Advertisement

Laboratory Approaches to Studying Occupants

  • Andreas Wagner
  • Rune Korsholm Andersen
  • Hui Zhang
  • Richard de Dear
  • Marcel Schweiker
  • Edwin Goh
  • Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt
  • Rita Streblow
  • Francesco Goia
  • Sumee Park
Chapter

Abstract

Laboratories offer the possibility to study occupant behavior in a very detailed manner. A wide range of indoor environmental scenarios can be simulated under precisely controlled conditions, and human subjects can be selected based on pre-defined criteria. The degree of control over experiments is high and a large number of physical, physiological, and psychological quantities can be monitored. This chapter gives an overview of various types of test facilities in the world and their main features in terms of experimental opportunities. It then presents typical technical equipment and sensor technologies used in laboratory environments. Finally, questions on appropriate laboratory design and experimental set-ups are discussed. One conclusion is that, in spite of many advantages, there are limits to investigating occupant behavior in a laboratory’s “artificial” environment, in part due to the fact that subjects always feel observed to some extent. However, valuable results can be achieved if the specific opportunities of laboratories are utilized both by appropriate design and precise experiments during operation.

References

  1. Bauman F, Arens E (1988) The development of a controlled environment chamber for the physical and subjective assessment of human comfort in office environments. In: Kroner W (ed) Proceedings of international symposium on advanced comfort systems for the work environment. Troy, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. Boerstra AC, te Kulve M, Toftum J et al (2015) Comfort and performance impact of personal control over thermal environment in summer: results from a laboratory study. Build Environ 87:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chellappa SL, Steiner R, Blattner P et al (2011) Non-visual effects of light on melatonin, alertness and cognitive performance: can blue-enriched light keep us alert? PLoS One 6(1):e16429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016429
  4. Chen C-F, Knight K (2014) Energy at work: Social psychological factors affecting energy conservation intentions within Chinese electric power companies. Energ Res Soc Sci 4:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarys P, Clijsen R, Taeymans J et al (2011) Hydration measurements of the stratum corneum: comparison between the capacitance method (digital version of the Corneometer CM 825®) and the impedance method (Skicon-200EX®). Skin Res Technol 18(3): 316–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2011.00573.x
  6. Clausen G, Wyon DP (2008) The combined effects of many different indoor environmental factors on acceptability and office work performance. HVAC&R Res 14(1):103–113. doi: 10.1080/10789669.2008.10390996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Dear R, Nathwani A, Cândido Ch et al (2013) The next generation of experimentally realistic lab-based research: the University of Sydney’s Indoor Environment Quality Laboratory. Architect Sci Rev 56(1):83–92. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2012.745807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. E.ON ERC (2017) https://www.ebc.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/go/id/fdql/lidx/1. Accessed 21 Apr 2017
  9. Fabi V, Andersen RV, Corgnati S et al (2012) Occupants’ window opening behaviour: A literature review of factors influencing occupant behaviour and models. Build Environ 58:188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fanger PO, Bánhidi L, Olesen BW et al (1980) Comfort limits for heated ceilings. ASHRAE Transactions, vol 86, Part 2Google Scholar
  11. Fütterer J, Constantin A, Schmidt M et al (2013) A multifunctional demonstration bench for advanced control research in buildings—monitoring, control, and interface system. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2013Google Scholar
  12. Goia F, Finocchiaro L, Gustavsen A (2015) The ZEB Living Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology: a zero emission house for engineering and social science experiments. In: Proceedings of the Conference “7. Passivhus Norden | Sustainable Cities and Buildings”, Copenhagen, 2015Google Scholar
  13. Hawighorst M, Schweiker M, Wagner A (2016) Thermo-specific self-efficacy (specSE) in relation to perceived comfort and control. Build Environ 102:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO 9886:2004 (2004) Ergonomics—evaluation of thermal strain by physiological measurements. ISO/TC 159/SC 5 Ergonomics of the physical environmentGoogle Scholar
  15. Khanie S, Andersen M, ’t Hart B M et al (2011) Integration of eye-tracking methods in visual comfort assessments. Presented at CISBAT 11: cleantech for sustainable buildings—from Nano to Urban Scale, Lausanne, Switzerland, September 14–15, 2011. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/166209/files/Integration%20of%20Eye-Tracking%20Methods%20in%20Visual%20Comfort%20Assessments.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  16. Kimura K, Tanabe S (1985) Design of Waseda University environmental test chamber and its performance characteristics. In: Fanger PO (ed) Proceedings of CLIMA 2000, Vol. 4, Indoor Climate: 121–126, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  17. Meerbeek BW, de Bakker C, de Kort YAW et al (2016) Automated blinds with light feedback to increase occupant satisfaction and energy saving. Build Environ 103:70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Möhlenkamp M, Schmidt M, Wick A et al (2015) Thermal comfort of displacement ventilation in environments with different temperature gradients. In: Proceedings of the Healthy Buildings Europe Conference, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  19. Müller D, Hegemann D, Braunstein V et al (2015) Measurements of the perceived air quality in shopping centers. In: Proceedings of the healthy buildings europe conference, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  20. Nathwani A, de Dear R, Cândido C (2012) The missing link—next generation IEQ LAB with ultimate flexibility. In: Proceedings of 7th Windsor Conference: the Changing Contest of Comfort in an Unpredictable World, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Newsham G, Veitch J, Arsenault C et al (2004) Effect of dimming control on office worker satisfaction and performance. In: Proceedings of IESNA Annual Conference: 19–41, TampaGoogle Scholar
  22. Olesen BW, Fanger PO (1973) The skin temperature distribution for resting man in comfort. Arch Sci Physiol 27(A):A385–A393Google Scholar
  23. Olesen BW, Schøler M, Fanger PO (1979) Discomfort caused by vertical air temperature differences. In: Fanger PO, Valbjørn O (eds) Indoor climate. Danish Building Research Institute, Copenhagen, p 561Google Scholar
  24. Parsons KC (2014) Human thermal environments, 3rd edn. CRC Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pasut W, Zhang H, Arens E et al (2015) Energy-efficient comfort with a heated/cooled chair: results from human subject tests. Build Environ 10:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.10.026, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2tq3z4cw
  26. Schmidt C, Veselá S, Nabi Bidhendi M et al (2015) Zusammenhang zwischen lokalem und globalem Behaglichkeitsempfinden: Untersuchung des Kombinationseffektes von Sitzheizung und Strahlungswärmeübertragung zur energieeffizienten Fahrzeugklimatisierung. FAT Schriftenreihe 272:2015Google Scholar
  27. Schoffelen PFM, Westerterp KR, Saris WHM et al (1997) A dual-respiration chamber system with automated calibration. J Appl Physiol 83:2064–2072Google Scholar
  28. Schoffelen PFM, Saris WHM, Westerterp KR et al (1984) Evaluation of an automatic indirect calorimeter for measurement of energy balance in man. In: Van Es AJH (ed) Human energy metabolism: physical activity and energy expenditure measurements in epidemiological research based upon direct and indirect calorimetry. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, pp 51–54Google Scholar
  29. Schweiker M, Wagner A (2015a) On the effect of the number of persons in one office room on occupants physiological and subjective responses, and performance under summer conditions. In: Proceedings of the Healthy Buildings Europe Conference, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  30. Schweiker M, Wagner A (2015b) The effect of thermal inertia on office workers subjective and physiological responses; and performance under summer conditions. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Building Physics Conference, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  31. Schweiker M, Wagner A (2015c) A framework for an adaptive thermal heat balance model (athb). Build Environ 94:252–262. http://www.sciencedirect.com/-science/-article/-pii/-S0360132315300998
  32. Schweiker M, Wagner A (2016) The effect of occupancy on perceived control, neutral temperature, and behavioral patterns. Energy Build 117:246–259. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schweiker M, Brasche S, Bischof W et al (2012) Development and validation of a methodology to challenge the adaptive comfort model. Build Environ 49:336 – 347. http://www.sciencedirect.com/-science/-article/-pii/-S0360132311002459
  34. Schweiker M, Brasche S, Bischof W et al (2013a) Explaining the individual processes leading to adaptive comfort: Exploring physiological, behavioural and psychological reactions to thermal stimuli. J Build Phys 36(4):438–463. http://jen.sagepub.com/-content/-36/-4/-438.short
  35. Schweiker M, Hawighorst M, Wagner A (2013b) Quantifying individual adaptive processes: first experiences with an experimental design dedicated to reveal further insights to thermal adaptation. Architectural Sci Rev 56(1):93–98. http://www.tandfonline.com/-doi/-abs/-10.1080/-00038628.2012.744297
  36. Schweiker M, Brasche S, Hawighorst M et al (2014). Presenting LOBSTER, an innovative climate chamber, and the analysis of the effect of a ceiling fan on the thermal sensation and performance under summer conditions in an office-like setting. In: Proceedings of 8th Windsor Conference: Counting the Cost of Comfort in a Changing World, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Storaas G, Bakkevig MK (1996) Correlation between measured skin wettedness and subjective sensations of skin wetness. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Environmental Ergonomics (ICEE), JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  38. Vandahl C, Wolf S, Schierz C (2010) Messung von Beleuchtungsstärken am Auge mit dem mobilen Messgerät LuxBlick. In: Tagungsband zur Konferenz Licht, Wien, OktoberGoogle Scholar
  39. van Marken Lichtenbelt W D, Daanen HAM, Wouters L et al (2006) Evaluation of wireless determination of skin temperature using iButtons. Physiol Behav 88:489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Veselý M, Zeiler W (2014) Personalized conditioning and its impact on thermal comfort and energy performance—a review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 34:401–408Google Scholar
  41. Wikipedia (2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodermal_activity. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  42. Wyon DP, Fanger PO, Olesen BW et al (1975) The mental performance of subjects clothed for comfort at two different air temperatures. Ergonomics 18(4):359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu X, Arpan L, Chen C-F (2015) The moderating role of individual differences in responses to benefit and temporal framing of messages promoting residential energy saving. J Environ Psychol 44:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang H (2003) Human thermal sensation and comfort in transient and non-uniform thermal environments. Center for the Built Environment. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/11m0n1wt#
  45. Zhai Y, Zhang H, Zhang Y et al (2013) Comfort under personally controlled air movement in warm and humid environments. Build Environ 65:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang H, Arens E, Kim DE et al (2009) Comfort, perceived air quality, and work performance in a low-power task-ambient conditioning system. Build Environ 45(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Wagner
    • 1
  • Rune Korsholm Andersen
    • 2
  • Hui Zhang
    • 3
  • Richard de Dear
    • 4
  • Marcel Schweiker
    • 5
  • Edwin Goh
    • 6
  • Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt
    • 7
  • Rita Streblow
    • 8
  • Francesco Goia
    • 9
  • Sumee Park
    • 10
  1. 1.Building Science Group, Faculty of ArchitectureKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Center for the Built EnvironmentUniversity of CaliforniaCAUSA
  4. 4.Indoor Environmental Quality Laboratory, School of Architecture, Design and PlanningThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Building Science Group, Faculty of ArchitectureKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  6. 6.Berkeley Education Alliance for Research in Singapore LimitedSingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.Department of Human Biology and Human Movement SciencesNUTRIM School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center+MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  9. 9.Department of Architecture and Technology, Faculty of Architecture and DesignNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  10. 10.Department of Energy Efficiency and Indoor ClimateFraunhofer Institute for Building PhysicsValleyGermany

Personalised recommendations