Control strategies for lighting and ventilation in offices: effects on energy and occupants

Abstract

Participants (N=126) spent a day in a full-scale office laboratory, completing questionnaires and standard office tasks. Some participants experienced typical constant lighting and ventilation conditions, whereas others were given personal control over the dimming of lighting in their workstation and over the flow rate of air from a ceiling-based nozzle in their workstations. Half of the participants, some with personal control and some without, were exposed to environmental changes typical of demand—response load shedding in the afternoon: workstation illuminance was reduced by 2% per minute, and ambient air temperature increased by ∼1.5°C over a 2.5 hour period. Results showed that personal environmental control improved environmental satisfaction. Personal control over lighting led to an average energy reduction of around 10% compared to a typical fixed system; participants with personal control also reduced flow rate compared to the constant condition. Use of each control type averaged two—three control actions per person per day, which dropped to less than one control action per person per day in a longer-term pilot study (N=5) conducted in the same space. Load shedding had some small negative effects for occupants, but in practice is unlikely to create substantial hardships, and is a reasonable response to peak power emergencies.