FIELD STUDY ON THERMAL COMFORT OF OFFICE WORKERS: INTEGRATION OF MEASURED DATA AND OCCUPANT PERCEPTIONS

Abstract

Thermal comfort is a critical parameter affecting employee productivity, health, and workplace safety. Ensuring appropriate thermal conditions in work environments is essential for improving performance and maintaining sustainable working conditions. In this study, a comprehensive evaluation of thermal comfort conditions was performed at the Department of Technical Works (Fen İşleri Dairesi Başkanlığı) of Balıkesir Metropolitan Municipality, using both physical measurements and occupant surveys across different seasons (summer, winter, spring, and autumn). Indoor environmental variables—air temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, and mean radiant temperature—were measured with a Testo-480 device, and the corresponding PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied) indices were calculated. Concurrently, surveys were administered to the employees to obtain AMV (Actual Mean Vote) and APD (Actual Percentage of Dissatisfied) values. By comparing objective measurement results with subjective survey responses, the consistency between technical data and the occupants’ thermal perceptions was analyzed. The findings indicate that although the measured thermal parameters in summer fell within standard comfort ranges, the employees perceived the environment as “slightly warm.” In winter, the measurements suggested comfortable conditions, yet many employees described the environment as “slightly cool.” In spring and autumn, measurements and perceptions were generally in agreement; however, significant differences in thermal sensation emerged based on factors such as gender, age, and clothing insulation (clo) levels. Employees with lower clo values tended to report higher discomfort, whereas those with greater clothing insulation exhibited notable discrepancies between measured and perceived comfort. Overall, variations in clothing insulation were found to shift the optimum comfortable working temperature by about 0.9–2.5 °C. These results underscore the necessity of continuous monitoring and improvement of thermal comfort conditions in municipal service buildings and similar workplaces to ensure both employee satisfaction and operational efficiency.

Keywords

• thermal comfort
• public building
• survey
• PMV-PPD

References

1. [1] ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, 2023.
2. [2] ISO, ISO 7730: Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort using Calculation of PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria, Geneva: ISO, 2005.
3. [3] CEN, EN 16798-1:2019 Energy performance of buildings—Ventilation for buildings—Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics, Brussels: CEN, 2019.
4. [4] P. O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering, Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press, 1970.
5. [5] R. de Dear, G. Brager, and D. Cooper, “Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference (Final Report on ASHRAE RP-884),” ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 104, no. 1, 1997.
6. [6] J. F. Nicol and M. A. Humphreys, “Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 563–572, 2002.
7. [7] R. F. Rupp, N. G. Vásquez, and R. Lamberts, “A review of human thermal comfort in the built environment,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 105, pp. 178–205, 2015.
8. [8] K. Parsons, Human Thermal Environments: The Effects of Hot, Moderate, and Cold Environments on Human Health, Comfort and Performance, 3rd ed., Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014.

9. [9] B. W. Olesen, “International standards for the indoor environment,” Indoor Air, vol. 14, suppl. 7, pp. 18–26, 2004.
10. [10] ISO, ISO 7726: Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Instruments for Measuring Physical Quantities, Geneva: ISO, 1998.
11. [11] O. Seppänen and W. J. Fisk, “Summary of human responses to ventilation in office buildings,” Indoor Air, vol. 14, suppl. 7, pp. 102–118, 2004.
12. [12] N. E. Klepeis et al., “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants,” J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol., vol. 11, pp. 231–252, 2001.
13. [13] Y. Al-Horr et al., “Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature,” Building and Environment, vol. 105, pp. 369–389, 2016.
14. [14] T. Hoyt, E. Arens, and H. Zhang, “Extending air temperature setpoints: Simulated energy savings and design considerations for new and retrofit buildings,” Building and Environment, vol. 88, pp. 89–96, 2015.
15. [15] J. Toftum, “Air movement—good or bad?,” Indoor Air, vol. 14, suppl. 7, pp. 40–45, 2004.
16. [16] S. Schiavon and K. H. Lee, “Dynamic predictive clothing insulation models based on outdoor air and indoor operative temperatures,” Building and Environment, vol. 59, pp. 250–260, 2013.
17. [17] R. de Dear, G. S. Brager, and D. Cooper, “Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference,” ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 145–167, 1998.
18. [18] T. Hong, S. D’Oca, W. J. Turner, and S. C. Taylor-Lange, “An ontology to represent energy-related occupant behavior in buildings,” Journal of Building Performance Simulation, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 764–777, 2015.
19. [19] J. Kim, Y. Zhou, S. Schiavon, M. Raftery, and T. Pensky, “Predicting individuals’ thermal preference using occupant behavior and machine learning,” Building and Environment, vol. 129, pp. 96–106, 2018.
20. [20] S. Kumar, A. Mathur, M. K. Singh, and K. B. Rana, “Adaptive thermal comfort study of workers in a mini-industrial unit during summer and winter season in a tropical country, India,” Building and Environment, vol. 143, pp. 32–47, 2018.
21. [21] İ. Caner and N. İlten, “Evaluation of occupants’ thermal perception in a university hospital in Turkey,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, vol. 173, no. 8, 2020.
22. [22] İ. Caner, Ş. Özbağ, and N. İlten, “Endüstriyel bir tesiste termal konfor koşullarının değerlendirilmesi: Bolu ilinde saha çalışması,” Balıkesir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 699–710, 2021.
23. [23] İ. Caner, Ş. Özbağ, and N. İlten, “Assessment of the thermal comfort preferences of industrial facility workers,” International Journal of Energy Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 849–865, 2024.