Keywords:advanced façades, user interaction, measurement, surevyes, criteria, framework, indoor comfort
Post-occupancy evaluation is a valuable method of generating information on the performance of adaptive building façades in relation to users. This evaluation technique involves both procedural methods, such as soft-landing, and empirical measuring, such as environmental monitoring or self-reporting techniques including surveys. Several studies have been carried out in recent decades to identify the most appropriate methods for occupant comfort, well-being, productivity, satisfaction, and health assessments in workplaces. Post-occupancy evaluation of adaptive façades can, however, be a challenging task and information on this topic is still scarce and fragmented. The main contribution of this paper is to bring together and classify the post-occupancy evaluation methods for adaptive façades and suggest a framework for their holistic evaluation. Specific recommendations for improving current standards and guidelines are outlined here to enhance occupant satisfaction and environmental conditions in workplaces for future design projects. Finally, we discuss various ongoing trends and research requirements in this field.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2018 Shady Attia, Alessandra Luna Navarro, Miren Juaristi, Aurora Monge-Barrio, Susanne Gosztonyi, Zein Al-Doughmi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors or their institutions retain copyright to their publications without restrictions.
ASHRAE (2010). Performance measurement protocols for commercial buildings. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. Inc., Atlanta.
ASHRAE (2013). 55: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. Inc., Atlanta.
Attia, S., Favoino, F., Loonen, R., Petrovski, A., & Monge-Barrio, A. (2015). Adaptive Façades System Assessment: An initial review. 10th Conference on Advanced Building Skins, 3-4 November, 1265-1273, Bern, Switzerland.
Attia, S. & Bashandy, H. (2016). Evaluation of Adaptive Façades: The Case Study of AGC Headquarter in Belgium. In Belis, Bos, & Louter (Eds.) Challenging Glass 5 – Conference on Architectural and Structural Applications of Glass. Ghent University, Belgium, ISBN 978-90-825-2680-6.
Attia, S. (2017). Evaluation of adaptive façades: The case study of Al Bahr Towers in the UAE. Shaping Qatar’s Sustainable Built Environment, Hamad Bin Khalifa University Press, Volume 2, Issue 6, P1-13.
Attia, S. (2018). Challenges and Future Directions of Smart Sensing and Control Technology for Adaptive Façades Monitoring. Next Façades COST Action TU1403 Adaptive Façades Network Conference, Lucerne University, 26-27 November 2018. Lucerne, Switzerland.
Attia, S., Bilir, S., & Safy, T. (2018) Adaptive Façades performance assessment: Interviews with Façade Experts, SBD Lab, Liege University, Belgium. ISBN: 9782930909097. Retrieved from https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/213736.
Attia, S., Bilir, S., Safy, T., Struck, C., Loonen, R., & Goia, F. (2018) Current Trends and Future Challenges in the Performance Assessment of Adaptive Façade Systems. Energy and Building, in Press.
Ball, M., & Callaghan, V. (2012, June). Explorations of autonomy: an investigation of adjustable autonomy in intelligent environments. In Intelligent Environments (IE), 2012 8th International Conference on IEEE. (pp. 114-121).
Bakker, L. G., Hoes-van Oeffelen, E. C. M., Loonen, R. C. G. M., & Hensen, J. L. M. (2014). User satisfaction and interaction with automated dynamic facades: A pilot study. Building and Environment, 78, 44-52.
Bilir, S., Attia, S. (2018). Performance Evaluation of Adaptive Façades: A case study with electrochromic glazing. Next Façades COST Action TU1403 Adaptive Façades Network Conference. Lucerne University, 26-27 November 2018. Lucerne, Switzerland.
JOURNAL OF FACADE DESIGN & ENGINEERING VOLUME 6 / NUMBER 3 / 2018
Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 347-352.
Buckman, A. H., Mayfield, M., & B.M. Beck, S. (2014). What is a Smart Building? Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 3(2), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-01-2014-0003
Buratti, C., & Ricciardi, P. (2009). Adaptive analysis of thermal comfort in university classrooms: correlation between experimental data and mathematical models. Building and Environment, 44(4), 674-687.
de Dear, R. (2011). Revisiting an old hypothesis of human thermal perception: alliesthesia. Building Research Information, 39 (2), 108-117. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.552269.
de Dear, R. (2014). Thermal counterpoint in the phenomenology of architecture - A psychophysiological explanation of Heschong’s “Thermal Delight”. Keynote speech, PLEA 2014, 16 – 18 December 2014. Ahmedabad, India.
EN ISO 7730:2005. (2009). Ergonomics of the thermal environment -- Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. ISO standard.
Galasiu, A. & Veitch, J.. (2006). Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy and Buildings, 38(7), 728–742. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.001
Galatioto, A., Leone, L., Milone, D., Pitruzzella, S., & Franzitta, V. (2013). Indoor Environmental Quality Survey: A Brief Comparison between Different Post Occupancy Evaluation Methods, Advanced Material Research. 864–867, 1148–1152. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.864-867.1148.
Kim, J., de Dear, R., Candido, C., Zhang, H., & Arens, E. (2013). Gender differences in office occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), Building and Environment 70, 245–256. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.022.
Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 4: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications, Building Research Information 29, 129–143. doi:10.1080/09613210010008045.
Li, P., Froese, T. M., & Brager, G. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment, 133: 187–202.
Loonen, R. C., Trčka, M., Cóstola, D., & Hensen, J. L. M. (2013). Climate adaptive building shells: State-of-the-art and future challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 483-493.
Meir, I. A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: An inevitable step toward sustainability. Advances in building energy research, 3(1), 189-219.
Pati, D., & Pati, S. (2013). Methodological issues in conducting post-occupancy evaluations to support design decisions, Health Environments Research and Design Journal. 6, 157–163. doi:10.1177/193758671300600312.
Preiser, W. (2005). Building Performance Assessment—From POE to BPE, A Personal Perspective, Architectural Science Review. 48 (2005) 201–204. doi:10.3763/asre.2005.4826.
Preiser, W. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better, Facilities. 13 (1995) 19–28.
Reinhart. CF, & Voss, K. (2003) Monitoring manual control of electric lighting and blinds. Lighting Research Technology 35(3):243-260.
Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., & Lehrer, D. (2004). Listening to the occupants: a Web-based indoor environmental quality survey. Indoor Air. 14, 65–74. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00301.x.