 14, 1995

SrJ%,

, j» „'<< I'S *?%>

t\¥*l

Figure A.I.: External and typical internal views of BUILDING 1

BUILDING DESCRIPTION

• Type of building occupant • Construction date • Floor area

Department of Provincial Government Completed in 1960 7220m2. 5 storeys and a sub-basement. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.05 occ/m3.

• Description of air conditioning system:

variable air volume distribution free-cooling 100% outdoor air heat pump

two-stage compressor square ceiling diffusers ceiling return air-grills

Figure A.2 Typical floor plan of Building 1

COMFORT STUDY

Table A.l Meteorological conditions during the experiment

SEASON

summer

summer.

winter

winter

DATE

August 23, 1994

August 24, 1994

February 13, 1995

February 14, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

8.6

10.9

-17.7

-12.8

max

20,6

23.0

-6.1

-6.9

HUMIDITY at Tmin and Tmax (%)

min

87

92

53

78

max

49

52

65

56

WIND SPEED at Tmin and Tmax (m/s)

min

1.1

1.7

25

4.2

max

1.5

1.1

12

6.7

A4

Subjects: Gender: Total # visits:

Summer season survey Winter season survey 22 males/18 females 20 males/19 females 40 39

Figure A.3 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 1 - Summer season

Graph of Temperature and Bel. Huaidlty us Tina

-I—r 89:85:88 88-23-94

10*89*80 BB*BB •SB Do * BB • Bo 88-23-94 88-24-94 88-24-94

Tine/ lata, Hours Minutes Hontlv'Day

15:25:88 88-24-94

Figure A.4 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 1 - Winter season

Graph of Temperature and Sal . Hualdlty us Tine

T—i—i—s—'—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r—i—i—i—i—i—•—i—i—r—i—i—r 89:55:88 18:88:88 » : e e : 8 B 86:88:88 12:88:88 82-13-95 82-13-95 82-14-95 82-14-95 82-14-95

Tine/Data, HourstHJwtes Bcmth/Day

16:55:88 82-14-95

BUILDING 2

Summer Season Visit: June 21 - June 23, 1994 Winter Season Visit: January 30, 31 - February 1, 1995

••O'.^r-

* - - ^ » ? s & ? > :

Figure A.5: External and typical internal views of BUILDING 2


A6


Department of Provincial Police Completed in 1967 68198m2. 15 storeys and several sub-basements. "T"-shaped building. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices; all along perimeter. Very few offices in center of floor. 0.03 occ/m3.


- double duct, constant total air distribution (24hrs/day) - steam humidifier (24 hrs/day) - 11 to 100% outdoor air - heat (steam)

- cooling (cold water) - square ceiling diffusers - ceiling return air-grills


Hr**—-I T*\LT~\

£

'..Wt::':1-;:.*':

: *-*>& t¥*r--i~i>H-« - I T - 'nr.fh.cm--?xi

V. p r < '»-»•••• .*+- • —<-l

COMFORT STUDY

Table A.2

SEASON

summer

summer

summer

winter

winter

winter

Meteorological conditions durin

DATE

June 21, 1994

June 22, 1994

June 23,1994

January 30, 1995

January 31,1995

February 1, 1995

TEMPERATURE

min

20.2

15.9

14.8

-7.5

-5.9

-4.0

max

26.4

252

24.4

-2.5

0.9

2.1

; the experiment


min

69

83

86

71

90

60

max

67

41

42

67

71

87


min

3.1

53

3.1

53

1.1

6.1

max

7.8

6.7

5.6

6.1

7.2

6.1

A7


Summer season survey 18 males/21 females 39

Winter season survey 19 males/19 females 38


Graph of Tenparaturo and Hel. Hunldlty vs Tl*o

11:38:88 86-21-94

O0>0O«BB 86-22-34 T lm/Bata ,

12 :B8 :BB B B : 8 B : 8 8 86-22-94 86-23-94

Hours :IU nut as Month/Day

I I I 11 1S:4B:8B 86-23-94


Graph of Temperature and Bel. Huaidittj vs Tina

18:38:88 B1-38-9S

BB*8D«B0 81-31-95

Ilne/Baia,

XZ*OB*8B 81-31-95

88:88:88 82-81-95

-r-rt 12:25:88 82-81-95

Hours :Ninutas HontVBay

BUILDING 3

A8

Summer Season Visit: July 5 - July 7, 1994 Winter Season Visit: March 13 - March 14, 1995


A9




Department of Provincial Police Completed in 1992 3963m2. 3 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.02 occ/m3.

constant total air distribution, controlled by another building near by free-cooling

- 30 to 100% outdoor air - steam humidifier - square ceiling diffusers

Figure A. 10 Typical floor plan of Building 3

COMFORT STUDY

Table A.3

SEASON

summer

summer

summer"

winter

winter


DATE

July 5, 1994

July 6, 1994

Jury 7, 1994

March 13, 1995

March 14,1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

133

19.0

172

-1.2

1.2

max

23.6

22.4

255

6.1

3.0

g the experiment


min

89

89

97

96

93

max

74

72

71

69

82


min

1.8

1.1

2.8

1.1

1.1

max

6.7

1.9

1.7

1,9

3.1

A10




Figure A.ll Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 3 - Summer season •A 64

Graph Ttwperature and Rel. Hualdlty us Tine

13:38:88 87-85-94

BB •DO *BB 87-86-94

Tlne'Date,

12:88:88 87-86-94

• DD*DD 87-87-94

H:BB:BB 87-87-94

Hours :n inutss Nonth/Ikay

Figure A. 12 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 3 - Winter season

V. 21

2 8 . 5

26 1 9 . 5

19 1 8 . 5

18 1 7 . 5

17 1 6 . 5

16 1 5 . 5

15 1 4 . 5

14 13.E

13 12 .5

12 1 1 . 5

11

•c

2 7 . 5 -27 • 2 6 . 5 .

26 • 2 5 . 5 -

25 •

Z4 .5-

24 -2 3 . 5 -

23 -2 2 . 5 -

22 -

2 1 . 5 -

21 • 2 B . E -

28 • 1 9 . 5 .

19 • 1 8 . 5 . i n its 1

i a : 4 8 3 - 1

1

5:8 3-5

1

IB 15

Graph of

• i i i i i i

I B : 8 8 : B B 83-13-95

Taaperature and R e l . Humidity us Tine

Tenperature

/ / •

/ /

\ \ '

R e l a t i v e hudity

• i •

8 8 : 8 8 3 - 1

Hmint!H*

1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1

9*8B 8 D « 8 B * B B 12 «C 4-95 8 3 - 1 4 - 9 5 83-1 T»-kf» Hrmtiw'Bau

I •

8.88 4-95

> n 16:1 83-1

B:SB 4-95

BUILDING 4

A l l


A12




Department of Provincial Government (court) Completed in 1983 5265m2. 3 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.01 occ/m3.

variable air volume and constant total air distributions, (controlled by another building near by) free-cooling

30 to 100% outdoor air (10 hrs/day) square and linear ceiling diffusers ceiling return air-grills


COMFORT STUDY

Table A.4

SEASON

summer

summer

summer

winter

winter

winter


DATE

Jury 11, 1994

July 12, 1994

July 13, 1994

March 6, 1995

March 7, 1995

March 8, 1995

TEMPERATURE (•Q

min

14.6

16.1

16.0

-83

-72

-55

max

23.1

22.7

23.6

-5.1

-1.6

6.1

g the experiment


min

85

89

80

91

82

88

max

57

74

60

88

96

100


min

0.6

6.1

25

92

6.2

42

max

7.8

5.6

33

6.7

0.6

5.6

A13

Subjects: Summer season survey Winter season survey Gender: 18 males/23 females 15 males/26 females Total # visits: 41 41

Figure A. 15 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 4 - Summer season v. *C Graph of Temperature and Hal. Hunidlty «s Tina 58 28 57 Z7.5-56 27 • 55 26.5. 54 26 • 53 25.5. 52 25 • 51 24.5-58 Z4 • 49 23.5-48 23 • 47 22.5-46 22 • 45 21.5-44 21 • 43 28.E-42 28 • 41 19.5-48 19 • 39 18.5-38 18 -

14:88:88 88:88.88 12:88:88 88:88:88 11:25:88 87-11-94 87-12-94 87-12-94 87-13-94 87-13-94

Tine/Dote, HourstlUnutns NontVBay

Figure A.16 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 4 - Winter season it *C Graph of Temperature and Rel. Hunldlty us Tine 18 24 •-17.5 23.5-17 23 • 16.5 22 .5 . 16 22 • 15.5 21 .5 . 15 21 • 14.5 28.5•' 14 28 • 13.5 19.5-13 19 • 12.5 18.5> 12 18 • 11.5 17.5-11 17 • 18.E 16.S-18 16 • 9.5 15.5. 9 15 • 8.5 14.5-8 1 4 ^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

18:45:88 88:88:88 12:88:88 88:88:88 89:18:88 83-86-45 83-87-95 83-87-95 83-88-95 83-88-95

BUILDING 5

A14

Summer Season Visit: July 18 - July 20, 1994 Winter Season Visit: February 27, 28 - March 1, 1995


A15



Description of air conditioning system:

Department of Provincial Government Completed in 1979 10 451m2. 5 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.04 occ/m3.

- variable air volume distribution (10 hrs/day) - linear ceiling diffusers - free-cooling - ceiling return air-grills - 30 - 100% outdoor air

Figure A. 18 Typical floor plan of Building 5

•J ~ - '

. tan -.*,

i 1 j i

.i I <

i

" • '

ii

COMFORT STUDY

Table A.5 Meteorological conditions during the experiment

SEASON

summer

summer

summer

winter

winter

winter

DATE

July 18, 1994

Jury 19, 1994

July 20, 1994

February 27, 1995

February 28, 1995

March 1, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

19.5

19.9

193

-24.0

-9.9

-8.2

max

24.8

26.0

25.9

-93

-53

-4.4


min

87

96

91

67

90

91

max

72

58

73

90

78

80


min

1.1

4.7

4.2

1.9

4.7

0.6

max

5.6

42

1.9

53

5.6

3.6

A16



Figure A. 19 Temperature and relative humidity recordings from the stationary instrument in Building 5 - Summer season

X *C

5Z.S 3 1 . 5 -

52 31 -5 1 . 5 38.5>

51 38 -5 8 . 5 2 9 . 5 .

58 29 •

49 .5 2 8 . 5 -

49 28 •

4 8 . 5 2 7 . 5 -

48 27 • 47 .5 2 6 . 5 -

47 26 •

46 .5 2 5 . 5 -

46 25 • 4S.E 24.E-

45 24 • 4 4 . 5 2 3 . 5 .

44 23 -

4 3 . 5 2 2 . 5 -

15:2 B7-1

S » 8 B-94

« Sraph of

88:8 87-1

Tli

B:BB 9-94 MfVata,

Teaperature and Be l . Hualdlty us 1

Re la t ive huMldity -

Temperature

12:BB:BB aa.eartH 87-19-94 87-28-94

Hours ZIMnutss Nonth/Bay

rim

•

13:48:88 87 -28 -94


X *C

25 27 .5

24 27 -23 2 6 . 5 .

22 26 •

21 25 .5-

28 25

19 24.5-

18 24

17 23 .5-

16 23 • IS 22.5-

14 22 •

13 21.5-

12 21 • 11 28.E-

16 29 . 9 19.5-

8 19 -7 18 .5 .

6 IB

• A

*

•

i l l n i

Graph o f Tonperatur© a

Temperature

\ \

\

telative huNidl ty

nd B e l . HuMidity vs Tim

•

/ " \ / \ / 1

J 1

' / \

A / \

^ ~ L ^ ^ ^ ^

1 ' J \ i '

\

\ : i i ' i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

li:8S:B8 82-27-95

88:88:88 82-28-95

1 2 : B B : B 8 82-28-95

' K l « , 4 . . Mn-4VXI\.

88:88:88 83-81-95

18:85:88 83-81-95

BUILDING 6

A17

Summer Season Visit: July 27 - July 28, 1994 Winter Season Visit: January 16 - January 17, 1995



A18



Department of Provincial Government (court) Completed in 1987 14 980m2. 2 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.02 occ/m3.

variable air volume distribution (controlled by occupant sensors) free-cooling 100% outdoor air

- 12 heat pumps - 9 compressors - linear ceiling diffusers - ceiling return air-grills


COMFORT STUDY

rnrhaao" zo

, ... — T- n

• DDoa I M I C W »*C*wtOUC /

\

n « t

iTr^s^L i « IM

•19 *t w •:»;s

• " • • • •

I M

F^\ y SAlkC 0C «*tCAWOOC

E3 i U ' . t {nMHWWtt

Rt>t Jtttnat* Cyti«»


SEASON

summer

summer.

winter

winter

DATE

July 27, 1994

July 28, 1994

January 16, 1995

January 17, 1995

TEMPERATURE

min

16.4

163

-0.1

-3.0

max

23.6

213

7.6

03

HUMIDITY at Tmin and Tmax(%)

min

82

90

100

90

max

55

78

100

100


min

42

1.1

53

12

max

7.2

1.7

4.7

25

A19





Graph of Temperature and Rei. Huaidlty us Tine

li:ee:B8 18:8B:BB H : B B : B 8 86:88:88 12:BB:B8 16:58:80 87-27-94 87-Z7-94 87-28-94 87-28-94 B7-28-94 B7-28-94

Tim/Data, Hours :Hiiiutss ItcmUv'Day


Teaper&ture and Rol. Hunidlty vs Tine

18:38*8 ia:aa:BB BB:ae:8B 86:86:80 12:B8:8B 1&:3B:B8 81-16-95 81-16-95 81-17-95 81-17-95 81-17-95 81-17-9S

Tine/Data, HoursSHinutsc IfcmUt/Day

BUILDING 7

Summer Season Visit: August 1 - August 2, 1994 Winter Season Visit: January 23 - January 24, 1995


A21



Department of Provincial Government Completed in 1965 12 500m2. 8 storeys and a sub-basement. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.04 occ/m3.


- top half of building, double duct, variable air volume distribution (9.5 hrs/day)

- steam humidifier (9.5 hrs/day) - central electric heating

- linear ceiling diffusers - bottom half of building, simple duct,

constant air distribution (9.5 hrs/day)


COMFORT STUDY


SEASON

summer

summer.

winter

winter

DATE

August 1, 1994

August 2, 1994

January 23, 1995

January 24, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

16.4

14.6

-4.8

-4.6

max

28.6

20.9

-2.4

-32


min

95

100

95

80

max

53

88

80

75


min

1.7

4.7

1.9

32

max

5.6

3.6

1.7

1.1

A22





Crayh of Temperature and Rel. Huntdlty us l ine K 64

63.S

63 62.5

62

61.5

61

68.5

68

S9.5

59 58.5

58

57.5

57 St .6

56 55.5

55

54.5

54

•c 28

27.5

27 26.5

26

25.5

25

24.5

24 23.5

23 22.5

22 21.5

21 20.E

28 19.5

19 18.5

IB B9:1B:BB 1B:BB:BB 11:BB:BB 1 2 : B B : 8 B 13:88:88 14:BB:8B 15:88:88 B8-82-94 88-82-94 88-82-94 88-82-94 08-82-94 B8-B2-94 88-82-94

Tine/Data, HourciHinu-tnc Month/Bay


24 28 Graph of "Tenyerature and Rel. Hunldlty us Tine

23.5

23 22.5

22

21.5

21

28.5

28

19.5

19 18.5

18

17.5

17 lt.E

16 1S.5

15

14.5

14

27.5-

27 •

26.5-

26 -

25.5-

25 •

24.5-

24 •

23.5-

23 -

22.5 •

22 •

21.5-

21 •

28. S-

28 •

19.5.

19 •

18.5.

iB:a Bl-2

> •

9 SB 3-95

Temperature

Relative hunldlty

—i—i—r"-i—i—I~~T—r—i—I—r-T—i—i—i—i—i—r JB«8B»00 BB*OB*0B 0O*8B*86 81-23-95 81-24-95 81-24-95

Tine/Bats, Hnu«:iUnu-tec Howtlv'Ba«0

- 1 — r l 15:3B:B8 81-24-95

BUILDING 8

A23

Summer Season Visit: August 9 - August 10, 1994 Winter Season Visit: March 20 - March 22, 1995

[?MWM

M l

••111 fen!

m F£*J

wil

VS&

fefe S«tf1

&

\^^ ^^^>

-0 4 .

ftk*.

i% w j . p |

* ii;J]:

4 '#.



A24


Department of Provincial Government Completed in 1974 3500m2. 2 storeys and a sub-basement. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.02 occ/m3.


variable air volume distribution (24 hrs/day) free-cooling >20% outdoor air bi-energy heating

- cold water cooling - linear ceiling diffusers - ducted ceiling return air-grills - steam humidifier


j ^ - y r j — ' I •• i. I I

COMFORT STUDY


SEASON

summer

summer-

winter

winter

winter

DATE

August 9, 1994

August 10, 1994

March 20, 1995

March 21, 1995

March 22, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

10.4

5.6

1.4

22

-2.9

max

20.0

19.7

10.6

7.6

33


min

95

97

88

76

94

max

80

44

57

94

87


min

1.7

0.6

1.7

1.9

1.1

max

1.9

3.1

43

53

3.1

A25





•c 28.5-28 •

27.5-27 • 2 6 . 5 .

26 < 2S.5-25 • 24.5-24 • 23.5-23 • 22.5-22 • 21.S-21 -20.5' 2B • 19.5-19 -

Crayh of Tnrparatura and Rol. Hunldity w Tina

•

1 Temperature

H • \ V \ Vv ^ ^ J \ ^

^-^ \ .

/ V

Relative hunMity

— i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i i i — i

•

i i i i i i

•

^-^~~ •

•

i i • - i - i

S3

SZ.5

52

51.5 51 58.5

58

49.5 49

48.5

48

47.5

47

46.5 46 45.6 45 44.5 44 43.5 43

I S : I B » B 0B:BB:B8 B6:BB:B8 1 2 : » : B B 15:SB:BB 88-89-94 88-18-94 88-10-94 88-18-94 88-18-94

Tine/Bata, Hours:Mnutas Honth/Day


Graph of Ten pent t lire and Rol. Hunidlty vs Tina

Tenperature

18 1? i i i i i i 12:88:88 83-28-95

r~i—i i i—i i i i

ee:ae:88 83-21-95

12:88:88 83-21-95

i i i i i i i i 88:88:88 83-22-95

89:85:88 83-22-95

Tina/Date, Hours :lfinutes HontVUatf

BUILDING 9

A26

Summer Season Visit: August 15 - August 16, 1994 Winter Season Visit: January 9 - January 10, 1995


A27


• Type of building occupant : Department of Provincial Government (court) • Construction date Completed in 1980 • Floor area : 8784m2. 3 storeys and a sub-basement. Mainly open

plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.01 occ/m3.


- double duct, variable air volume distribution (12 hrs/day) - linear ceiling diffusers - steam humidifier (24 hrs/day) - ceiling return air-grills - heating (24 hrs/day), but is lowered at night


COMFORT STUDY


SEASON

summer

summer.

winter

winter

DATE

August 15, 1994

August 16, 1994

January 9, 1995

January 10, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°Q

min

11.5

8.8

-12.7

-263

max

182

73 A

-4.6

-14.0


min

90

94

100

100

max

62

45

78

100


min

4.7

1.7

2.8

1.1

max

8.6

6.1

7.8

42

A28




•/. 51

58.5

56

49.5

49

48.5

48

47.5

47

46.5

46

45.5

45

44.5

44 43 .C

43

42.5

42

41.5

41

•c 28.5-28 • 27 .5 . 27 • 26 .5 . 26 -25.5-25 • 24.5-24 • 23.5< 23 • 22.5-22 • 21.E-21 • 28.5-20 •

Graph of Temperature and Bel. Humidity us Tina

.

. •

Italatlva huiidliy

V \ \

• \

^ ^ —T* ^ " " A t •

S*^ S**^ "~""t""»-^ ^^-v^-v

/

Temperature

• .

19.5-1 9 • i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i i i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — n

18:48:88 18:88:88 88:88:88 B6:BB:8B 88-15-94 88-15-94 88-16-9* 88-16-94

Ttne/Dats, Hours Ifliuutas IfcraUv'Bay

15:15:88 88-16-94


Temperature and Bel. Humidity vs Tine

- i — i — i — i — i — i — r

11:38:88 18:88:88 88:88:88 86:88:88 81-89-95 81-89-95 81-18-95 81-18-95

Tim/Date, Hours :F11iu-tas Ifcratti/Bay

12:88=88 B1-1B-95

16:58:88 81-18-95

A29

BUILDING 10

Summer Season Visit: August 19 and August 22, 1994 Winter Season Visit: February 6 - February 7, 1995


A30




- variable air volume distribution (15 hrs/day) - free-cooling - steam heating along periphery - central cooling

Department of Provincial Government Completed in 1945 3006m2. 4 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.05 occ/m3.

- square ceiling diffusers - ducted ceiling return air-grills - steam humidifier


o o ® o ® ® o p o

COMFORT STUDY

Table A. 10 Meteorological conditions during the experiment

SEASON

summer

summer

winter

winter

DATE

August 19, 1994

August 22, 1994

February 6, 1995

February 7, 1995

TEMPERATURE (°C)

min

14.7

13.9

-272

-23.0

max

25.8

19.1

-22.6

-15.0


min

95

75

43

60

max

61

52

50

47


min

1.7

0.6

8.8

6.7

max

1.1

3.6

11.9

6.7

A31




Graph of Temperature and Bel. Humidity vs Tina

• 1111111111 i i 1111111111 i i 11 i n 111111111 i n i i1111 i i 11

88:88:88 88:88:88 12:88:88 BB:8B:8B 12:88:88 88-19-94 88-28-94 88-28-94 88-21-94 88-21-94

TiaeSBate, Hours tlUnuiBS MontVBay

BB*BB*8B 88-22-94

14:58:88 88-22-94


•/. 21 28.5 28 19.5 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 16.5 16 15.5 IS 14.5 14 13.E 13 12.5 12 11.5 11

•c

26.5-26 -25.5.

25 • 24.5.

24 • 23.5-

23 -22.5-

22 • 21.5-

21 • 28.5-

28 •

19.G-19 • 18.5.

18 < 17.5.

17 •

Crayh of Temperature and Bel.

Relative humidity \

\ \

•

/ • /

• /

Temperature

1 — I — i — i — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — c — i

Humidity ue Tine

• .

•

•

•

V ' s ^ \ > - \ /

I / \ • \y/ f

. • ^ ^

.

•

•

1 — i — I — r — i — i — i — i — • — i — r -

18:38:88 82-86-95

Us •tm» >8B BB*BB*8B 06 *8B *0B 82-86-95 82-87-95 82-87-95

Time/Bate, HoursIHinuiss Honth/Day

14:38:88 82-87-95

BUILDING 11

A32

Summer Season Visit: August 29 - August 31, 1994 Winter Season Visit: February 20 - February 22, 1995



A33



Department of Provincial Government (court) Completed in 1977 32 345m2. 10 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.02 occ/m3.

double duct variable air volume distribution (central areas) constant total air distribution (periphery) 20% outdoor air

- hot water heating - centrifugal cooler - linear ceiling diffusers


COMFORT STUDY

Table A.ll Meteorological conditions during the experiment

SEASON

summer

summer

summer'

winter

winter

winter

DATE

August 29, 1994

August 30, 1994

August 31, 1994

February 20, 1995

February 21, 1995

February 22, 1995

TEMPERATURE

min

123

8.9

11.8

-6.5

-10.4

-152

max

20.8

203

14.6

-2.8

-2.9

-6.7


min

88

93

100

93

100

85

max

40

46

88

54

54

57


min

4.2

3.1

3.1

7.4

53

3.6

max

7.8

53

0.0

42

4.9

0.0

A34





Graph of Tonporatur* and Bel . Huaidltu «s Tina

14:3B:BB 8 B : M : B B 12:88:88 BB:8B:BB 88-29-94 BB-3B-94 BB-3B-94 88-31-94

TlneSBata, Hours:IIinuias MontVDay

12:88.88 88-31-94


29 •c 27

Graph of Teaperature and Sal . Hunldlty us Tina

Relative HwUU'ty

i i i

13:2588 82-28-95

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

88:88:88 12:8B:BB BB:ea:BB 82-21-95 82-21-95 82-22-95

TliwVate, Hours: Rim-tax Noiith/Daif

i i i i i • • 89:38:88 82-22-95

BUILDING 12

A35

Summer Season Visit: September 14, 1994 Winter Season Visit: no visit permitted

EXTERNAL VIEW NOT AVAILABLE


A36


• Type of building occupant : Private, professional and advertising • Construction date : Completed in 1972 • Floor area : 37 325m2. 25 storeys. Mainly open plan with offices

separated by partitions, some small offices. 0.05 occ/m3. • Description of air conditioning system:

- double duct, constant total air distribution, periphery - free-cooling, variable air volume distribution, central areas - linear ceiling diffusers - ceiling return air-grills


NOT AVAILABLE

COMFORT STUDY

Table A. 12 Meteorological conditions during the experiment

SEASON

summer

DATE

September 14, 1994

TEMPERATURE

min

9.1

max

20.6

HUMIDITY at Tmin and Tmax(%)

min

94

max

56


min

1.9

max

5.6

A37


Summer season survey 0 male/6 females 6


X *C 4 4 "7Q

48.5 28 .5-48 28 47.5 27 .5 . 47 27 > 46.5 26 .5 . 46 26 • 45 .5 25.5-45 25 • 44.5 24.5-44 24 •

43.5 23.5 • 43 23 • 42.5 22 .5-42 22 -41.E 21.G-41 21 • 48 .5 20 .5 . 48 28 -39.5 19.5. 39 19 •

Graph of Teajwrature ami. Ral. Hunidity us Tine

1 1 1 —T 1 1 1 i ' l T — T • ! '• I i i i i i • i i . i i

-

•

^

•

•

I — i — n 1B:4B:BB B9-14-94

12:BB:8B 13:88:88 L4:m:ae 89-14-94 89-14-94 89-14-94

Tlne/Date, Hours :nJnulas Itonth/Dau

15:23:80 89-14-94

APPENDIX B

French Questionnaire - ONLINE (pages 1-3) - BACKGROUND (pages 4-10)

English Questionnaire (as a reference, only)

I.D:

Batiment

ETUDE DU CONFORT

Veuillez noter que toutes les reponses resteront coniidentielles. Les participants resteront anonymes et ne seront identifies que par un code d'identification.

IDENTIFICATION _ _ ^ _

1. Nom:

2. Date:

3. Heure: i

4. Departement ou groupe:

5. Occupation:

6. Nom de la companie ou de 1'organisation:

7. Numeio de telephone au travafl:

8. Endroit dans Ie batiment: ,

CONFORT THERMIQUE , %

Dans cette section du questionnaire nous aimerions savoir comment vous vous sentez MAINTENANTEN CE MOMENT.

9. (Environnement thermique) Veuillezcocher sur 1'echeIIe ci-dessous a 1'endroit qui represente le mieux votre etat actuel, EN CE MOMENT.

FROID FRAIS LEGERMENT NEUTRE LEGEREMENT CHAUD TRES FRAIS CHAUD CHAUD

10. Est-ce que l'environnement thermique vous est acceptable, EN CE MOMENT? 1_ inacceptable 2_ acceptable.

2

11. Veuillez selectionner la case qui repr sente le mieux votre etat actuel, EN CE MOMENT.

Comment aimeriez-vous etre: 3_ plus au chaud 2_ a la meme temperature 1_ plus au frais

12. (Confort general) Comment est votre bureau, EN CE MOMENT?

6_ tres confortable 5_ moderement confortable 4_ legerement confortable 3_ legerement inconfortable 2_ moderement inconfortable 1_ tres inconfortable

13. EN MOYENNE, je percois mon environnement de travail comme 6tant:

6_ tres confortable 5_ moderement confortable 4_ legerement confortable 3_ legerement inconfortable 2_ moderement inconfortable 1_ tres inconfortable

14. (Temperature) Comment estimez-vous la temperature EN CE MOMENT? °C

15. EN MOYENNE, je percois la TEMPERATURE de mon environnement de travail comme etant: (sans consideYer le mouvement d'air, I'humidite et I'lclairage)

6_ tres chaude 5_ moderement chaude 4_ legerement chaud 3_ legerement fraiche 2_ moderement fraiche 1 tres fraiche

16. EN MOYENNE, pour I'HUMIDITE, je percois mon milieu de travail comme etant (sans tenir compte de la temperature, du mouvement d'air et de l'eclairage):

6_ tres humide 5_ moderement humide 4_ legerement humide 3_ legerement sec 2_ moderement sec 1 tres sec

3

17. Veuillez selectionner la case qui represente le mieux comment vous vous sentez a propos du MOUVEMENT D'AIR dans votre bureau, EN CE MOMENT.

6_ tres acceptable 5_ moderement acceptable 4_ legerement acceptable 3_ legerement inacceptable 2_ moderement inacceptable 1_ tres inacceptable

18. EN CE MOMENT, vous aimeriez avoir:

3_ plus de mouvement d'air 2_ aucun changement 1_ moins de mouvement d'air

19-20. EN MOYENNE, je percois le MOUVEMENT D'AIR de mon milieu de travail comme 6tant (sans tenir compte de la temperature,de l'eclairage et de l'humidit6)(Veuil]ez r£pondre sur les deux echelles):

19. 3_ trop 20. 6_ tres acceptable 2_ parfait 5_ moderement acceptable 1_ pas assez 4_ legerement acceptable

3_ legerement inacceptable 2_ moderement inacceptable 1_ tres inacceptable

G M R A L

21-24. (Activity) Qu'avez-vous fait 1'heure prec&lente?

assis en debout deboot condulsant marcbant tranquille dactylographiant sans bougtr travaillant one voitnrr an tour

21. 10 - 0 minutes o o o o o o 22.20 - 10 minutes o o o o o o 23.30 - 20 minutes o o o o o o 24.60 - 30 minutes o o o o o o

25. Veuillez indiquer ce que vous avez consomme durant les IS dernieres minutes: (s'il y a lieu)

o Boissons chaudes o Boissons Cafeinees o Collation ou repas o Boissons froides o Cigarette

26. Depuis combien de temps habitez-vous au Canada?

27. Utilisez-vous un humidificateur a la maison, durant cette periode de l'annee? o oui o non o pas d'humidificateur

28. En moyenne, combien d'heures par semaine travaillez vous? Heures au travail

29. En moyenne, combien d'heures par jour etes vous assis a votre poste de travail? Heures au bureau

30. Quel est votre taille approximative? Centimetres

31. Quel est votre poids approximatif? Kilogrammes

32. Quel est votre age? ans

33. Quel est votre sexe? 1_ Homme 2_ Femme

34. Est-ce que le francais est votre langue premiere? 1_ Oui 2_ Non

LES CARACTERISTIQUES DE VOTRE SANTE

35-44 La liste ci-dessous presente diffgrents symptdmes que certaines personnes ressentent a diffevents moments. Veuillez indiquer combien de fois VOUS-AVEZ RESSENTI CHACUN DE CES SYMPTOMES DURANT LE DERNIER MOIS en encerclant le chiffre approprie.

5 tres souvent 4 souvent 3 des fois 2 rarement 1 jamais

35. Maux de tetes: 36. Etourdissements: 37. Somnolence: 38. Gorge irritfie ou douloureuse: 39. Irritation du nez (dlmangeaison ou nez qui coule): 40. Irritation des yeux: 41. Difficult6 pour ajuster la vue: 42. Difficulte a ce concentrer: 43. Peau seche, taches ou demangeaisons: 44. Fatigue:

(veuillez encercler un seul chiffre par symptdme) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

45. Prenez-vous des medicaments qui pourraient alterer votre confort pendant que vous travaillez? 1_ oui 2_ non

En moyenne:

46. Combien de cigarettes fumez-vous par jour? 47. Combien de boissons cafKinees buvez-vous par jour? 48. Combien d'heures vous entrainez-vous par semaine?

_Cigarettes _Tasses par jours Heures

5

VOTRE SENSIBILITE A L'ENVIRONNEMENT AMBIANT

49-56 Un certain nombre de questions concernant VOS REPONSES TYPIQUES SUR VOTRE ENVIRONNEMENT est list£ ci-dessous. Pour indiquer la reponse a une question veuillez encercler le chiffre qui convient le mieux a votre 6tat personnel typique selon Fechelle suivante.

6 tres sensible 5 modei£ment sensible 4 legerement sensible 3 legerement insensible 2 moderement insensible 1 tres insensible

(veuillez encercler un chiffre par question)

49. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endro 50. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endroi 51. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endro 52. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endro: 53. Etes-vous SENSIBLE-habituellement aux endro 54. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endroi 55. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endroi 56. Etes-vous SENSIBLE habituellement aux endroi

QUALITE DE L'AIR?

tsBRUYANTS? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ts TROP CHAUDS? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ts TROP FROIDS? 1 2 3 4 5 6 tsPEUAERES? 1 2 3 4 5 6 tsTROPAERES? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ts PEU ECLAIRES? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ts TROP ECLAIRES? 1 2 3 4 5 6 its ayant une MAUVAISE 1 2 3 4 5 6

57. Avez-vous des commentaires suppl&nentaires concernant votre sensibility aux conditions environnementales?

6

SATISFACTION DEVOTEE ENVIRONNEMENT PHYSIQUE DE TRAVAIL

58-68 Utflisant I'echeUe ci-dessous, veuillez indiquer votre SATISFACTION A L'EGARD DE VOTRE ENVIRONNEMENT PHYSIQUE DE TRAVAIL en encerclant les r^ponses qui vous conviennent?

6 tres satisfait 5 moderement satisfait 4 legerement satisfait 3 legerement insatisfait 2 moderement insatisfait 1 tres insatisfait

Comment vous sentez-vous a propos de: (veuillez encercler un chiffre pour chaque reponse)

58. Le type et le niveau du bruit* 1 2 3 4 5 6 59. L'edairage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 60. La temperature: 1 2 3 4 5 6 61. La qualite de l'air: 1 2 3 4 5 6 62. La ventilation et la circulation d'air. 1 2 3 4 5 6 63. La couleur des murs et des cloisons: 1 2 3 4 5 6 64. Le mobilier et 1'equipement: 1 2 3 4 5 6 65. L'espace physique de travail qui vous est disponible: 1 2 3 4 5 6 66. Le niveau d'intimite: 1 2 3 4 5 6 67. Le confort de votre chaise: 1 2 3 4 5 6 68. Les endroits prevus a regard des non-fumeurs: 1 2 3 4 5 6

69. Par rapport a votre confort, comment est votre environnement physique de travail en general?

6_ tres acceptable 5_ moderement acceptable 4_ legerement acceptable 3_ legerement inacceptable 2_ moderement inacceptable 1_ tres inacceptable

70. EN MOYENNE, je percois I'ECLAIRAGE de mon milieu de travail comme etant (sans tenir compte de la temperature, de l'humidite et du mouvement d'air):

6_ tres clair 5_ moderement clair 4_ legerement clair 3_ 16gerement faible 2_ moderement faible 1 tres faible

7

71. Avez-vous des commentaires supplementaires concernant votre confort dans votre environnement physique de travail?

CONTROLE PERSONNEL

Jusqu'a quel point pouvez-vous controler votre environnement de travail? Pour chaque question ci-dessous veuillez cocher la case qui correspond le mieux a vos sentiments et a votre attitude?

72. QUEL NIVEAU DE CONTROLE pensez-vous avoir sur le confort thermique? 5_ un contrdle total 4_ tres bon controle 3_ un contrdle moyen 2_ un petit contr61e 1_ aucun controle

73. COMMENT ETES-VOUS SATISFAIT du niveau de controle? 6_ tres satisfait 5_ moderement satisfait 4_ legerement satisfait 3_ legerement insatisfait 2_ moderement insatisfait 1_ tres insatisfait

74-80. POUVEZ-VOUS FAIRE CES ACTIONS SUIVANTES pour ajuster renvironne'ment thermique de votre bureau? (veuillez encercler oui ou non pour chacune des questions suivantes)

ouvrir ou fermer la fenetre ouvrir ou fermer la porte vers Pexterieur ouvrir ou fermer la porte vers un espace interieur ajuster le thermostat ajuster les rideaux ou les stores allumer ou fermer une chaufferette ouvrir ou fermer un ventilateur

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

oui oui oui oui oui oui oui

non non non non non non non

8

81-87 En general, combien de fois FATTES-VOUS chacune des actions suivantes pour ajuster l'environnement thermique de votre bureau?

6 toujours 5 souvent 4 des fois 3 rarement 2 jamais 1 non disponible

(Veuillez encercler la reponse qui vous convient) 81. ouvrir ou fermer une fenfitre 1 2 3 4 5 6 82. ouvrir ou fermer une porte vers 1'exterieur 1 2 3 4 5 6 83. ouvrir ou fermer la porte vers un espace interieur 1 2 3 4 5 6 84. ajuster un thermostat 1 2 3 4 5 6 85. ajuster des rideaux ou des stores 1 2 3 4 5 6 86. allumer ou fermer une chaufferette 1 2 3 4 5 6 87. ouvrir ou fermer un ventilateur 1 2 3 4 5 6

PERSONNEL - GENERAL

88. Quel est votre origine ethnique? 1_ asiatique 2_ amerindien 3_ Wane 4_noir 5_ autres (specifier):

89. Quel est votre plus haut niveau scolaire complete?

1_ certificat presecondaire ou moins 2_ un certificat secondaire 3_ quelques cours collegiales 4_ diplome d'£tudes collegiales 5_ baccalaureat 6_ quelques etudes de deuxieme cycle 7_ un diplome umVersitaire de deuxieme cycle 8 doctorat

9

PERSONNEL - HABILLEMENT

90. (Habillement) Veuillez indiquer si vous portez Tun des v£tements indique's d-dessous. Encercler le chiffre appropri£: 0=sans porter le v6tement, Important le vetement teger, 2=portant le vetement moyennement teger, 3=portant le vetement lourd.

Femmes Sous-vetement:

0 1 2 3 en baut 0 1 2 3 en bas 0 12 3 jupon

Hommes Sous-vetement:

0 1 2 3 en haut 0 12 3 en bas

Pour les pieds: 0 1 2 3 bas 0 1 2 3 collant 0 12 3 souliers

Pour les pieds: 0 1 2 3 bas 0 12 3 soub'ers

Vehement: 0 12 3 chemise a manches courtes 0 12 3 chemise a manches longues 0 12 3 robe 0 1 2 3 jupe 0 12 3 pantalon 0 1 2 3 bermuda

Vehement: 0 12 3 chemise a manches courtes 0 12 3 chemise a manches longues 0 1 2 3 pantalon 0 12 3 bermuda

Vehement d'extSrieur: 0 12 3 chandail 0 12 3 veste 0 12 3 veston

Vetement d'exteiieur: 0 12 3 chandail 0 12 3 veste 0 12 3 veston

10

PERSONNEL - SATISFACTION DE VOTRE EMPLOI

91-105 Les questions suivantes traitent des caracuSristiques conceraant votre emploi. VeuOlez indiquer COMMENT VOUS ETES SATISFAIT de votre emploi en cochant la case correspondante.

6 tres satisfait 5 moder6ment satisfait 4 legerement satisfait 3 legerement insatisfait 2 moder£ment insatisfait 1 tres insatisfait

(Veuillez encercler la case qui vous convient)

91. Votre emploi en g£n€ral: 1 2 3 4 5 6 92. Les politiques de votre compagnie: 1 2 3 4 5 6 93. Le degr£ d'acces aux personnes avec qui vous travaillez: 1 2 3 4 5 6 94. L'opportunite que vous avez pour developper vos habilit6s(ees): 1 2 3 4 5 6 95. La s6curit6 de votre emploi: 1 2 3 4 5 6 96. Vos relations avec vos collegues de travail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 97. Vos relations avec vos superviseurs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 98. Votre salaire: 1 2 3 4 5 6 99. Vos chances d'avancement: 1 2 3 4 5 6 100. Votre niveau de responsabilite: 1 2 3 4 5 6 101. Votre independence ou autonomic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 102. Le niveau de reconnaissance de votre bon travail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 103. Votre int rfit au travafl: 1 2 3 4 5 6 104. La qualite* de l'6quipement que vous utilisez: 1 2 3 4 5 6 105. La pression du temps de votre emploi: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I.D:

Building

COMFORT STUDY

Please note that all survey responses will remain confidential. Participants will remain anonymous and will only be identified by an assigned ID code.

1. Name:-

2. Date:

3. Time:

4. Department or group:

5. Occupation: ,

6. Company name or organization: _

7. Work phone number '.

8. Location in building: ,—

In this part of the survey, we would like to know how you feel RIGHT NOW, at this moment.

9. (Thermal environment) Please tick the scale below at the place that best represents how you feel at this moment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COLD COOL SLIGHTLY NEUTRAL SLIGHTLY WARM HOT COOL WARM

10. Is the thermal environment acceptable to you, at this moment? 1_ unacceptable 2_ acceptable.

11. Please select the option below that best represents how you feel, at this moment.

I would like to be: 3_ warmer 2_ no change 1_ cooler

12. (General comfort) How comfortable is your office right now?

6_ very comfortable 5_ moderately comfortable 4_ slightly comfortable 3_ slightly uncomfortable 2_ moderately uncomfortable 1_ very uncomfortable

13. On average, I perceive my work area to be:

6_ very comfortable 5_ moderately comfortable 4_ slightly comfortable 3_ slightly uncomfortable 2_ moderately uncomfortable 1_ very uncomfortable

14. (Temperature) What would you estimate the temperature to be, right now? "C

15. On average, I perceive the temperature of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of air movement, humidity, and lighting)

6_ very warm 5_ moderately warm 4_ slightly warm 3_ slightly cool 2_ moderately cool 1_ very cool

16. On average, I perceive the humidity of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of temperature, air movement, and lighting):

6_ very humid 5_ moderately humid 4_ slightly humid 3_ slightly dry 2_ moderately dry 1_ very dry

3

17. Please select the option that best represents how you feel, at this moment, about the air movement in your ofGce.

6_ very acceptable 5_ moderately acceptable 4_ slightly acceptable 3_ slightly unacceptable 2_ moderately unacceptable 1_ very unacceptable

18. At this moment, I would like:

3_ more air movement 2_ no change 1_ less air movement

19-20. On average, I perceive the air movement of my work area to be (disregarding the effects of temperature, lighting and humidity) (Answer on both scales):

19. 3_ too much 20. 6_ very acceptable 2_ just right 5_ moderately acceptable 1_ too little 4_ slightly acceptable

3_ slightly unacceptable 2_ moderately unacceptable 1_ very unacceptable

GENERAL

21-24. (Activity) What activities have you been engaged in during the preceding hour?

21. 10 - 0 minutes 22.20-10 minutes 23. 30 - 20 minutes 24. 60-30 minutes

25. Please indicate whether you have consumed any of the following items within the last 15 minutes.

o Hot drink o Caffeinated drink o Snack or meal o Cold drink o Cigarette

sitting quietly O

O O O

sitting typing O

O O O

standing still O

O O O

standing working O

O O O

driving a car O

O O O

walking around O

O O O

26. How long have you lived in Canada?

27. Are you using your home air-conditioner at this time of year?

1_ yes 2_no 3_not available

28. On the average, how many hours per week do you work at this job? Hours at work

29. On the average, how many hours per day do you sit at your work area? Hours at desk

30. What is your approximate height? Centimetres

31. What is your approximate weight? Kilograms

32. What is your age? years

33. Your gender? 1_ Male 2_ Female

34. Is French your primary language? 1_ Yes 2_ No

HEALTH GHARACTERISTICS

35-44 Below are some symptoms that people experience at different times. Please indicate how often you have experienced each symptom in the past month by circling the appropriate number from the scale below.

5 very often 4 often 3 sometimes 2 rarefy 1 never

35. Headache: 36. Dizziness: 37. Sleepiness: 38. Sore or irritated throat: 39. Nose irritation (itch or running): 40. Eye irritation: 41. Trouble focusing eyes: 42. Difficulty concentrating: 43. Skin dryness, rash or itch: 44. Fatigue:

(circle one number for each symptom) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

45. Do you take any medication that might influence your comfort while at work? l_yes 2_ no

On average:

46. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? Cigarettes 47. How many cups of caffeinated beverages do you drink per day? Cups per day 48. How many hours do you exercise per week? Hours

5

YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

49-56 A number of questions related to your typical response to environmental conditions are given below. To indicate your answer to a question, circle the number from the following scale which best expresses how you typically feel.

6 very sensitive 5 moderately sensitive 4 slightly sensitive 3 slightly insensitive 2 moderately insensitive 1 very insensitive

(circle one number for each question)

49. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which are too noisy? 1 2 3 4 5 6 50. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which are too hot? 1 2 3 4 5 6 51. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which are too cold? 1 2 3 4 5 6 52. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which have too h'ttle air movement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 53. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which have too much air movement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which are too dimly lit? 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which are too bright? 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Do you tend to be sensitive to environments which have poor air quality? 1 2 3 4 5 6

57. Do you have any other comments about your sensitivity to environmental conditions?

6

WORK AREA SATISFACTION

58-68 Using the scale below, please indicate how satisfying your work area is by circling the number that reflects how you feel?

6 very satisfied 5 moderately satisfied 4 slightly satisfied 3 slightly dissatisfied 2 moderately dissatisfied 1 very dissatisfied

How do you feel about: (please circle one number for each item)

58. The type and level of sounds: 59. The lighting: 60. The temperature: 61. The air quality: 62. The ventilation and air circulation: 63. The colors of walls or partitions: 64. The furniture and equipment: 65. The amount of space available to you: 66. The level of privacy: 67. The comfort of your chain 68. Provision of non-smoking work areas:

69. In terms of comfort, how is your office work

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

area overall?

6_ very acceptable 5_ moderately acceptable 4_ slightly acceptable 3_ slightly unacceptable 2_ moderately unacceptable 1_ very unacceptable

70. On average, I perceive the lighting of my work area to be (disregarding the effects of temperature, humidity and air movement)

6_ very bright 5_ moderately bright 4_ slightly bright 3_ slightly dim 2_ moderately dim 1_ very dim

7

71. Do you have any additional comments about the comfort of your office work area?

PERSONAL CONTROL

To what extent are you able to control the environment of the office space where you usually work? For each question below make a check mark next to the statement that best expresses your personal feelings or behavior patterns. -

72. How much control do you feel you have over the thermal conditions of your workplace? 5_ complete control 4_ high degree of control 3_ moderate control 2_ slight control 1_ no control

73. How satisfied are you with this level of control? 6_ very satisfied 5_ moderately satisfied 4_ slightly satisfied 3_ slightly dissatisfied 2_ moderately dissatisfied 1_ very dissatisfied

74-80. Can you exercise any of the following options to adjust the thermal environment at your workspace (please circle yes or no for each item)

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

_yes _yes _yes _yes _yes _yes _yes

no no no no no no

_ no

open or close a window open or close a door to the outside open or close a door to an interior space adjust a thermostat adjust the drapes or blinds turn a local space heater on or off turn a local fan on or off

8

81-87 In general, bow often do you exercise any of the following options to adjust the thermal environment at your workplace?

6 always 5 often 4 sometimes 3 rarely 2 never 1 not available

(circle one number for each item) 81. open or close a window 1 2 3 4 5 6 82. open or close a door to the outside 1 2 3 4 5 6 83. open or close a door to an interior space 1 2 3 4 5 6 84. adjust a thermostat 1 2 3 4 5 6 85. adjust the drapes or blinds 1 2 3 4 5 6 86. turn a local space heater on or off 1 2 3 4 5 6 87. turn a local fan on or off 1 2 3 4 5 6

PERSONAL - GENERAL

88. What is your ethnic background? 1_ asian 2_ inuit 3_ Caucasian 4_ black 5_ other (please specify):.

89. What is the highest grade of school you completed?

1_ less than school leaving certificate 2_ school leaving certificate 3_ some college courses 4_ college diploma 5_ bachelors degree 6_ some graduate school 7_ master's degree 8 Ph.D.

PERSONAL - CLOTHING

90. (Clothing) Please indicate whether you are wearing any of the items listed below by circling the appropriate number: 0=not wearing item, 1=wearing light weight item, 2=wearing medium weight item, 3=wearing heavy weight item.

Females Underlayer:

0 1 2 3 top 0 12 3 bottom 0 1 2 3 slip

Males Underlayer

0 1 2 3 top 0 1 2 3 bottom

Footwear: 0 12 3 socks 0 12 3 pantyhose 0 12 3 shoes

Footwear: 0 12 3 socks 0 12 3 shoes

Midlayer: 0 1 2 3 short sleeved shirt 0 1 2 3 long sleeved shirt 0 1 2 3 dress 0 1 2 3 skirt 0 1 2 3 pants or slacks 0 12 3 shorts

Midlayer: 0 1 2 3 short sleeved shirt 0 1 2 3 long sleeved shirt 0 12 3 pants 0 1 2 3 shorts

Outerlayers: 0 1 2 3 sweater 0 1 2 3 vest 0 1 2 3 jacket

Outerlayers: 0 1 2 3 sweater 0 12 3 vest 0 12 3 jacket

10

PERSONAL - JOB SATISFACTION

91-1 OS The questions below ask about different characteristics of your job. Please indicate how satisfying your job is by circling the number that reflects how you feel.

6 very satisfied 5 moderately satisGed 4 slightly satisfied 3 slightly dissatisfied 2 moderately dissatisfied 1 very dissatisfied

(circle one number for each item)

91. Your job overall: 1 2 3 4 5 6 92. Your company's policies: 1 2 3 4 5 6 93. The degree of access to other people you work with: 1 2 3 4 5 6 94. The opportunity to develop your skills: 1 2 3 4 5 6 95. Your job security: 1 2 3 4 5 6 96. Your relations with your co-workers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 97. Your relations with your supervisors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 98. Your pay: 1 2 3 4 5 6 99. Your chance for advancement: 1 2 3 4 5 6 100. Your level of responsibility: 1 2 3 4 5 6 101. Your independence or autonomy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 102. The degree of recognition for good work: 1 2 3 4 5 6 103. Your interest in the work itself: 1 2 3 4 5 6 104. The quality of equipment you work with: 1 2 3 4 5 6 i05. The time pressures of your job: 1 2 3 4 5 6

CI

APPENDIX C

Typical Office Attire

Figure C.l Typical Summer Office Attire

C2

(a) short sleeved blouse with long pants (female)

(b) short sleeved shirt with long pants (male)

(c) short sleeved blouse and jacket with long pants (female)

(d) sleeveless blouse and jacket with shorts (female)

C3

(e) short sleeved sweater with shorts (female)

(f) sleeveless blouse with shorts (female)

(g) short sleeved blouse with short skirt (female)

(h) sleeveless blouse with long pleated skirt (female)

•; i ' * )

C4

(i) short sleeved dress (female)

"X

HU Figure C.2 Typical Winter Office Attire

(a) long sleeved blouse and jacket with short skirt (female)

(b) long sleeved sweater with long skirt (female)

5 " • • v

C5

(c) long sleeved shirt with long pants (male or female)

(d) long sleeved sweater with long pants (male or female)

(e) long sleeved shirt and sweater with long pants (male or female)

(f) long sleeved sweater and vest with long pants (female)

C6

(g) long sleeved sweater and jacket with long pants (female)

(h) long sleeved blouse and sweater with long skirt (female)

(i) long sleeved shirt and tie with long pants (male)

Dl

APPENDIX D

Catalogue of Office Chairs

D2

Figure D.l Chairs encountered in this study classified using McCullough (1994)

(a) computer chair

(b) carrel chair

(c) desk chair

D3

(d) executive chair

D4

El

APPENDIX E

Variable Code Names

Table E.l Code Names for OLSIQ file

E2

ONLINE QUESTIONS

BLCODE BUILDING CODE SEASON SEASON OF SURVEY (l(HOT) or 2(COLD) SUB SUBJECT NUMBER (FILLED IN BEFORE SUBJECT ANSWERS) DATE YYMMDD TIME TIME ASH THERMAL SENSATION (ASHRAE) SCALE (-3, +3 range] TSA THERMAL ENVIRONMENT ACCEPTABILITY [l(unacc) or 2(acc)] MCI TEMPERATURE PREFERENCE [3(warmer), 2(no change), l(cooler)] VENT AIR MOVEMENT ACCEPTABILITY [6{very ace), l(very unacc) range] AVM AIR MOVEMENT PREFERENCE [3(more), 2(no change), l(less)] COMF GENERAL COMFORT [6(very comf), l(very uncoml) range] ETEMP ESTIMATED TEMPERATURE [degC] ACTIO ACTIVITY IN LAST 10 MINUTES [met] ACT20 ACTIVITY 20 MINS AGO [met] ACT30 ACTIVITY 30 MINS AGO [met] ACT60 ACTIVITY AN HOUR AGO [met] CL1 Fem/Mal:UNDERLAYER TOP [do] CL2 Fem/Mal:UNDERLAYER BOTTOM [clo] CL3 F:SLIP;M:SOCKS [clo] CL4 F:SOCKS;M:SHOES [clo] CL5 F:PANTYHOSE;M:SHORT SLEEVED SHIRT [clo] CL6 F:SHOES;M:LONG-SLEEVED SHIRT [clo] CL7 F:SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT;M:PANTS [clo] CL8 F:LONG-SLEEVED SHIRT;M:SHORTS [clo] CL9 F:DRESS;M:SWEATER [clo] CLIO F:SKIRT;M:VEST [clo] CL11 F:PANTS OR SLACKS;M JACKET [clo] CL12 FrSHORTS [clo] CL13 FrSWEATER [clo] CL14 F:VEST [clo] CL1S FJACKET [clo] DHOT CONSUMPTION OF HOT DRINK (within the last 15 min) [0(no), l(yes)] DCOLD CONSUMPTION OF COLD DRINK (within the last 15 min) [0(no), l(yes)] DCAF CONSUMPTION OF CAFFEINATED DRINK (within the last 15 min) [0(no), l(yes)] CIG SMOKING A CIGARETTE (within the last 15 min) [0(no), l(yes)] FOOD CONSUMPTION OF FOOD (within the last 15 min) [0(no), l(yes)] CHAIR CHAIR THERMAL INSULATION [clo]

CHARIOT

TA_H TA_M TA_L DEWPT PRTA_B LUX BATTV TG_H TG_M TGJL VEL_H VEL_M VEL_L TURB_H TURB~M TURBJL

AIR TEMPERATURE AT 1.1M [degC] AIR TEMPERATURE AT 0.6M [degC] AIR TEMPERATURE AT 0.1M (degq DEWPOINT [degC] PLANE RADIANT ASYMMETRY TEMPERATURE [degC] ILLUMINANCE [lux]

GLOBE TEMPERATURE AT 1.1M [degC] GLOBE TEMPERATURE AT 0.6M [degq GLOBE TEMPERATURE AT 0.1M [degC] AIR VELOCITY AT 1.1M [m/s] AIR VELOQTY AT 0.6M [m/s] AIR VELOQTY AT 0.1M [m/s] TURBULENCE INTENSITY AT 1.1M [frac] TURBULENCE INTENSITY AT 0.6M [frac] TURBULENCE INTENSITY AT 0.1M [frac]

CALCULATED INDICES

TAAV AVERAGES OF TEMPS TAKEN AT THE 3 HEIGHTS [degC] TRAV AVERAGE MEAN RADIANT TEMPS TAKEN AT THE 3 HEIGHTS [degC] TOP OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE-MEAN OF AIR AND RADIANT TEMP [degC] VELAV AVERAGE VELOQTY AT 3 HEIGHTS [m/s] TUAV AVERAGE TURBULENCE AT 3 HEIGHTS [frac] PA VAPOUR PRESSURE [kPa] RH HUMIDITY [%] MET TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE METABOLIC RATE OF SUBJECT [met] CLO CLOTHING INSULATION [do] ET NEW EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE (ASHRAE) [degq SET NEW STANDARD EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE (ASHRAE) [degC] DISC PREDICTED DISCOMFORT USING 2 NODE MODEL [-4, +4 range] PMVIH PREDICTED MEAN VOTE (INT-HOUTS) [-3, +3 range] PPDIH PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED (INT-HOUTS) [%] PMW PREDICTED MEAN VOTE (VELOCITY) [-3,+3 range] PPDV PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED (VELOQTY) [%] PMVB PREDICTED MEAN VOTE (BOTH INT-HOUTS AND VELOQTY) [-3,+3 range] PPDB PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED (BOTH INT-HOUTS AND VELOQTY) [%] PMVF PREDICTED MEAN VOTE (FANGER) [-3, +3 range] PPDF PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED (FANGER AND ISO) [%} PDF % DISSATISFIED DRAUGHT (FANGER) [%]

CALCULATED INDICES INCLUDING CHAIR INSULATION

E4

CLOCHR COMBINED CLOTHING + CHAIR INSULATION (McCullough) [clo] C ET NEW EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE + CHAIR (ASHRAE) [degC] C_SET NEW STANDARD EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE + CHAIR (ASHRAE) [degC] C DISC PREDICTED DISCOMFORT + CHAIR USING 2 NODE MODEL [-4, +4 range] C PMVIH PREDICTED MEAN VOTE + CHAIR (INT-HOUTS) [-3,+3 range] C_PPDIH PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED + CHAIR (INT-HOUTS) [%] C PMW PREDICTED MEAN VOTE + CHAIR (VELOCITY) [-3,+3 range] C PPDV PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED + CHAIR (VELOCITY) [%] C_PMVB PREDICTED MEAN VOTE + CHAIR (BOTH INT-HOUTS AND VELOCITY) [-3,+3 range] CJPPDB PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED + CHAIR (BOTH INT-HOUTS AND VELOCITY) [%] C_PMVF PREDICTED MEAN VOTE + CHAIR (FANGER) [-3. +3 range] C_PPDF PREDICTED % OF DISSATISFIED + CHAIR (FANGER AND ISO) [%] ZONE WITHIN TOP & RH LIMITS FOR COMFORT (ASHRAE) [(1) yes, (2) no]

AIR QUALITY

CO co2 HCHO TVOC

CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION [ppm] CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION [ppm] FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATION [ug/m3] TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CONCENTRATION [|ig/m3]

PLACE IN BUILDING

AREA (1) PERIPHERY or (2) CENTRE OFFICE (1) CLOSED OFFICE or (2) OPEN OFFICE WITH PARTITIONS or (3) OPEN OFFICE

WITHOUT PARTITIONS

OUTDOOR

OUT TAMAX OUTDOOR MAXIMUM DAILY TEMPERATURE [degC] OUT_TAMJN OUTDOOR MINIMUM DAILY TEMPERATURE [degC] OUT RHMAX OUTDOOR MAXIMUM DAILY RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT TAMAX [%] OUTJtHMIN OUTDOOR MINIMUM DAILY RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT TAMIN [%]

Table E.2 Code Names for BGSIQ file

E5

BACKGROUND QUESTIONS

BLCODE SEASON SUB CAN AC

AC1 AC2 AC3 WORKER AREAHR HGHT WGHT AGE SEX ETHNIC FRENCH SCH

BUILDING CODE SEASON OF SURVEY [l(HOT) or 2(COLD)] SUBJECT NUMBER YEARS IN CANADA [years] HOME AIR-CONDITIONING (in the HOT season only) OR HOME HUMIDIFICATION (in the COLD season only) [l(yes), 2(no), 3(n/a)]

HOURS AT WORK PER WEEK [hrs] HOURS AT DESK PER DAY [hrs] HEIGHT [cm] WEIGHT [kg] AGE [years] GENDER [l(male), 2(female)] ETHNIC BACKGROUND [l(Asian), 2(Inuit), 3(Caucasian), 4(Black), 5(other)] FRENCH AS PRIMARY LANGUAGE[l(yes), 2(no)] HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL [l(school leaving cert.or less), 8 (PhD.) range]

WORK AREA SATISFACTION

WSO TYPE AND LEVEL OF SOUNDS [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WLI LIGHTING [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WTE . TEMPERATURE [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WAI AIR QUALITY [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WVE VENTILATION AND AIR CIRCULATION [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WCO COLORS OF WALLS/PARTITIONS [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WFU FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WSP SPACE AVAILABLE TO YOU [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WPR PRIVACY [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] WCH COMFORT OF CHAIR [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] SMOKE NON-SMOKING AREAS [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied), range] OVEA COMFORT ACCEPTABILITY OVERALL [l(very unacceptable, 6(very acceptable) range]

E6

PERSONAL COMFORT

PO PERCEIVED OVERALL COMFORT [l(very uncomfortable), 6(very comfortable) range] PTE PERCEIVED TEMPERATURE [l(very cool), 6(very warm) range] PAIM PREFERRED AIR MOVEMENT (MCINTYRE) [l(want more), 2(just right), 3(want less)] PAIA AIR MOVEMENT ACCEPTABILITY [l(very unacceptable), 6(very acceptable) range] PL1 PERCEIVED LIGHTING [l(very dim), 6(very bright) range] PHU PERCEIVED HUMIDITY [l(very dry), 6(very humid) range]

PERSONAL CONTROL

PCC CONTROL OVER THERMAL CONDITIONS [l(no control), 5(complete control) range] PCS SATISFACTION WITH LEVEL OF CONTROL [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] PCEC1 OPEN/CLOSE WINDOW [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC2 OPEN/CLOSE DOOR TO OUTSIDE [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC3 OPEN/CLOSE INTERIOR DOOR [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC4 ADJUST THERMOSTAT [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC5 ADJUST DRAPES/BLINDS [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC6 TURN LOCAL HEATER ON/OFF [l(yes), 2(no)] PCEC7 TURN LOCAL FAN ON/OFF [l(yes), 2(no)] PCED1 USE WINDOW [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarely), 4(sometimes), 5(ofteri), 6(ahvays)] PCED2 USE OUTSIDE DOOR (l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarery), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(ahvays)] PCED3 USE INTERIOR DOOR [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarery), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(afways)] PCED4 ADJUST THERMOSTAT [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarery), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(ahvays)] PCED5 ADJUST DRAPES/BLINDS [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarery), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(ahvays)] PCED6 USE LOCAL HEATER [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarely), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(always)] PCED7 USE LOCAL FAN [l(n/a), 2(never), 3(rarely), 4(sometimes), 5(often), 6(always)]

JOB SATISFACTION

JOV JOB OVERALL [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JPO COMPANY'S POLICIES [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JA ACCESS TO OTHER PEOPLE [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JSK OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP SKILLS [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JSE JOB SECURITY [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JPE RELATIONS WITH CO-WORKERS [ l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisGed) range] JBO RELATION WITH SUPERVISORS [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JPA YOUR PAY [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JAD CHANCES FOR ADVANCEMENT [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JRE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY [ 1 (very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JIN INDEPENDENCE/AUTONOMY [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JREA RECOGNITION FOR GOOD WORK [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JWO INTEREST IN WORK ITSELF [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JEQ QUALITY OF EQUIPMENT [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range] JTI TIME PRESSURE OF JOB [l(very dissatisfied), 6(very satisfied) range]

HEALTH

E7

HHE HEADACHE (l(never), 5(veiy often) range] HD1 DIZZINESS [l(never), 5(very often) range] HSL SLEEPINESS [l(never), 5(very often) range] HTH SORE THROAT [l(never), 5(very often) range] TNO NOSE IRRITATION [l(never), 5(very often) range] NEY EYE IRRITATION [l(never), 5(very often) range] HFO TROUBLE FOCUSING EYES [l(never), 5(very often) range] HCO DIFFICULTY CONCENTRATING [l(never), 5(very often) range] HSK SKIN DRYNESS/RASH/ITCH [l(never), 5(very often) range] HFA FATIGUE [l(never), 5(very often) range] HDR CURRENTLY ON MEDICATION [l(yes), 2(no)] HCI aGARETTES PER DAY [cigarettes] HCAF CAFFEINATED BEVS PER DAY [cups] HEXER HOURS OF EXERCISE PER WEEK [hrs]

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

NOISE1 SENSITIVE TO NOISE [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] HOT1 SENSITIVE TO HOT [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] COLD1 SENSITIVE TO COLD [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] STUFFY1 SENSITIVE TO TOO LITTLE AIR MOVEMENT [lfvery insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] WINDY1 SENSITIVE TO TOO MUCH AIR MOVEMENT [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] DIM1 SENSITIVE TO DIMLY LIT [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] BRIGHT1 SENSITIVE TO BRIGHTNESS [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range] AIR1 SENSITIVE TO POOR AIR QUALITY [l(very insensitive), 6(very sensitive) range]

Fl

APPENDIX F

Data Analysis by Gender and Age

F2

It was suggested, during the TC2.1 meeting held in January 1995, that the data be analysed

not only by gender, but also by age. To simplify the analysis, the age categories to be used

would be those used in the IES Lighting Handbook:

- under 40 yrs,

- 40 to 55 yrs, and

- over 55 yrs (IES, 1987).

Table F.l Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents (by season and gender)

SEASON

GENDER

SAMPLE SIZE

Age (yr) mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

Height (cm) mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

Weight (kg) mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

Number of mean

y standard deviation Canada (yr)

minimum

maximum

Highest night school

education . . . „ . , „ ^ diploma/degree

level (%) postgrad university

Primary irench language (%) other

HOT

male

221

43.4

8.4

19.0

60.0

174.5

7.2

152.0

193.0

77.7

13.2

48.0

120.0

36.7

12.2

5.0

60.0

8

71

21

97

3

female

224

39.0

7.9

16.0

65.0

161.4

6.5

147.0

180,0

60.0

11.4

44.0

109.0

33.0

11.3

1.0

65.0

32

59

9

97

3

COLD

male

212

43.6

7.8

22.0

61.0

175.3

7.6

147.0

194.0

78.9

13.5

-45.0

118.0

42.4

9.2

9.0

61.0

11

67

22

98

2

female

220

40.2

7.6

25.0

64.0

161.7

6.6

147.0

188.0

59.4

11.1

44.0

130.0

39.3

8.4

7.0

64.0

34

58

8

98

2

F4

Table F.2 Statistical summary of questionnaire respondents (by season, gender, and age)

SEASON

GENDER

AGE (yr)

SAMPLE SIZE

Height mean (cm)

standard deviation

minimum

maximum Weight mean

standard deviation

minimum

maximum

Number of mean years in , , , . . Canada standard deviation

(y) minimum

maximum

Highest hight school education level (%) diploma/degree

postgrad university

Primary french language (%) o l l l c r

HOT

male

<40

70

176.2

7.6

152.0

193.0

79.7

15.1

54.0

120.0

28.8

8.8

5.0

39.0

13

73

14

99

1

40-55

138

174.1

6.7

152.0

188.0

773

12.2

48.0

109.0

393

11.1

16.0

55.0

6

71

23

96

4

>55

13

170.7

7.9

152.0

183.0

71.7

11.0

50.0

86.0

52.9

11.4

23.0 ;

60.0

8

54

38

100

0

female

<40

130

161.9

63

150.0

180.0

59.1

9.9

.44.0

107.0

.293

9.2

1.0

39.0

29

62

9

98

2

40-55

89

160.6

6.6

147.0

177.0

612

132

45.0

109.0

37.1

11.4

.7.0

55.0

.37

54

.9

97

3

>55

6

160.8

8.7

147.0

173.0

61.0

10.6

51.0

80.0

54.0

11.3

40.0

65.0

17

50

33

100

0

COLD

male

<40

61

177.3

7.1

160.0

194.0

79.2

13.6

54.0

118.0

33.7

4.8

14.0

39.0

15

70

15

98

2

40-55

137

174.7

7.8

147.0

193.0

79.2

13.8

45.0

114.0

44.6

7.4

9.0

55.0

9

65

26

97

3

>55

14

172.8

6.6

160.0

182.0

74.5

9.1

50.0

90.0

58.6

1.6

56.0

61.0

7

79

14

100

0

female

<40

110

162.0

6.7

147.0

188.0

59.6

11.9

44.0

130.0

33.7

5.0

7.0

39.0

32

62

6

100

0

40-55

100

161.2

6.4

147.0

183.0

593

10.6

45.0

91.0

43.8

6.1

13.0

55.0

35

56

9

97

3

>55

9

162.1

7.6

147.0

173.0

573

4.2

52.0

64.0

58.9

2.9

56.0

64.0

44

45

11

89

11

Figure F.l Length of residence in Canada

F5

percent

years

summer

I males

Q females

percent

years

winter

I males

D females

Figure F.l Length of residence in Canada (cont'd)

F6

summer.males

• <40yrs

04Q-55yrs

D>55yrs

summer.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.l Length of residence in Canada (cont'd)

F7

winter.males

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >55yrs

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

percent

Pi >•'•} • / ,

/ •»! By TV / / /

*?

years

winter.females

H <40yrs

E)40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.2 Ethnic composition of the sample

F8

percent 100

80

60

40

20

1 . i n

f 1 •/;//

• •

other black Caucasian inuit asian

summer

I males

CD females

winter

I males

D females

Figure F.2 Ethnic composition of the sample (cont'd)

F9

percent 100

80

60

40

20

/ / / / f .*'

/ / / .

/ ,'

/ / //' /1

! I /

I J

ti // / / .-i


summer.males

I <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D>55yrs

summer.femaies

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

• >55yrs

Figure F.2 Ethnic composition of the sample (cont'd)

F10

winter.mates

• <40yrs

G40-55yrs

D>55yrs

nn

80

60

40

20

percent

i m

I \

//

!

//

i

i

,

" winter.females

I <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs


Figure F.3 Usage of home air-conditioning in the hot season

F l l

summer

• males

CZ3 fern ales

F12

Figure F.3 Usage of home air-conditioning in the hot season (cont'd)

summer.males

B <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D>55yrs

summer.females

I <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.4 Usage of home humidifier in the cold season

F13

winter

I males

EZ3 females

F14

Figure F.4 Usage of home humidifier in the cold season (cont'd)

percent 60

50

40

30

not available

WA ' • • ' /

yes

winter.males

M <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >55yrs

winter.females

I <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.5 Job satisfaction ratings (summer season)

F15

percent

summer.males

in very satisfied

O moderately sat


• slightly dissat

0 moderately dissat

1 very dissatisfied

percent 100

summer.females

CD very satisfied

D moderately sat


D slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

Figure F.5 Job satisfaction ratings (summer season) (cont'd)

F16

summer.males, <40yrs

CD very satisfied

O moderately sat

£3 slightly satisfied

E3 slightly dissat

O moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

summer,males,40-55yrs

ED very satisfied

D moderately sat

E3 slightly satisfied

• slightly dissat

• moderately dissat

• very dissatisfied


F17

percent

60

40

20

I

+** mm^m& * V

summer, males, >55yrs

CD very satisfied

Q moderately sat

S slightly satisfied

O slightly dissat

0 moderately dissat

1 very dissatisfied

summer, females, <40yrs

COvery satisfied

D moderately sat


• slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied


F18

percent 100

summer,females,40-55yrs

Every satisfied

D moderately sat

slightly satisfied

D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

percent

summer.lemales, >55yrs

CD very satisfied

D moderately sat


• slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

Hvery dissatisfied

F19

Figure F.6 Job satisfaction ratings (winter season)

winter.females

El very satisfied

Q moderately sat


D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

M very dissatisfied

Figure F.6 Job satisfaction ratings (winter season) (cont'd)

F20

winter.males, <40yrs

CD very satisfied

D moderately sat


D slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied

winter,males,40-55yrs

CO very satisfied

D moderately sat

0 slightly satisfied

Q slightly dissat

moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied


F21

percent

winter,males,>55yrs

ED very satisfied

D moderately sat


Q slightly dissat

O moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied

winter.females, <40yrs

Overy satisfied

• moderately sat

0 slightly satisfied

D slightly dissat

(Z3 moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied


F22

winter,fernales,40-55yrs

ED very satisfied

• moderately sat


D slightly dissat


I very dissatisfied

winter.f emales, > 55yrs

D very satisfied

• moderately sat


• slightly dissat


H very dissatisfied

Environmental sensitivity ratings (summer season)

F23

percent 100r

S t X • / • • / 4 ? &

summer.males Dvery sensitive

LJ moderately sensitive

S3 slightly sensitive

LJ slightly insensitive

LJ moderately insensitive

Bvety insensitive

percent 100fj

summer.females Overy sensitive


H slightly sensitive



I very insensitive

Figure F.7 Environmental sensitivity ratings (summer season) (cont'd)

F24

percent 100

/ * . /

summer,males,<40yrs

Overy sensitive

n moderately sensitive

slightly sensitive

slightly insensitive


H very insensitive

percent


Overy sensitive


slightly sensitive

L J slightly insensitive




F25

percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

cm

1

TT

i l / / / m 1

I ' /

/ y / • • LA

m *

*

summer.males, > 55y rs Oveiy sensitive

D moderately sensitive


U slightly insensitive

L_l moderately insensitive

• v e r y insensitive

percent 100

summer, females. < 40yrs

Dvery sensitive


0 slightly sensitive

• slightly insensitive

D moderately insensitive



F26

percent 100

80

S ? j • / y * / * .9

y y

summer.feinales.40-55yrs

Overy sensitive


S3 slightly sensitive

U slightly insensitive

U moderately insensitive


percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

V

1

1

1

1

'•>'•'/

'ill 1 1

•

11 llll

•

1. / * *

y y

summer, females. > 55y rs

Dvery sensitive


KJ slightly sensitive




Figure F.8 Environmental sensitivity ratings (winter season)

F27

percent 100

winter.males Overy sensitive


S slightly sensitive

D slightly insensitive


B very insensitive

percent 100

winter.females

Overy sensitive

• moderately sensitive

slightly sensitive

O slightly insensitive


Hvery insensitive

Figure F.8 Environmental sensitivity ratings (winter season) (cont'd)

F28

percent 100

winter.males, < 40yrs Overy sensitive




La moderately insensitive


winter,males,40-55yTS Dvery sensitive





H very insensitive


F29

percent 100

winter.males, > 55yrs

Qvery sensitive





Bvery insensitive


DJvery sensitive

a moderately sensitive




H very insensitive


F30

winter,females,40-55yrs

Overy sensitive

U moderately sensitive

slightly sensitive




percent 100

80

60

40

20

^

^

1 I 1 ^

X * • / / ^ / / * y y j

winter,females,>55yrs

Dvery sensitive





Hvery insensitive

Figure F.9 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (summer season)

F31

percent

' / / / / / / / "

f

summer.males

Overy often

Sof ten

D sometimes

D rarely

Hnever

percent 100

><• ^ «*•

' / / / / / * ' / / / * * .#" #• <f

summer.females

O very often

Sof ten

sometimes

D rarely

Hnever

V *

Figure F.9 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (summer season) (cont'd)

F32


D very often

Soften

sometimes

03 rarely

Bnever

percent

' / / / / / / / ' *

/ /

•F # *

summer.males,40-55yrs

D very often

Soften

D sometimes

E3 rarely

I never


F33

80

60

40

20

0

/

/

percent

1 :

/ /

*k

1 |l HI 's ^

1 $$

/'/,

!

m

l I •

1 •/•

1

^

/./,

1 ' • / /

1 ' i.

7/.

T T ' /

» /

1 1 |lllll

• * *-

• V

\ /

' / 6*'

/

summer.males, >55yrs

very often

Sof ten

sometimes

Q rarely

Hnever

percent 100

' / / / / * / / / / * *V

summer.temales, < 40y rs

Dvery often

Sof ten

O sometimes

ED rarely

H never


F34

percent 100

0

' / / / / ' / / / ' j f

•4? #

summer,females,40-55yrs

• v e r y often

Sof ten

D sometimes

Q rarely

Hnever

percent

y y • j * jt .j »* vO* J f -»» ///%?//*' fy

summer,females,>55yrs

very often

Soften

sometimes

CD rarely

Hnever

Figure F.10 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter season)

winter, males

• very often

Sof ten

CD sometimes

E l rarely

• never

winter.females

Dvery often

Soften

sometimes

E3 rarely

H never

Figure F.10 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter season) (cont'd) F36

percent

' / ' / / / / / / '

S S


Qvery often

Sof ten

sometimes

CD rarely

Bnever

winter.males, 40-55yrs

Dvery often

Sof ten

D sometimes

CD rarely

I never

Figure F.10 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter season) (cont'd)

.

100

80

60

40

20

0 <

•**

percent

I ; : • •

:

• H

1

fa

s

I / ••

7/

H •

i ' • /

1

^

I V

^

' • / /

'//.. M *•*

*

If. 1 /

22 • • ' - • ' . . •

^

/'

/ /

_

|H II / /

*•* * i . ' •

winter.males, > 55yrs

• very often

Soften • sometimes

D rarely

Hnever

1UU

80

60

40

20

percent

1

m

1 • m

1

i •

#

M i M

/ /

*

1 , • . - • • ,

/'•''

i

^

i /

%

/

^

(I M * * 1 &

/

-

—


Dvery often

Sof ten

D sometimes

D rarely

Hnever

F38

Figure F.10 Self-reports of health symptom frequency (winter season) (cont'd)

percent 100

80

60 I J .11 1^ S

£ 2

f / / / / / / / /

wlnter,females,40-55yrs

Q very often

Sof ten

D sometimes

D rarety

Mnever

percent

10U

80

60

40

20

0

I •

I H

i m m

*

i

• >

^

i i

ill m ^

' / s

*

: :

'if, m

y

1 ' •

II /

winter, females, >55yrs

Dvery often

Sof ten

D sometimes

D rarely

Hnever

Figure F.ll Work area satisfaction ratings (summer season)

F39

summer.males

CD very satisfied

O moderately sat


D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied

percent 100s

//VVVV/V/VV ^ w v " ** * S +

summer.females

CD very satisfied

D moderately sat


Q slightly dissat

moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

Figure F.ll Work area satisfaction ratings (summer season) (cont'd)

F40


m very satisfied

D moderately sat


D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

M very dissatisfied

percent 100

ys/ss '*/'/ fs


Every satisfied

D moderately sat


D slightly dissat

moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied

Figure F. l l Work area satisfaction ratings (summer season) (cont'd)

F41


0 very satisfied

D moderately sat


• slightly dissat

moderately dissat

1 very dissatisfied

percent 100

fS/SS/SSSS ' '*'/ V * * s

summer,females,<40yrs

CD very satisfied

O moderately sat


• slightly dissat

O moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

F42

Figure F.ll Work area satisfaction ratings (summer season) (cont'd)

percent 100B

fS/fS'/'S </ * *'/

summer,lemales,40-55yrs

Every satisfied

• moderately sat


• slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

percent 1001

40

20

Jl / / . . . . . .

//////s/S's

summer,females,>55yrs

CDvery satisfied

CD moderately sat


(Zl slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

Figure F.12 Work area satisfaction ratings (winter season)

F43

winter.males

CD very satisfied

D moderately sat

ES3 slightly satisfied

• slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

Hvery dissatisfied

percent 100

///f//'"/S

winter/females

CD very satisfied

• moderately sat


D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

Figure F.12 Work area satisfaction ratings (winter season) (cont'd) F44


CD very satisfied

• moderately sat


D slightly dissat


H very dissatisfied


CD very satisfied

• moderately sat


dsl ightly dissat

D moderately dissat

B very dissatisfied

F45

Figure F.12 Work area satisfaction ratings (winter season) (cont'd)

winter, males, > 55y rs

CD very satisfied

moderately sat


Q slightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

percent 100

/S/s/""s*


D very satisfied

D moderately sat


• slightly dissat


B very dissatisfied

F46

Figure F.12 Work area satisfaction ratings (winter season) (cont'd)

winter,females,40-55yrs

m very satisfied

Q moderately sat


Dslightly dissat

Q moderately dissat

I very dissatisfied

percent 1001

/////'/"ss

winter.females, >5Syrs

O very satisfied

D moderately sat


D slightly dissat

D moderately dissat

H very dissatisfied

Figure F.13 Ratings of overall office acceptability

F47

summer

I males

CD females

winter

H males

• females

Figure F.13 Ratings of overall office acceptability (cont'd)

F48

summer, males

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

percent 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Jin fl / /

s s .? # / r

summer.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.13 Ratings of overall office acceptability (cont'd)

F49

winter.males

M <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

Q >55yrs

winter.females

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.14 Ratings of overall office comfort

F50

percent

4U

30

20

10

0

^•7/, ••••'//

^m, i

_ r77

V/ 1 • • ^ 1 1

• • 1 1 H'// ^^^1*

w 1 / / / / / / •

summer

1 males

ED females

"

percent Fin

40

30

20

10

0

m

m

| w ^m\

/

• y

1 1 1 1

"

1 •

winter

• males

E3 females

Figure F.14 Ratings of overall office comfort (cont'd)

F51

percent 50

40

30

20

10

0

MT: • ..K ^mr

Jt • l

^H/ / H / 1 •<

1

1 • / 1 1 • /.

• -1 1 •

^U' 1 •''

/ / .

summer, males

B <40yrs

E340-55yrs

Q >55yrs

percent 120

100

80

60

40

20

0 .. in i"i'f • i vr

/ / / / / /

summer.females

HI <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.14 Ratings of overall office comfort (cont'd)

F52

40

30

20

10

0

/

percent

r* |

• m 1

F

/

Y /

£ \

^ B '

w •**

/

1 1 1 1 1

1

0 -J /

1 •

—

winter.males

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D>55yrs

winter.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.15 Ratings of overall office temperature

F53

50

40

30

20

10

Q

percent

/ /• • i

. • 1 1 1 1

/ o»* / S J S

summer

1 males

CD females

percent

40

30

20

10

0

• H p i • •

W] I **

• •

£ S

jn

winter

H males

(Zl females

Figure F.15 Ratings of overall office temperature (cont'd) F54

summer, males

• <40yrs

E)40-55yrs

• >55yrs

summer.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.15 Ratings of overall office temperature (cont'd)

F55

winter, males

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D >5Syrs

wirrter.females

B <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.16 Ratings of overall office humidity F56

percent 35

summer

I males

ED females

percent 40

30

20

10

• . •

,- /

1 1 1 H •

' : // y/

1 1 H-V • J

1 1 1 1 1 • / .•. • [Mil

winter

H males

Q females

Figure F.16 Ratings of overall office humidity (cont'd) F57

summer.males

H <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D55yrs

percent

•so

30

25

20

15

10

0

i—i i—i

•

n J 1 •" 1 I

.

[

• u • • •

^

• 1 *

.

<j

i /

summer.females

• <40yrs

E340-55yrs

D55yrs

Figure F.16 Ratings of overall office humidity (cont'd) F58

percent 50

40

30

20

10 I • I

T .• 7

7

/

7 '/ 1 I

o- o- o-

j T

J * "

winter.males

H <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D55yrs

percent

30

25

20

15

10

5

o

i\ 1 1 1 1 1 1

... .

- | 1 I' 1 1 1 B

u p 1 1 1 1 •

j ~ f I fl I «* * *V > j >

n

/

winter.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D55yrs

Figure F.17 Ratings of overall office air movement levels

F59

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

percent

—

• / / / / /

///// too little

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

percent

•1 tilli, ///// ' ' / / / / •

1 too

/ / /' / / / ' - ' •

' * / 1 ' •

little

• "^•///// just right

-|§ ;

just right

•^ too much

~

-

• too much

, . "

summer

1 males

• females

winter

1 males

0 females

Figure F.17 Ratings of overall office air movement levels (cont'd)

F60

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

percent

• r. •. • 1 1 • too little

• 1 I just right

• • H B / / /

m too much

summer.males

1 <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

-

100

80

60

40

20

0

percent

t too little

1 just right

-

fe too much

summer.females

B <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D>55yrs

Figure F.17 Ratings of overall office air movement levels (cont'd)

F61

percent 60

50

40

30

20

10

0

i too little right too much

winter, males

• <40yrs

E340-55yrs

D >55yrs

percent 100

80

60

40

20 i • l i m too little just right too much

winter.females

l < 4 0 y r s

• 40-55yrs

D>55yrs

F62 Figure F.18 Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability

percent 30

25

20

15

10

5

n

^r-n WfiTl / / , 7/

...rrM1/, i II • I 1 1

'p7

• 1 • _ ••• / •mrn Ml 1 • 1 1

• l l 1

/ / / / / /

'V • ' / "

summer

B males

El females

—

percent 30

25

20

15

10

5

0

• .

H I""'" \ 1 • ^m,',

I 1 1 • • / /

•L

1 1

i I • ; I 1 • ,-, ^ i - >

1 1 J-,

/ / / / / /

winter

1 males

CD females

Figure F.18 Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability (cont'd) F63

summer, males

• <40yrs

EZUo-55yrs

• >55yrs

summer.females

M <40yrs

Q40-55yrs

D >55yrs

F64

Figure F.18 Ratings of overall office air movement acceptability (cont'd)

percent 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 B * III! .• Jfi

jr fi J • jr

winter.males

M <40yrs

D40-55yrs

• >55yrs

winter.females

• <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

• >55yrs

Figure F.19 Ratings of overall office lighting levels F65

summer I males CD females

percent •in

40

30

20

10

o MMM _ J ~

6^ *

—'

-

i . ' mX:--MM

H< /..

ii y *t <f ^

* # **"

winter

B males

d females

Figure F.19 Ratings of overall office lighting levels (cont'd) F66

percent 50

40

30

20

10

0 r-i U~ M • 1 1 1 i

• * •

*.*

r J «T JF *<* ** & ** • •

^ «r

summer.males

• <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D>55yrs

summer/females

I <40yrs

d40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.19 Ratings of overall office lighting levels (cont'd)

F67

winter.males

• <40yrs

O40-55yrs

CD >55yrs

winter.females

• <40yrs

04O-55yrs

• >55yrs

F68

Figure F.20 Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal environments of their workstations

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

percent

1 1 i i y y

*

- • •

f /

summer

1 males

CZ1 females

-

winter H males • females

F69

Figure F.20 Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal environments of their workstations (cont'd)

summer.males

I <40yrs

n40-55yrs

D >55yrs

summer.females

B <40yrs

D40-55yrs

D>55yrs

F70

Figure F.20 Building occupants' perceived level of control over thermal environments of their workstations (cont'd)

percent

winter.males

H <40yrs

Q40-55yrs

• >55yrs

winter.females

I <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

F71

Figure F.21 Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation thermal environments

30

25

20

15

10

0

percent

VTT

#

/

. . .

1 Br 1 I JlV/1 r _••••/ /

* *•

\ WLL y •

• P I IB 1

summer

1 males

• fema les

-

-

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

percent

\n~\ m

i 1 h i 77777?"

winter

1 males

• females

F72

Figure F.21 Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation thermal environments (cont'd)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0

•

percent

1 • 1 •

f ••'''• 1 i 1 f S —

' / / / / '

summer, males

• <40yrs

E340-55yrs

• >55yrs

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

S

percent

n n

gi

I 1 /

/

rfl

1 4»6

0

i I \ 1 I

/

• 1 / f * J

1

summer.females

• <40yrs

04O-55yrs

D >55yrs

F73

Figure F.21 Ratings of satisfaction with the level of control over workstation thermal ^ " ^ environments (cont'd)

winter.males

H <40yrs

Q40-55yrs

• >55yrs

percent

30

20

10

o

1 • ' 1 1 \

1—1 1—1 1—1

/.

1 f i m-

i 1

I J] . / / / / / /

winter.females

H <40yrs

• 40-55yrs

D >55yrs

Figure F.22 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer season)

percent 100

summer.males

CD always

• often E3 sometimes

• rarely

ED never

H not available

percent

y y y s y * y y

•r

summer.females

CD always

• often

sometimes

• rarely

• never

B not available

Figure F.22 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer season) (cont d)

percent 100

80

60

40

20

! • ' • " > • •

M^^^B ^BaYS* ^ ^ B M

m 1 1 1

^

/ / / .

1 1 1

' / -'' -'

INI

^ SS\ ^

///..

' • ' ' :

///:

summer, males, <40yrs

m always

• often H sometimes

• rarely

0 never

1 not available

summer,males,40-5Syrs

DD always

• often

sometimes

• rarely

• never

B not available

F76

Figure F.22 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer season) (cont'd)

percent


m always

D often

sometimes

D rarely

E3 never

I not available

percent 100

y ^ y y y s y S / ' * • ""

summer, females, < 40yrs

m always

• often

sometimes

U~\ rarely

Q never

I not available

F77

Figure F.22 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (summer season) (cont'd)

percent

f ? «f* V* *6» *

summer,lemales,40-55yrs

• always

• often

sometimes

ID rarely

0 never

H not available

100

' 80

60

40

20

0

percent

/ / ' • • • '

/''.'<

1 /' /• /

\f ' i /

i l l ! 'il, \NV ^

' if'

• ' • : '

' ;i :-

'///.

V s 1 / * * / s

summer, f emaies, > 55y rs

m always

• often sometimes

• rarely

• never

H not available

F78

Figure F.23 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (winter season)

winter.males

CD always

• often

sometimes

D rarely

Q never

I not available

percent

' / ' / / / '

winter.females

CD always

D often

sometimes

D rarely

Q never

D not available

Figure F.23 Frequency of personal indoor climate control usage (winter season) (cont'd)

F79

percent 100

80

60

40

20

(', Y.I 1 .1, U

M ^

S \ V

' / / /'

1 1 1

'II, '/>'/

i i i

/ ' • '

'.' , / / / ,

MM

^

i / i . 7 / /

j • > s s y * / " «r


• always

D often

H sometimes

• rarely • never

I not available

percent

/ / / / / / /


CD always

• often sometimes

• rarely

O never

H not available


F80

100

80

60

40

20

0

J

percent

r j 1/7/ ] 1 !, .'. N4

7:7

1 ^

H

1 I I i

I / /

\ |

1 • • ' . •

*> >• /

winter,males,>55yrs

m always

• often H sometimes

• rarely

• never

M not available


D always

• often sometimes

• rarely 0 never M not available

F81


percent 100 r m

y J y y y * *'/ + y* *

y

winter.females,40-55yrs

CD always

• often

sometimes

• rarely

Qnever

I not available

percent

winter.females, >55yrs

O always

• often 0 sometimes

• rarely

0 never

B not available

field study of occupant comfort and office thermal environments … et al 1996 field... · occupant...

Documents