LH Ismail (2007). An evaluation of bioclimatic high rise office buildings in a tropical climate: energy consumption and users' satisfaction in selected office buildings in Malaysia. PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

1. CHAPTER 10: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.0 Introduction
The cases study buildings described in chapter five represent a different spectrum of building
types, from different kinds of head office buildings and administrative centres, through a
couple of office and retail developments, to a speculative mix of government and private
offices. They range in size from 7000 to 30000m2
, and while most are fifteen to twenty
storeys in height, one has more than sixty storeys (KOMTAR) with nearly 190,000 m2
. The
climatic zones covered by these buildings are reasonably extensively warm humid conditions
of South East Asia with outside design temperatures in a comparatively narrow band around
26°C to 32°C. While all of the buildings are between latitudes 3° and 6° N, both functionally
and aesthetically, the systems of thermal environmental control used in all of these buildings
demonstrate the outstanding skills of the design teams involved in using the climate
conditions of the region and site to advantage.
The observation on the selected buildings discover the designers’ initiative and creativity in
coping with site and other constraints that made it possible for them to follow some of the
necessarily idealised guidelines particularly as regards shape, orientation and windows, and
in balancing the requirements of good environmental control against the other necessary
functions of the building and constraints of the site. The question then becomes one of what
are the common characteristics that these buildings exhibit, in terms of the expression of
their control systems: environment, shape, orientation, windows and energy, and what can be
learned from them.
The intention here is to remind ourselves of the key features of the design approaches of
these teams; to summarise how the systems of comfort environmental control have been
expressed, both in the overall form of the buildings and in the detail of their passive and
active elements; to highlight some of their unique features; and to outline any performance
issues that have emerged (see research questions in section 10.3).
10.1 Project Background
In most bioclimatic buildings, the client had an expressed interest in having a low-energy
building and was supportive of environmentally conscious design in one form or another. In
some instances this was part of company policy or laid down in the brief along with a desire

2. to demonstrate energy efficiency. In the case of UMNO, full air-conditioning was simply not
allowed except under special circumstances. In most cases, most of the clients used a
competition or a selection process to decide on their preferred concept or design but in a few
instances they had approached a specific architect directly. Clearly, they all knew who would
give them the building that fitted their needs from an environmental, as well as other point of
view. They simply required the natural ventilation and natural lighting available as far as
possible and preferably under the direct control of the occupants.
In conventional buildings, there seemed to be an increasing acceptance of managers that it
should not be necessary to operate air-conditioning systems over all areas; and that internal
temperatures were not lowered by more than a specified degree, rather than attempting to
maintain a constant comfort zone and reduce energy consumption. This conversion in
attitude from fully air-conditioned ‘norm’ was not quite complete. In the case of KOMTAR
and LUTH, it was insisted that their office be fully air-conditioned but efforts were made to
limit the cooling loads and employ an energy-efficient HVAC system. Nevertheless, it is
clear that most of these managers were fully supportive of the kind of approach that might
lead to the expression of environmental control systems by their chosen operations teams.
While three of the projects (bioclimatic buildings) were designed by a very well established
multidisciplinary practice, most of the others had been carried out by (also well established)
architects and engineers whose otherwise independent practices had built up a relationship
with one another over many years. Only in one case were the architect and engineer working
together for the first time (UMNO), but always against a background of long experience. In
most of these projects the environmental systems engineer or specialist was involved from
the earliest possible stage, and was expected to make a contribution to the overall design
process.
In the remaining cases (conventional buildings), while one might reasonably expect
engineers to strive automatically for energy efficiency in their designs, architects have no
desire to take positive steps towards a more environmentally friendly built environment. Low
energy use, natural ventilation and daylight, employing local materials and passive cooling
systems which were all seen as appropriate design aims were not applied in the design. There
should be a determination on the part of both architects and engineers to put more control of
the internal environment back into the hands of the building users.

3. 10.2 Hypothesis Review
The hypothesis in this study as mentioned in Chapter 1: shows the great advantage of
bioclimatic building:
Hypothesis 1:
“High rise office buildings in Malaysia incorporating bioclimatic design have better
environmental performance and consume less energy than conventional ones”
 The transformation of bioclimatic approach from traditional into modern building in
Malaysia can be seen in several components of the design.
 The bioclimatic approach provides natural ventilation and consequently will reduce
energy consumption for cooling strategies especially from air-conditioning systems.
 The bioclimatic building must finally benefit from the natural light or day lighting
strategies that will significantly reduce energy consumption for lighting.
Hypothesis 2:
“Bioclimatic buildings create a better working environment for the users and provide
higher level of satisfaction than conventional ones”.
 The bioclimatic approach creates a better environment for the building users and they do
perceive the bioclimatic building.
Architectural Features Findings
While the impact of the overall form of a building on its thermal environmental performance
may not always be apparent to the lay person, the influence of shape and orientation should
be immediately evident to the well informed professional. In the case of IBM and
MESINIAGA, the shape of the roof also reflected the natural ventilation imperative,
particularly where a deeper plan shape had been used and direct cross ventilation would be
inadequate. In the case of Menara UMNO, it is the wing walls rather than the roof that
express the natural ventilation intentions of the designer.
One of the main aims in the majority of cases had been to optimise the use of both natural
daylight and natural ventilation, the effect on the shape was clearly evident though by no
means uniform. While some of the buildings had relatively narrow plans to achieve these
aims (UMNO & TIMA), most utilised courtyards as their means of obtaining both natural
lighting and ventilation within a compact plan layout (UMNO & MESINIAGA). That is not
to say that all the buildings tend to have the same shape, far from it. The end to one side

4. (UMNO & IBM) and the circular (MESINIAGA) plan with a diameter sufficiently small to
allow natural light and ventilation to the offices situated around the perimeter. However, the
deeper layout plan in most conventional buildings (KOMTAR, TIMA and LUTH) makes
this situation difficult to achieve.
Natural Ventilation Features
The promotion of air movement by cross-ventilation had an important influence on building
orientation. IBM Plaza, for example, was orientated to catch the predominant winds: and
although constrained by its site on a city block, the wing walls of Menara UMNO are
similarly oriented. Shape also plays an important part in providing solar shading in these two
buildings the completely blank easterly facades of UMNO blocking early morning solar heat
gains, and the twin rectangular service core at both end sides of IBM providing shading
throughout the day.
At Menara UMNO and Menara MESINIAGA, the sky courts have been used successfully to
bring air and light into the building and to provide appropriate shading. The wing walls at
Menara UMNO set a precedent for enhancing natural ventilation potential in the warm and
humid climatic regions. Second, double façade design effectively solves the technical
problem of how to provide natural ventilation to high-rise buildings. Communal spaces were
used as places where the outdoor and indoor environments mixed around and neutralised
each other while the indoor office spaces remain fully air-conditioned.
Natural Lighting Features
Beside the building shapes that gave expression to their systems of thermal environmental
control, their orientation in relation to the sun did so too. In the majority of the rectangular
buildings, their long axis area is in east-west façade. All this is in the interests of achieving
simple control of solar heat gain and glare. In both case types, bioclimatic and conventional
had little or no glazing and more often than not were the location for services ducts,
stairwells, lift shafts, toilet areas and the like, again providing control of low-angle solar
radiation and glare to the served spaces. Unwanted solar gain can be as important as wanted
solar gain. External reduction or as may be desired particularly for west windows through the
year complete intervention can be more effectual to avoid west external sun gain and interior
space overheating. South solar gain could be said to be the most advantageously used for all
types of architecture in which the sun’s radiation is low and serves best relative to interior
occupancy functions for gaining day lighting.

5. 10.3 Summary of Major Findings
The back-bone of this research is strongly based on the principles that ‘bioclimatic approach
design for tall buildings was introduced and implemented to resolve problems which
conventional high-rise design does not. The approach was presumed to be the corrective
strategies of the early skyscrapers’. The questions were:
 Does the bioclimatic approach create a better environment for the building users?
 How do building users perceive the bioclimatic design?
 How does it affect their behaviours within the building?
 Does it really reduce energy consumption and by how much?
 What are the bioclimatic features that contribute in low energy building design?
 How does a bioclimatic approach reduce energy use in existing building?
10.3.1 Energy Used
Chapter 4 shows the calculated energy consumption for MESINIAGA was found to be the
highest among all buildings. TIMA shows the lowest followed by UMNO, LUTH and
KOMTAR. It was quite surprising that MESINIAGA consumed the most energy compared
to the other buildings. The calculated electricity consumption for MESINIAGA is
260kWh/m2
/year. It is a bit higher than that of KOMTAR, LUTH and UMNO. TIMA is the
lowest at about 102kWh/m2
/year (see table 10.2). Subsequent to the new Malaysian Standard
MS 1525: 2001, "Code of Practice on Energy Efficiency and use of Renewable Energy for
Non-residential Buildings", MESINIAGA is not entitled to be classified as a low energy
office building as well as KOMTAR and LUTH. However, UMNO and TIMA are well
classified as low energy office buildings. With reference to the current standard, an office
building can be classified as low energy office (LEO) building if the energy consumption is
lesser than 135 kWh/m2
/year (MECM, 2004).
Since the CO2 emissions produced have a direct relationship with the total energy use, the
actual CO2 emission per square meter produced by MESINIAGA is therefore the highest
among all the case study buildings (see table 10.3).

6. Table 10.1: Energy consumption in all buildings (CIBSE TM31, 2003).
BUILDING UMNO MESINIAGA KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Total Build Up Area
(m2
)
7,412.92 10,960.31 146,020.73 28,125.19 28,761.95
Average Yearly
(kWh/year)
958,140.00 2,854,889.10 32,364,356.76 2,874,137.14 5,496,976.57
Usage/year/m2
(kWh/year/m2
)
129.25 260.48 221.64 102.19 191.12
Table 10.2: Overall annual energy performance (electricity) and CO2 emission
Building Energy Performance for Electricity (12 month) Period
Based on a Gross Floor Area (m2
)
BUILDING UMNO MESINIAGA KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Gross Floor Area
(m2
)
7,412.92 10,960.31 146,020.73 28,125.19 28,761.95
[A]
Quantity (kWh)
958,140.00 2,854,889.10 32,364,356.76 2,874,137.14 5,496,976.57
[B] CO2 ratio
(kg CO2/kWh)
0.43* 0.43* 0.43* 0.43* 0.43*
[C] CO2 emission
(kg CO2/year)
412,000.20 1,227,602.31 13,916,673.41 1,235,878.97 2,363,699.93
[D] Actual CO2
emission
(kg CO2/m2
/year)
55.58 112.00 95.31 43.94 82.18
* This value may change year to year due to changes in the mix of electricity generation plant.
Ensure that actual consumption figures do not include estimated bills and ensure they relate to a full exact 12
months period. Multiply column [A] by column [B] to get column [C] then divided by treated total building floor
area to get [D] (Source: CIBSE: TM31)
Table 10.3: Building rank by architectural features (office space)
FEATURESBUILDING
Best Worst
1 6
BIOCLIMATIC CONVENTIONAL
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Office Space
General Layout 3 1 2 5 4 6
Adequacy of Space 2 1 4 5 3 6
Flexibility of Space Use 3 1 2 5 4 6
Ceiling Height 3 1 2 6 4 5
Window Size 4 1 5 6 3 2
Window Position 3 1 2 6 4 5
Outside View from Working Areas 1 2 5 4 6 3
Difficulty to close/open window 3 1 2 6 5 4
Satisfaction with the Windows 6 1 2 4 5 3
Point 28 10 26 47 38 40
Ranking 3 1 2 6 4 5
Building ranking:
1. MESINIAGA
2. IBM
3. UMNO
4. TIMA
5. LUTH
6. KOMTAR

7. 10.3.2 Architectural Features (Office Area)
Users’ perceptions of various architectural features specific to their office space as discussed
in Chapter 5 show that all bioclimatic buildings are better rated than all the conventional
ones in terms of the general layout, flexibility of space use, ceiling height, window position
and difficulty to close or open windows. However, features such as adequacy of space,
window size, outside view from office areas, and satisfaction with available windows in the
office area, show that certain conventional building has a better rating. MESINIAGA is the
best ranked building followed by IBM, UMNO, TIMA, LUTH and KOMTAR in terms of
users’ perceptions towards architectural feature in offices spaces. Significantly, the tests on
architectural features in office areas in this study show an advantage to the users in
bioclimatic building types.
10.3.3 Architectural Features (Communal Area & Building Services)
Chapter 6 shows how communal spaces in bioclimatic buildings, for some reasons have a
lower rating. Such features are the pleasantness of the main entrance, public corridor and
accessibility and outside view from communal areas, the overall satisfaction with the public
area spaces and the aesthetics, image and prestige of the building. The ranking for all case
study buildings for each evaluated features (communal area & building services) is in table
10.4.
There are elements where not all bioclimatic buildings are better rated than the conventional
ones. For instance, the main entrance of two conventional buildings (i.e. TIMA and LUTH)
is better rated than IBM and UMNO. The rating for public corridor and accessibility for
TIMA is better than that of IBM. The rating for aesthetics, image and prestige also show
TIMA has a better rating than UMNO and IBM. However in most cases, MESINIAGA is the
best rated building for all communal space features. The other two bioclimatic buildings
(UMNO and IBM) sometimes fall behind the conventional building but most of the time
they are in second or third place. Among conventional buildings, TIMA is the best rated for
several features and sometimes greatly better than UMNO or IBM. However, TIMA is the
lowest rated for overall satisfaction with the public area spaces.
All bioclimatic buildings are better rated than the conventional ones in term of access to
terraces and circulation as well as landscaping in the communal area. KOMTAR
(conventional) has a better result than IBM (bioclimatic) in the rating for outside view from

8. communal areas. The roof tops on conventional buildings are designed purposely for helipad
and fire exit whereas on bioclimatic buildings the roof tops were design for various
activities. Users in bioclimatic buildings appreciate the roof top space as the roof tops are
more highly rated in those buildings than the conventional ones. The overall ratings show
that MESINIAGA is the best rated building followed by UMNO, TIMA, IBM, KOMTAR
and LUTH. This result shows that the new design of conventional building (TIMA) has a
better rating than the earliest bioclimatic building (IBM).
Table 10.4: Building rank by architectural features (communal spaces & services)
FEATURESBUILDING
Best Worst
1 6
BIOCLIMATIC CONVENTIONAL
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Communal Spaces
Main Entrance Pleasantness 3 1 5 6 2 4
Public Corridor and Accessibility 2 1 4 5 3 6
Access to Terraces and Circulation 2 1 3 4 4 4
Outside View from Common Areas 2 1 4 3 5 6
Satisfaction with Public Area Spaces 5 1 2 4 6 3
Aesthetic, Image and Prestige 4 1 3 6 2 5
Landscaping in the Common Area 3 1 2 4 6 5
Sky Court 2 1 3 4 4 4
Roof Top 2 1 3 5 4 6
Point 25 9 29 41 36 43
Ranking 2 1 3 5 4 6
Building Services
Parking Spaces 5 6 4 3 1 2
Lift Lobby Area Pleasantness 3 1 4 6 2 5
Lift Services Interval Time 3 2 4 5 1 6
Overall Lift Services in building 4 1 3 5 2 6
Point 15 10 15 19 6 19
Ranking 3 2 3 4 1 4
Total Points 40 19 44 60 42 62
Overall Ranking 2 1 4 5 3 6
10.3.4 Environmental Measurements
Bioclimatic buildings have average temperature ranges from 23.1°C to 25.7°C with an
average of 24.1°C, slightly higher than that of conventional buildings, 23.0°C to 24.3°C with
an average of 23.6°C. The relative humidity for all bioclimatic buildings on average is
58.5%, slightly lower than that of conventional types which is 61.8%. The air velocity in
bioclimatic buildings on average shows a bit higher than the conventional ones with an
average of 0.08 ms-1
and 0.06 ms-1
respectively. However the average reading for these

9. parameters are within the comfort range suggested by many standards as mentioned earlier.
The light intensity level (combine sources) for all buildings shows an average for bioclimatic
is 2977 lux, lower than the conventional ones, 3112 lux. The measured levels for both types
are higher than the recommended level for office lighting which is between (500 to 1000
lux). The sound level reading shows that bioclimatic buildings have an average of 73.8
dB(A) slightly lower than that of conventional ones 76.3 dB(A). Both types of building have
higher sound level than supposed to be in an office building which should be between 60 –
70 dBA.
10.3.5 Environmental Perception
The theoretical study presumed that users in bioclimatic building perceived the indoor
environment better than that of conventional ones. However, based on the results in this
study, not all conditions are true and not all bioclimatic buildings perform as expected. In
terms of overall thermal, ventilation and acoustic conditions, all bioclimatic buildings are
mostly better than conventional buildings. However the overall lighting condition shows that
not all bioclimatic building is better than conventional. In fact IBM (bioclimatic building) is
the lowest rated among all.
The ranking for UMNO, MESINIAGA and IBM for thermal, ventilation and acoustic
conditions in office areas shows that bioclimatic buildings have a better position than all
conventional ones, KOMTAR, TIMA and LUTH. This significantly portrays bioclimatic
buildings as having better thermal and acoustic conditions than conventional ones.
Conclusions for visual comfort are likely to be quite difficult to explain as all conventional
buildings (KOMTAR, TIMA and LUTH) have a better position than IBM in the ranking.
The overall ranking for satisfaction towards environmental conditions can be described from
good to worst as follow: MESINIAGA, UMNO, TIMA, IBM, KOMTAR and LUTH. There
is considerable evidence that even in highly controlled environments quite poor levels of
occupant satisfaction still persist. People are comfortable in environments where conditions
fall well outside the strict comfort limits. The claimed advantage of “bioclimatic high rise
office building creating a better working environment for the users and providing higher
levels of satisfaction than conventional ones” is clearly substantiated in term of thermal,
ventilation and acoustic factors both in office spaces and communal areas. However lighting
does not make a significant contribution to substantiate the hypothesis.

10. Table 10.5: Building rank by users’ perception towards environmental conditions
FEATURESBUILDING
Best Worst
1 6
BIOCLIMATIC CONVENTIONAL
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
A. Office Spaces
Thermal
Thermal sensation in the office 2 4 3 6 1 5
Quality of thermal condition 4 1 3 6 2 5
Satisfaction towards thermal condition 6 1 2 5 3 4
Point 12 6 8 17 6 14
Ranking 3 1 2 5 1 4
Ventilation
Air Movement from natural ventilation 3 1 2 4 6 5
Quality of natural ventilation 2 1 3 4 6 5
Satisfaction towards natural ventilation 4 1 2 3 6 5
Air circulation from air conditioner 2 4 3 5 1 6
Quality of air conditioner air circulation 3 1 4 5 2 6
Satisfaction towards air conditioner 4 2 1 6 3 5
Point 18 10 15 27 24 32
Ranking 3 1 2 5 4 6
Lighting
Level of natural light 2 4 5 1 6 3
Quality of natural light 2 1 6 4 5 3
Satisfaction level towards natural light 4 1 6 2 5 3
Level of artificial lighting 1 3 6 2 5 4
Quality of artificial lighting 2 1 5 6 3 4
Satisfaction towards artificial lighting 5 1 4 3 6 2
Point 16 11 32 18 30 19
Ranking 2 1 6 3 5 4
Acoustic
Noise condition 1 3 2 5 4 6
Quality of the noise 3 1 4 5 2 6
Satisfaction towards noise condition 3 2 1 5 4 6
Point 7 6 7 15 10 18
Ranking 2 1 2 4 3 5
Total Points (Office area) 53 33 62 77 70 83
Overall Ranking (Office Area) 2 1 3 5 4 6
B. Communal Spaces
Thermal
Quality of thermal at Lift Lobby 2 1 5 6 3 4
Quality of thermal at Corridor 2 1 4 6 3 5
Point 4 2 9 12 6 9
Ranking 2 1 4 6 3 5
Ventilation
Quality of natural ventilation at lift lobby 3 1 2 5 4 6
Quality of natural ventilation at corridor 2 1 3 5 4 6
Quality of air conditioner at lift lobby 3 1 4 5 2 6
Quality of air conditioner at corridor 3 1 4 5 2 6
Point 11 4 13 20 12 24
Ranking 2 1 4 5 3 6
Lighting
Quality of natural light at lift lobby 4 1 3 6 2 5
Quality of natural light at corridor 4 1 2 5 3 6
Quality of artificial lighting at lift lobby 2 1 6 5 3 4
Quality of artificial lighting at corridor 3 1 4 6 2 5
Point 13 4 15 22 10 20
Ranking 3 1 4 6 2 5
Acoustic
Quality of noise at lift lobby 2 1 4 6 3 5
Quality of noise at corridor 2 1 3 5 4 6
Point 4 2 7 11 7 11
Ranking 2 1 3 4 3 4
Total Points (Communal area) 32 12 44 65 35 64
Overall Ranking (Communal area) 2 1 4 6 3 5
Total Points (Grand) 85 45 106 142 105 147
Overall Ranking (Grand) 2 1 4 5 3 6

11. 10.3.6 Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses for various cross tabulations in this chapter show the following
results:
 Male respondents have higher satisfaction levels towards the window available in their
office than the female.
 There is a strong association between gender and satisfaction with thermal conditions in
the office. Female respondents have lower satisfaction level than the males.
 Administrators are highly satisfied with the natural ventilation in the office space.
 Executive are among the most satisfied respondents towards the noise level in the office.
The relationships between these variables are statistically significant and do not happen
by chance. The relationship between the two variables is strong.
 Respondents with more colleagues working in the same area are quite dissatisfied with
the thermal conditions in the office.
 Respondents who have a higher number of colleagues working in the same room are
more dissatisfied with the public spaces in the building than those who have a lower
number of colleagues working in the same room.
 Respondents with a higher number of colleagues working in the same room are happier
than those who have a lower number of colleagues working in the same area.
 Respondents in the higher zone are more dissatisfied with the thermal conditions than
those in the middle and lower zones.
 Respondents in the lower zone are more satisfied with the overall office environment
than those in the middle and upper zones.
10.4 Design Recommendation for Comfort Conditions
Spaces which are on the perimeter of the building and which can benefit from daylight and
natural ventilation are said to be in the passive zone. For typical ceiling heights the potential
passive zone will be about 5.5m deep, or twice the floor to ceiling height. This is a
theoretical maximum and in real cases may be reduced by the presence of furniture or
obstructions caused, for example, by an atrium. Small increases in ceiling height have a
significant impact on genuinely usable floor area. The proportion of the area of the passive
zone of the building to the total floor area will give an indication of the building’s potential
for employing passive energy saving techniques. Note that it is only potential. In practice
many buildings have perimeter zones which are wastefully air conditioned and artificially lit.

12. If the occupants of a building are subjected to discomfort for substantial periods no amount
of architectural pleasure will compensate, nor will it reduce energy bills. Thus the guidelines
below stress the prevention of discomfort sources, particularly those where the occupant is
less likely to find them avoidable by actions such as changing position, or opening a
window.
Thermal comfort
A number of particular areas where care must be taken to avoid conflicts between passive
and low-energy measures, and thermal comfort, are listed below:
 Avoid overcooling of the space by providing adequate cooling plant and emitter
capacity. Do not overestimate the cooling load during the pre-cooling period.
 Avoid over cooling the space in relation to occupant activity level and clothing.
 Avoid local radiant heat gain and over draughts due to closeness to large areas of glazing
by attention to room layout.
 In air-conditioned buildings, consider the positioning of inlet and outlet grilles to give
good air distribution without local draughts. This is more important in low-energy
buildings where delivery temperatures may be low.
 Use of shading devices to avoid overheating the space from solar and casual gains.
 Avoid local overheating of occupants from direct sunlight by providing exterior shaded
areas. There can be a conflict between avoid glare and heat with the desire to maximise
day lighting benefits and outside view.
Visual comfort
The designer must be aware that in addition to lighting levels, there are other parameters that
affect visual comfort. These include freedom from glare, freedom from veiling reflections
and, particularly in the case of artificial lighting, colour rendering. Listed below are a
number of strategic objectives:
 The design should ensure that all permanent workplaces are day lighted for the majority
of the hours of daylight.
 Sufficient illumination must be provided to enable the occupants to carry out their
particular tasks in comfort.
 Large areas of vertical glazing for deep daylight penetration will need careful detailed
design, possibly including redirecting elements such as light shelves, to avoid glare from
direct sunlight and bright diffuse sky.

13.  Consider the positioning and reflectance of surfaces both inside and outside the building
to minimise the risk of glare.
 Artificial illumination should be low in glare and of good colour rendering, especially in
areas where occupants spend long periods. This consideration should influence choice of
both lamp and luminaries.
 Where automatic light switching controls are used, ensure that they do not create
irritation and interference to occupants. Dimming controls may be preferable to on/off
controls.
 Both day lighting and artificial lighting should be designed with recognition of the tasks
to be carried out in the space.
Acoustic comfort
There are three major areas of conflict between acoustic comfort and passive building
design. Firstly, the use of heavyweight surfaces to provide thermal mass will reduce the
acoustic absorption and lead to a reverberant space. Secondly, the provision of ventilation
paths through partitions and internal windows may lead to noise propagation and privacy
problems. Thirdly, outdoor conditions, e.g. heavy road traffic noise, may prevent openable
windows from being used. Listed below are a few initial recommendations:
 Provide free standing acoustic absorption by partitions, drapes, baffles, etc., while
maintaining access to thermal mass. This is especially relevant, also, in large volumes
such as atria if present.
 Place acoustic absorbers at critical positions in air flow paths to reduce reflections of
noise between zones via hard surfaces.
 Care should be taken to avoid excessive absorption at desk level without ensuring that
ceiling reflections are minimised. Otherwise local quiet conditions will lead to a loss of
acoustic privacy by attenuated reflections from the ceiling.
 Consider the detail design of window openings in order to reduce transmitted sound
whilst providing adequate air flow.
 Staggered opening double windows, acoustic attenuating ventilators, and glazed angled
reflectors, provide varying degrees of attenuation and will be appropriate for sources of
external noise.

14. 10.5 Energy Consumption
Direct energy cost savings (fuel and electricity) and other life cycle savings yield a good rate
of return based on the initial investment. Other peripheral benefits include improved air
quality from reduced fuel consumption. Reducing the overall collective electrical load
significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions, the primary greenhouse gas concerned in
global climate change. Below are a few primary suggestions for energy efficiency and clean
energy resources:
 Reduce energy use and demand through passive solar techniques and integrated building
design. This process looks at optimum sitting orientation and maximizes the thermal
efficiency of the building envelope (windows, walls, roof) while considering the
interaction of the HVAC, lighting, and control systems.
 Integrated design uses daylight to reduce electrical demand, and incorporates energy
efficient lighting, motors, and equipment.
 It encourages ‘right-sizing’ of mechanical systems to avoid higher first costs.
 Where feasible, renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic cells and solar hot water
can be used as alternative for low emission technologies, such as fuel cells.
10.6 Contributions
The author hopes that the method and approach of the present study can contribute to a better
understanding for analysing building performance and the realisation of highly energy-
efficient building through a bioclimatic design approach. The significance of the research
results can be divided into the following areas:
 The data gathered and presented in this study
The data gathered and presented in this thesis might be useful for the researcher who has the
same interest and for designers who believe user satisfaction is the priority aim at the end of
their product.
 Understanding users’ perception of indoor local climate
An appreciation of the users’ need for local indoor climate and how they evaluating the
indoor environment will be instructive for designers who want to understand the climatic
conditions as perceived by the occupants.

15.  Strengthening building energy standards
Useful information and experience from other more advanced countries will be a good
reference for future standard development in Malaysia and other developing countries. A
clear understanding of the current standard and its limitations will form a base for its
effective use and future enhancements (such as towards a performance-based approach).
10.7 Limitations
There are some (or many) deficiencies and gaps of this study that the author would like to
point out:
 Lack of real energy consumption data for buildings
This is probably the biggest constraint in Malaysia which makes validation and calibration of
energy evaluation models difficult. Although the technique in this thesis has been adopted
from advanced examples, they are indicative and not in any way sufficient for prediction of
real energy use.
 Only office buildings have been examined
Although bioclimatic office buildings contain many key features in building design, not all
of these features can be extrapolated to other building types.
 Lack of interest from building manager/owner
As building manager/owner in certain buildings has lack interest to determine their building
energy consumption level and their staff satisfaction levels working in the provided
environment, our visit is less appreciated as their commitment is very modest.
 Condusive indoor environment has been addressed
The present study assumes that with the respective building performance, the indoor
environmental criteria have been satisfied. This may not be the case and there is scope for
energy optimisation if indoor conditions are considered effectively.
 Small size of respondents
Due to time and cost constrain, the size of respondents is limited to the number of building
visited and the number of questionnaires returned by the managers. A larger sample should
be used to ensure that statistically valid samples are available in all classifications.

16. 10.8 Recommendation and Suggestion for Future Research
The following topic might be related to the current study and might have good potential for
future research:
 Extensive energy audit and surveys for buildings
They will serve not only to identify the characteristics of building energy use, design
practices and etc. for existing buildings, but also to find out the energy conservation
opportunities for the buildings.
 Analyses for other types of buildings
The approach and methodology in this thesis can be applied to study other types of
bioclimatic building such as high-rise apartment and bungalow, and the results can be
compared to determine the effect of energy conservation strategies in bioclimatic approach.
 Analyses using simulation programs
Some simulation software can be used to perform the analysis so as to study the
characteristics of each tool and the effect on the simulation results.
 Develop and test sustainablity indicators for Malaysia
Since Malaysia is several steps behind in term of building evaluation, it is therefore
important to develop sustainable bioclimatic building evaluation indicators adopted from
various developed countries to fit the local needs (i.e.: LEED, BREEAM, GBTools and etc.).
 Weather database and climatic analysis
Energy effect of large internal surface exposed to outside air temperature. The weather data
and climatic properties related to building energy performance can be built up to form a
technical base for designers and energy analysts.
 Daylight Study
Glare study of primary daylight use in building related to daylight illuminance (brightness)
in office space which includes hours of daylight use and the overall lighting quality in both
types of buildings.

17. 10.9 Conclusion
The ideas of “bioclimatic skyscrapers” design are becoming common among progressive
architects and developers and well-designed high rise buildings can be energy efficient and
provide a better environment to the occupants. There are over 600 high rise buildings in
Kuala Lumpur and over 300 in Penang itself. As the government wants to assure these cities
continued development, given that its businesses require ideal conditions in which to
function, high rise buildings are becoming gradually more necessary as a result of the
resourceful use that they make of the limited land available. The government is also
conscious that sustainable development is a key parameter for action. The effect of high rise
buildings on the energy consumption and on the occupants is considered. New high rise
buildings have to fit within this context (low energy and better environment). Buildings in
the city can be made more sustainable by architecture that responds to the conditions of a site
with integrated structure and building services.
This thesis examines the options for high rise office buildings in the major cities of Malaysia
(Kuala Lumpur and Penang) in the context of sustainable development that focuses on the
architectural design that contributes to energy saving and better environment. An analysis of
new developments in the design ‘bioclimatic approach’, construction and operation of high
rise buildings is followed by a discussion of ‘better performance’ comparisons of several
examples of bioclimatic and conventional design. The major finding of this work is that the
occupants in bioclimatic buildings have a higher level of satisfaction with their working
environment than those in conventional office blocks. There is evidence that bioclimatic
buildings are energy efficient as the most recent bioclimatic building (UMNO), has a lower
energy index than the ASEAN standard and within the latest Malaysian Standard related to
energy efficiency. However the earliest bioclimatic building (MESINIAGA) has the highest
energy index among all buildings, complying to the ASEAN region index but not with the
latest Malaysian Standard.
Historically, high rise buildings have been perceived as inefficient users of energy, although
this is difficult to prove. However, with the new bioclimatic design concept and
technologies, there is no doubt that high rise office buildings in the future would be much
better in design if they provide a better environment to the users and consume less energy.