5.3. ÍNDICE DE SUBCOBERTURA DEL PROGRAMA SOCIAL “VASO DE
5.4.2. Factores organizacionales
The validity of the monitoring areas was mainly resolved in the buildings subsequent to the Trowbridge Building. As stated in Chapter 7, at the time of the pilot test in the Trowbridge Building, the result of the questionnaire on symptoms of building sickness was not yet available. Consequently, the SERC/LINK Project was unable to determine the monitoring areas. However, some or all of the monitoring areas in the subsequent buildings were determined by the SERC/LINK Project prior to the monitorings based on the result of the questionnaire which was then available.
At the Peterborough Building, a total of thirteen areas was selected for indoor monitoring in winter and seven areas in summer. Monitoring areas L1Z21, L1Z31, L1Z32, L2Z11, L2Z21, L2Z22, L2Z31, and L3Z11 were determined by the SERC/LINK Project (See Figure 8.1). The other five monitoring areas, L1Z11, L1Z22, L2Z12, L2Z32, and L3Z11, were selected on site. The on site selection of mobile monitoring areas was based on two considerations. Firstly, to cover all occupied building zones. In Level 3, zone 3 was unoccupied most of the time and zone 2 was partially occupied. Therefore, the two
zones were not selected. Secondly, the monitoring area selected should be far from full wall. In this case, full wall means a partition from floor to ceiling. Since this is an open pian office, the location near the fuii wail was not considered as representative of the monitoring locations.
L IZ 1 K L I2 I0 ) L1Z20 L1Z30 LIZ32 L1Z21 LIZ31
f
F
L2ZI0 L2Z 20_ L2Z2I L2Z3I L 3ZIK L3ZI0) Z0NE2X
Mortlofing Location» Figure 8.1Monitoring Locations in Peterborough Building
The monitoring areas L1Z11 and L3Z11 were in healthy clusters. L1Z22, L1Z31, L1Z32, L2Z11, L2Z21, L2Z22, and L2Z31 were in unhealthy clusters and L1Z21, L1Z22, L1Z33, L2Z12, and L2Z32 were in mixed clusters.
The monitoring areas in summer in the Peterborough Building was reduced to seven locations. This was the number of monitoring locations that was considered to be manageable by manual mobile monitoring. The monitoring areas consisted of two areas In the healthy clusters, one area in the unhealthy clusters, and four areas in the mixed clusters. The monitoring locations in the healthy clusters were P11 and P31, the location in the unhealthy clusters was P13 and the locations in the mixed clusters were P21, P23, P12, and P22.
At the Kendal Building, all of the six areas selected for indoor monitoring were determined by the SERC/LINK Project. As discussed in Chapter 6, the other two monitoring areas determined by SERC/LINK Project, one area in each of the healthy and unhealthy clusters, were not selected due to instrument limitation. In this building, the monitoring areas LOC-1 and LOC-3 were in healthy clusters and areas LOC-2, LOC-4, LOC-5, and LOC-6 were in unhealthy clusters (See Figure 8.2).
2n d r io o r
I
LOC-2 LOG-1 LOC-3M Jlb j
3%
U J t i ' i ' SUPPLY . „ (e x h a u s t I t , % '!
h^
LOG 5 1st Floor 1 1 » ^ ,(F’ ' LOC-4 LOC-6Q
(1ml
(iro u iu ! I'io o r M II' Monitoring Location Figure 8.2Monitoring Locations in Kendal Building
At the Cardiff Building, all of the monitoring floors and areas were determined by the SERC/LINK Project. The monitoring floors were Floor 8, 11, 16, and 22. The monitoring areas at each floor were known as LOC-1, LOC-2, LOC-3, LOC-4, and LOC-5. Areas LOC-2 and LOC-4 of Floor 8 (See Figure 8.3), LOC-1 and LOC-4 of Floor 11 (See Figure 8.4), LOC-1 and LOC-5 of Floor 16 (See Figure 8.5), and LOC-1 and LOC-3 of Floor 22 (See Figure 8.6) were in healthy clusters. LOC-1 of Floor 8(See Figure 8.3), LOC-2 and LOC-5 of Floor 11 (See Figure 8.4), LOC-2 and LOC-5 of Floor 16 (See Figure 8.5), and LOC-5 of Floor 22 (See Figure 8.6) were in mixed cluster whereas LOC-3 and LOC-5 of Floor 8 (See Figure 8.3), LOC-3 of Floor 11 (See Figure 8.4), LOC-4 of Floor 16 (See Figure 8.5), and LOC-2 and LOC-4 of Floor 22 (See Figure 8.6) were in unhealthy clusters.
OUTDOOR & SUPPLY
X Mon»ofing Location
Figure 8.3
Monitoring Locations in Cardiff Building, Floor 8
LOC-4
LOC-1
^ MonHorlnfl Location
Figure 8.4
Monitoring Locations in Cardiff Building, Floor 11
LOC-5 LOC-4
LOC-3
EXHAUST
SUPPLY & LOC-2
Monitoring LocaSon
Figure 8.5
Monitoring Locations in Cardiff Building, Floor 16
LOC-5 LOC-4 LOC-1 LOC-2 SUPPLY i X Mon«cirtng Location Figure 8.6
Monitoring Locations in Cardiff Building, Floor 22
8,3,3 Validity of Monitoring Location
As stated earlier, in the Peterborough Building, nine monitoring areas were determined by the SERC/LINK Project and five were selected on site. The exact monitoring locations within the monitoring areas were selected based on practicality: they should cause minimal interruption to the office activities. As for long term monitoring, if two monitoring areas were possible in the building, the monitoring would have been conducted each at a healthy and an unhealthy clusters. Since only one area was possible, L2Z31 in the unhealthy cluster was selected. However, this is an area used for clerical work where n^afiy cross- referencing and paperwork are expected. After considering the interruption it would have caused to the office activities in this location, the nearest practical location to it is L2Z32. This area is mainly used for computing work. Furthermore, it is more spacious than L2Z31 ; the four computers in this area are rarely used by more than two persons at any one time.
Fig. 8.2 shows the monitoring areas in the Kendal Building. In this building, the selection of monitoring locations which affects validity occurred at two stages. Firstly, during the selection of six out of the eight monitoring areas determined earlier by the SERC/LINK Project and secondly, during the selection of the exact monitoring location within the monitoring area. The selection is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
Fig. 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 show the monitoring areas in the Cardiff Building. Fig. 8.3 shows the monitoring areas in Floor 8, Fig. 8.4 shows the monitoring areas in Floor 11, Fig. 8.5 shows the monitoring areas in Floor 16, and Fig. 8.6 shows the monitoring areas in Floor 22. As stated earlier, all of the monitoring areas were determined by the SERC/LINK Project. However, the selection of the exact monitoring location within the monitoring area was based on practicality.