Next Article in Journal
Acoustical Impact of Architectonics and Material Features in the Lifespan of Two Monumental Sacred Structures
Previous Article in Journal
Wave Mode Identification of Acoustic Emission Signals Using Phase Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Enhanced Temporal Feature Integration Method for Environmental Sound Recognition
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Commissioning the Acoustical Performance of an Open Office Space Following the Latest Healthy Building Standard: A Case Study

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Campus Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Vancouver Island University, Building 356, Room 364, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5S5, Canada
3
UW Tower Operations, Facilities Services, University of Washington, Campus Box 359405, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
4
UW Information Technology, University of Washington, Box 354841, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Acoustics 2019, 1(3), 473-492; https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics1030027
Received: 29 April 2019 / Revised: 27 June 2019 / Accepted: 2 July 2019 / Published: 9 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Indoor Soundscape: Integrating Sound, Experience and Architecture)
  |  
PDF [3400 KB, uploaded 11 July 2019]
  |  

Abstract

Healthy building design guides are cogent and necessary. While elements that contribute to healthy buildings are multifactorial, the perception of sound versus noise is subjective and difficult to operationalize. To inform the commissioning process, the acoustics in an open office was examined following the first international building certification system that focuses on the well-being of occupants. Results highlight the role facility managers play in ensuring acoustical quality and offer suggestions to optimize healthy building rating systems. Mixed empirical evidence concerning the advantages of open office designs exists, as does evidence that noise, and a lack of privacy, affects workers’ levels of distraction and dissatisfaction. Sound masking systems can lower stress levels and augment performance. However, the sound produced by these systems can also be disruptive; conflicting information exists for facility managers to use when making decisions. The results suggest that, although objective measurements and healthy building guidelines for designing satisfactory indoor acoustic environments are important, changes to the physical environment, and acoustical systems, in particular, require iterative subjective assessments within the retrofit process to bolster occupant satisfaction. Mixed-methodologies used in this study may aid facilities managers in capturing and interpreting occupant data about physical stimuli in the workplace and improving the commissioning process. View Full-Text
Keywords: healthy workplace; healthy building rating system; facilities management; psychoacoustics; acoustic commissioning; sound masking healthy workplace; healthy building rating system; facilities management; psychoacoustics; acoustic commissioning; sound masking
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, A.; Wang, S.; McCunn, L.; Prozuments, A.; Swanson, T.; Lokan, K. Commissioning the Acoustical Performance of an Open Office Space Following the Latest Healthy Building Standard: A Case Study. Acoustics 2019, 1, 473-492.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Acoustics EISSN 2624-599X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top