See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334508538

Acoustical Comfort in Office Buildings

Conference Paper · May 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 2,296

3 authors:

Deniz Artan Ilter Esin Ergen

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
55 PUBLICATIONS   244 CITATIONS    82 PUBLICATIONS   1,655 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Isilay Tekce
Ozyegin University
38 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EU 7th Framework Project Report - CILECCTA (A user-oriented, knowledge-based suite of Construction Industry LifE Cycle CosT Analysis software for pan-European
determination and costing of sustainable project options) View project

Occupant focused Facility Performance Evaluation System integrated with Building Information Modelling (BIM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deniz Artan Ilter on 25 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acoustical Comfort in Office Buildings
Deniz Artan, Esin Ergen
Department of Civil Engineering
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
artande@itu.edu.tr, esin.ergen@itu.edu.tr
Abstract—This paper aims to provide insight to decision
makers such as designers, facility managers and renovators of
office buildings on how office occupants perceive acoustical
comfort. In the first step, a detailed literature analysis was
performed to determine the main criteria that can be used to
measure acoustical comfort in office buildings. In the second
step, interviews were undertaken with 12 facility managers,
and work orders related to acoustical comfort were extracted
from facility management and computerized maintenance
management software systems. As a result, a list of occupant
feedback and complaint types related to acoustical comfort
were determined and a hierarchical structure was established.
In the third step, a survey was conducted with 308 office
employees to determine (1) the importance and satisfaction
levels in acoustical comfort criteria and (2) number of
respondents who have complaints in each complaint type. The
findings present the common reasons behind acoustical
discomfort and consequences of poor acoustical performance.
It can be concluded that the occupants are more dissatisfied
with the lack of acoustical privacy than with the level of noise
or echo. In terms of noise level, occupants are most dissatisfied
by ‘noise due to conversations’ compared to other sources of
noise such as footsteps, ventilation or office equipment.
Keywords-acoustical comfort; office buildings; occupant
satisfaction.
I. INTRODUCTION
Acoustics is an important component of occupant comfort
and satisfaction [1] and therefore office building design [2].
Although there is a well-established literature on how noise
and lack of speech privacy lead to occupant discomfort and
stress [3]; [4], designers do not give as much attention to
acoustical details as they give to thermal or indoor air quality
attributes in offices [2]; [5].
This study aims to provide insight to decision makers such
as designers, facility managers and renovators of office
buildings on how office occupants perceive acoustical comfort.
By establishing acoustical comfort criteria and complaint types
for offices, the study presents the common reasons behind
acoustical discomfort and consequences of poor acoustical
performance. This is achieved in this study by a literature
survey, expert interviews and a survey that includes a large
population of office building occupants.
Isilay Tekce
Department of Architecture
Ozyegin University
Istanbul, Turkey
isilay.tekce@ozyegin.edu.tr
II. METHODOLOGY
The first step of the methodology involves a detailed
literature analysis to determine the main criteria that can be
used to measure acoustical comfort in office buildings. In the
scope of this analysis, acoustical comfort criteria were
extracted from articles, building performance evaluation
systems and post-occupancy evaluation (POE) surveys used in
the industry. Frequency analysis and normative refinement
techniques were used to analyse the findings. Resulting criteria
and their references are given in Section III.
In the second step, interviews were undertaken with 12
facility managers, and work orders related to acoustical
comfort were extracted from facility management and
computerized maintenance management software systems. As
a result, a list of occupant feedback and complaint types related
to acoustical comfort were determined and a hierarchical
structure was established using the criteria determined in Step1.
The list of occupant feedback/complaints for acoustic comfort
criteria is given in Section IV.A.
Having identified the criteria and possible complaint types
related to acoustical comfort, a survey was undertaken with
308 office employees in the third step to determine (1) the
importance and satisfaction levels in acoustical comfort criteria
and (2) number of respondents who have complaints in each
complaint type. The importance and satisfaction levels were
obtained using 5 point Likert Scale of (1) ‘not important at all’
to (5) ‘very important’ and (1) ‘not satisfied at all’ to (5) ‘very
satisfied’, respectively. Reliability has been verified by using
internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to
examine the internal consistency and Anderson-Darling test
was used to examine the normality distribution of the data.
Results obtained from the surveys is presented in Section IV.B
to IV.E.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW: ACOUSTICAL COMFORT AND
SATISFACTION
Term of sound is defined as the transportation of physical
vibrations in the air which are within the frequency range of
human ear (20-20,000 Hz) [6]. Acoustic comfort is defined as
“a state of contentment with acoustic conditions” [7]. In other
words, acoustic comfort is availability of noise free
environment where occupant can continue their activities
without disturbances. In office buildings parameters like
background noise level, echo, level of conversation clearness,
acoustic privacy directly affects the occupant’s acoustic
comfort [6]. The background noise is the sound pressure level
measured when there is nobody in the office during work hours
[8].
Open-space work areas are providing advantages like more
interaction and information exchange between workers by
removing the table division panels and shortening the distances
between co-workers. However, on the other hand, because of
the open office layout, the acoustic privacy of the workers is
affected and some employees are not comfortable of the
increased noise level in the offices [9]; [10]; [11]. The main
sources of acoustic discomfort are noise due to conversations
of the employees, phone calls, footsteps, ringing phones, office
equipment (keyboards, printer, photocopy machine), sounds
coming from mechanical, electrical implementations
(ventilation, water pipes, etc.), furniture, noise coming from
outside [6]. Since the noises in the offices are not perceived in
the same way by each occupant, therefore the effect of them
are also changing. According to the research done by [12], it is
found that the controllable/necessary sounds are causing less
discomfort than the uncontrolled/unwanted sounds. Also, in the
same research, it is found that the phone calls or conversation
noises are more disruptive and distractive compared to
ventilation sourced noises and also the number of complaints is
relatively higher. Below is a list of acoustical comfort criteria
and references obtained as a result of the literature analysis
undertaken (Table I). As a result of frequency analysis and
normative refinement processes, acoustical comfort criteria
were identified as (1) noise level, (2) echo and (3) acoustic
privacy.
TABLE I. ACOUSTIC COMFORT CRITERIA AND REFERENCES
Criteria References
[2]; [13]; [14]; [15];
[16]; [17]; [18]; [19];
[20]; [21]; [22]; [23];
Noise Level [24]; [25]; [26]; [27];
[28]; [29]; [30]; [31];
Acoustical [32]; [33]; [34]; [35];
Comfort [36]; [37]; [38]
Echo [24]
[2]; [16]; [17]; [28];
Acoustic Privacy [29]; [31]; [39]; [40];
[41]; [42]; [43]; [44]
IV. FINDINGS
A. Feedback/Complaint for Acoustical Comfort
Following the determination of acoustical comfort criteria
from the literature, interviews were undertaken with 12 facility
managers to determine the occupant feedback/complaints types
for acoustical comfort. During the interviews work orders
related to acoustical comfort were extracted from facility
management and computerized maintenance management
software systems. Table II shows the list of occupant
feedback/complaints for acoustic comfort under the three
criteria namely, noise level, echo and acoustic privacy.
TABLE II. LIST OF OCCUPANT FEEDBACK/COMPLAINTS FOR ACOUSTIC
COMFORT
Acoustic
List of feedback/complaints
comfort
Noise due to conversations, Noise due to
footstep, Noise coming from outside, Noise of
1 Noise Level the ventilation system equipment, Noise of the
lighting equipment, Noise of the office
equipment, Noise of the furniture and door
Echo in the work environment, Echo in the
2 Echo meeting room, Echo in the conference hall, Echo
in the social areas
Acoustic No acoustic privacy in work environment, No
3
Privacy acoustic privacy in meeting room
B. Importance and Satisfaction Levels for Acoustical
Comfort
After determination of acoustical comfort criteria from the
literature and acoustical comfort complaint types in the
interviews undertaken with facility managers, a survey was
undertaken with 308 office employees in the third step to
determine (1) the importance and satisfaction levels in
acoustical comfort criteria and (2) number of respondents who
have complaints in each complaint type. The importance and
satisfaction levels were obtained using 5 point Likert Scale.
The importance and satisfaction levels in acoustical
comfort criteria are presented in Fig. 1. As for importance,
office occupants find Noise Level most important (4.5)
followed by Acoustic Privacy (4.3) and Echo (4.0). On the
other hand, occupants are most satisfied in Echo (3.6),
followed by Noise Level (3.1). Occupants are least satisfied by
Acoustic Privacy (3.0) in the offices.
Figure 1. Importance and satisfaction levels in acoustical comfort criteria.
C. Noise Level Satisfaction Levels and Complaints
Below is a distribution of noise level satisfaction levels
among the office building occupants. Results reveal that
satisfaction levels of 37 occupants (12%) is 1 ‘not satisfied at
all’, 59 occupants (19%) is 2 ‘not satisfied’, 94 occupants
(31%) is 3 ‘neutral’, 78 occupants (25%) is 4 ‘satisfied’, and 40
occupants (13%) is 5 ‘very satisfied’ (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Noise level satisfaction levels.
 Number of respondents who have complaints in each
complaint type that belong to noise level criteria is given in
Fig. 3. Most frequent complaint related to noise level is by far
‘noise due to conversations’ (reported by 179 respondents),
followed by ‘noise coming from outside’ (reported by 66
respondents) and ‘noise due to footstep’ (reported by 58
respondents).
Figure 3. Noise level complaints.
D. Echo Satisfaction Levels and Complaints
Distribution of satisfaction levels in echo criteria among the
office building occupants are given in Fig. 4. Results reveal
that satisfaction levels of 23 occupants (8%) is 1 ‘not satisfied
at all’, 26 occupants (9%) is 2 ‘not satisfied’, 75 occupants
(24%) is 3 ‘neutral’, 109 occupants (35%) is 4 ‘satisfied’, and
75 occupants (24%) is 5 ‘very satisfied’.
Figure 4. Echo satisfaction levels.
Number of respondents who have complaints in each
complaint type that belong echo criteria is given in Fig. 5. Most
frequent complaint related to echo is ‘echo in the social areas’
(reported by 67 respondents), followed by ‘echo in the work
environment’ (reported by 56 respondents) and ‘echo in the
meeting room’ (reported by 30 respondents).
Figure 5. Echo complaints.
E. Acoustical privacy satisfaction levels and complaints
Distribution of satisfaction levels in acoustical privacy
criteria among the office building occupants are given in Fig. 6.
Results reveal that satisfaction levels of 37 occupants (12%) is
1 ‘not satisfied at all’, 73 occupants (24%) is 2 ‘not satisfied’,
92 occupants (30%) is 3 ‘neutral’, 66 occupants (21%) is 4
‘satisfied’, and 40 occupants (13%) is 5 ‘very satisfied’.
Figure 6. Acoustic Privacy satisfaction levels.
Number of respondents who have complaints in each
complaint type that belong acoustic privacy criteria is given in
Fig. 7. Most frequent complaint related to acoustic privacy by
far ‘no acoustic privacy in work environment’ (reported by 154
respondents), followed by ‘no acoustic privacy in meeting
room’ (reported by 46 respondents).
Figure 7. Acoustic Privacy complaints.
V. CONCLUSIONS
As for the importance of acoustical criteria, office
occupants find Noise Level most important (4.5) followed by
Acoustic Privacy (4.3) and Echo (4.0). On the other hand,
occupants are most satisfied in Echo (3.6), followed by Noise
Level (3.1). Occupants are least satisfied by Acoustic Privacy
(3.0) in the offices. Findings show that average importance
level in each acoustical comfort criteria is higher than the
average satisfaction level.
In terms of noise level, occupants are most dissatisfied by
‘noise due to conversations’ compared to other sources of noise
such as footsteps, ventilation or office equipment. More than
half of the occupants who participated in the survey, are
dissatisfied by the noise due to conversations and lack of
acoustical privacy in offices.
It is not easy to compare the results obtained as there are
only a few field studies undertaken investigating acoustical
comfort in office buildings. The results of the study analyzing
The Center for The Built Environment (CBE) at UC Berkeley
Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey [2]
reveal similar results in terms of lower satisfaction in acoustical
privacy and noise levels. Similarly, [2] also presents high
percentage of occupants dissatisfied due to ‘people talking in
surrounding offices’ and ‘people talking on the phone’.
It can be concluded that as occupants are more dissatisfied
with the lack of acoustical privacy than with the level of noise
or echo, the designers, facility managers and renovators need to
think of design strategies to provide more privacy to occupants
in their working environments. On the other hand, occupants
are satisfied with the level of echo in conference halls and
meeting rooms.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was funded by The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Grant no: 116M177).
Authors would like to thank TUBITAK for their support.
Authors also thank to Murat Can Özkan and Neziha Yilmaz
for data collection in building occupant surveys.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Leaman and B. Bordass, “Assessing building performance in use 4:
the Probe occupant surveys and their implications,” Build. Res. Inf.,
vol. 29(2), pp. 129-143, 2001.
[2] K. L. Jensen, “Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assed by
occupant surveys,” Indoor Air, 2005, pp. 2401-2405.
[3] G. Evans and D. Johnson, “Stress and open-office noise,” J. Appl.
Psychol., vol. 85(5), pp. 779-783, October 2000.
[4] E. Sundstrom, J. P. Town, R. W. Rice, D. P. Osborn, and M. Brill,
“Office noise, satisfaction and performance,” Environ. Behav., vol.
26(2), pp. 195-222, March 1994.
[5] C. Salter, K. Powell, D. Begault, and R. Alavarado, “Case studies of a
method for predicting speech privacy in the contemporary workplace,”
Center For The Built Environment, UC Berkeley, January 2003.
[6] ANSI/ASHRAE Guideline-10, “Interactions affecting the achievement
of acceptable indoor environments,” American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2010.
[7] P. Antoniadou and A. Papadopoulos, “Occupants’ thermal comfort:
State of the art and the prospects ofpersonalized assessment in office
buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 153, pp. 136–149, October 2017.
[8] BS EN ISO Standart-3382-3, “Acoustics-Measurement ofroom acoustic
parameters Part 3: Open plan offices,” vol. 3, 2012.
[9] J. L. Brand and T. J. Smith, “Effects of reducing enclosure on
perceptions of occupancy quality, job satisfaction, and job performance
in open-plan offices,” Proc. Hum. Factors. Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol.
49(8), pp. 818-820, September 2005.
[10] L. Brocolini, E. Parizet, and P. Chevret, “Effect of masking noise on
cognitive performance and annoyance in open plan offices,” Appl.
Acoust., vol. 114, pp. 44-55, December 2016.
[11] V. Hongisto, “A model predicting the effect of speech of varying
intelligibility on work performance,” Indoor Air, vol. 15(6), pp. 458-
468, December 2005.
[12] S. P. Banbury and D. C. Berry, “Office noise and employee
concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential
improvements,” Ergonomics, vol. 48(1), pp. 25-37, 2005.
[13] R. Atkins and R. Emmanuel, “Could refurbishment of “traditional”
buildings reduce carbon emissions?,” Built Environ. Project Asset
Manage., vol. 4(3), pp. 221-237, 2014.
[14] C. Brown and M. Gorgolewski, “Assessing occupant satisfaction and
energy behaviours in Toronto’s LEED gold high-rise residential
buildings,” Int. J. Energy Sect. Manage., vol. 8(4), pp. 492-505, 2014.
[15] Z. Brown and R. J. Cole, “Influence of occupants' knowledge on
comfort expectations and behaviour,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 37(3), pp.
227-245, 2009.
[16] J. Goins and M. Moezzi, “Linking occupant complaints to building
performance,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 41(3), pp. 361-372, 2013.
[17] Z. Gou, D. Prasad, and S. S.-Y. Lau, “Impacts of green certifications,
ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor
environmental quality,” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 57(3), pp. 196-206,
March 2014.
[18] Å. L. Hauge, J. Thomsen, and T. Berker, “User evaluations of energy
efficient buildings: Literature review and further research,” Adv. Build.
Energy Res., vol. 5(1), pp. 109-127, Jun 2011.
[19] H. Kato, L. Too, and A. Rask, “Occupier perceptions of green workplace
environment: the Australian experience,” J. Corp. R. Estate, vol 11(3),
pp. 183-195, 2009.
[20] M. Kavgic, D. Mumovic, Z. Stevanovic, and A. Young, “Analysis of
thermal comfort and indoor air quality in a mechanically ventilated
theatre,” Energy Build., vol. 40(7), pp. 1334-1343, 2008.
[21] N. Khalil and H. N. Husin, “Post occupancy evaluation towards indoor
environment improvement in Malaysia’s office buildings,” Int. J.
Sustainable Dev., vol. 2(1), pp. 186-191, 2009.
[22] C. Langston, Y. Song, and B. Purdey, “Perceived conditions of workers
in different organizational settings,” Facilities, vol. 26(1/2), pp. 54-67,
2008.
[23] J. Laquatra, G. Pillai, A. Singh, and M. M. Syal, “Green and healthy
housing,” J. Archit. Eng., vol. 14(4), pp. 94-97, December 2008.
[24] I. A. Meir, Y. Garb, D. Jiao, and A. Cicelsky, “Post-occupancy
evaluation: an inevitable step toward sustainability,” Adv. Build. Energy
Res., vol. 3(1), pp. 189-219, 2009.
[25] V. Menadue, V. Soebarto, and T. Williamson, “Perceived and actual
thermal conditions: case studies of green-rated and conventional office
buildings in the City of Adelaide,” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 57(4), pp. 303-
319, October 2014.
[26] M. Moezzi, “Are comfort expectations of building occupants too high?,”
Build. Res. Inf., vol.37(1), pp. 79-83, January 2009.
[27] I. Nahmens, A. Joukar, and R. Cantrell, “Impact of Low-Income
Occupant Behavior on Energy Consumption in Hot-Humid Climates,” J.
Archit. Eng., 21(2), pp. B4014006, 2014.
[28] G. Newsham et. al., “Do ‘green’buildings have better indoor
environments? New evidence,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 41(4), pp. 415-434,
2013.
[29] J. K. Parkin, S. A. Austin, J. A. Pinder, T. S. Baguley, and S. N.
Allenby, “Balancing collaboration and privacy in academic
workspaces,” Facilities, vol. 29(1/2), pp. 31-49, 2011.
[30] W. L. Paul and P. A. Taylor, “A comparison of occupant comfort and
satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building,”
Built. Environ., vol 43(11), pp. 1858-1870, November 2008.
[31] W. Preiser and J. Vischer, “Assessing building performance,” Oxford:
Routledge, 2006.
[32] G. Seshadhri and V. Topkar, “Validation of a questionnaire for objective
evaluation of performance of built facilities,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,
vol. 30(1), pp. 04014191, 2014.
[33] A. Singh, M. Syal, S. Korkmaz, and S. Grady, “Costs and benefits of
IEQ improvements in LEED office buildings,” J. Infrastruct. Syst., vol.
17(2), pp. 86-94, 2010.
[34] S. Turpin-Brooks and G. Viccars, “The development of robust methods
of post occupancy evaluation,” Facilities, vol. 24(5/6), pp. 177-196,
2006.
[35] C. Voelker, J. Beckmann, S. Koehlmann, and O. Kornadt, “Occupant
requirements in residential buildings: an empirical study and a
theoretical model,” Adv. Build. Energy Res., vol. 7(1), pp. 35-50, 2013.
[36] A. Wagner, E. Gossauer, C. Moosmann, T. Gropp, and R. Leonhart,
“Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field
studies in German low energy office buildings,” Energy Build., vol.
39(7), pp. 758-769, July 2007.
[37] C. Wang, Y. K. Cho, and C. Kim, “Automatic BIM component
extraction from point clouds of existing buildings for sustainability
applications,” Autom. Constr., vol. 56, pp. 1-13, August 2015.
[38] A. Zalejska-Jonsson, “Parameters contributing to occupants’
satisfaction: Green and conventional residential buildings,” Facilities,
vol. 32(7/8), pp. 411-437, 2014.
[39] Y. Afacan and H. Demirkan, “The influence of sustainable design
features on indoor environmental quality satisfaction in Turkish
dwellings,” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 59(3), pp. 229-238, 2016.
[40] C. Candido, J. Kim, R. de Dear, and L. Thomas, “BOSSA: a
multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool,” Build. Res. Inf., vol.
44(2), pp. 214-228, 2016.
[41] J. Heerwagen and L. Zagreus, “The human factors of sustainable
building design: post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill
Environmental Center,” Center For The Built Environment, UC
Berkeley, April 2005.
View publication stats
[42] J. Kim and R. de Dear, “Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-
communication trade-off in open-plan offices,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol.
36, pp. 18-26, December 2013.
[43] M. Rashid, K. Spreckelmeyer, and N. J. Angrisano, “Green buildings,
environmental awareness, and organizational image,” J. Corp. R. Estate,
vol. 14(1), pp. 21-49, 2012.
[44] P. Vos and T. van der Voordt, “Tomorrow’s offices through today’s
eyes: Effects of innovation in the working environment,” J. Corp. R.
Estate, vol. 4(1), pp. 48-65, 2002.