Elsevier

Building and Environment

Volume 50, April 2012, Pages 155-164
Building and Environment

The daylit area – Correlating architectural student assessments with current and emerging daylight availability metrics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.024Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper proposes a method for testing current and emerging daylight availability metrics such as daylighting factor, daylight autonomy, useful daylight illuminance and LEED 3.0 requirements against building occupant assessments of a daylit space. During spring 2011 the method was tested as a classroom exercise by 60 architectural students enrolled in two graduate-level building science courses in the 2nd floor studio space of le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center in Cambridge, MA, USA. The results from this test yielded that the Lighting Measurement protocol for Spatial Daylight Autonomy, that is current being developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) daylighting metrics committee, reproduced the student assessments of the daylit area in the space more reliably than the other tested daylight availability metrics. These findings are preliminary and still need to be validated and refined in other spaces. Apart from providing valuable data points for scientific experiments, the method also has substantial educational value as a teaching exercise for architectural students to develop an intuitive understanding of contemporary daylight performance metrics, as well as a feeling of how their personal lighting preferences compare to these metrics.

Highlights

► New method for testing daylight availability metrics against building occupant assessments. ► Method was tested as a classroom exercise by 60 architectural students. ► Daylight autonomy reproduced the student assessments more reliably than other metrics. ► Method has substantial educational value as a teaching exercise for architectural students.

Introduction

What is daylighting, why are we pursuing it, and what is a well daylit space? The answers to these questions are complex and subjective. A rather unambiguous response to the first question is that daylighting describes the controlled use of natural light in and around buildings. Several drivers exist for why one might want to implement daylighting. A starting point for most explorations on daylight is that there must be a certain, program-specific amount of daylight available within a space for the space to be called daylit (daylight availability or sufficiency1). To balance occupant comfort and energy concerns, this amount should neither be too low nor excessive. Another frequently voiced requirement is the ability of building occupants to adapt the (day)light in a space to their programmatic needs. In classrooms and office-type environments – where occupants do not typically have the freedom to adjust their position, and have rather stringent visual comfort requirements – occupants usually have access to movable shading controls to adapt the indoor environment to their needs. In public spaces, such as atria, occupants can adapt by moving around the space. The combination of daylight availability, occupant comfort and energy efficiency leads to a more specific definition of daylighting: A daylit space is primarily lit with natural light and combines high occupant satisfaction with the visual and thermal environment with low overall energy use for lighting, heating and cooling [1]. The three categories are linked. For example, when blinds are lowered to avoid discomfort glare, the interior daylight availability is reduced, the electric lighting may be switched on and heating or cooling loads my change accordingly.

Thinking of daylighting in terms of three linked but separate design objectives (appropriate light levels, occupant comfort and building energy use) can help designers to work on one objective at a time. In order to do so, metrics are required to reliably evaluate the design intent of each category. The objective of this paper is to test the first category, i.e. how contemporary daylight availability metrics compare with occupant evaluations of a daylit space.

Section snippets

Review of daylight availability metrics

A variety of daylight availability metrics based on rules of thumb and computer simulations have been proposed in the past. The most common rule of thumb used to rate daylight availability in a sidelit space is the window-head-height rule of thumb. The rule relates the distance from floor to the head of a window to how far “adequate, useful and balanced daylight enters the spaces for most of the year” [2]. A simulation-based validation study of this rule of thumb for unobstructed facades

Student assignments

During spring 2011 the first author taught two semester-long graduate-level classes to architectural students, a required introductory class on Environmental Technologies in Buildings (6205) and an elective class on Daylighting Buildings (6332). Enrollments for the classes were 45 and 15 students, respectively. There was no student overlap between the two classes. Course 6205 was concerned with basic phenomena of heat flow, lighting and acoustics whereas the primary focus of Course 6332 was the

Assignment results

15 students enrolled in GSD course 6332 completed their assignments on February 14, 2011, a mostly sunny day. On April 4, 2011, a mostly overcast day, 45 students enrolled in GSD course 6205, repeated the experiment. All participants were asked to make their recordings between 11 am and 2 pm on the given day. Submitted assignments were then digitized and the daylit area boundaries were traced and compiled using the Adobe Creative Suite software [20]. After importing all vectors into Rhinoceros,

Discussion

What can the reader learn from these results? First, for the investigated space the IESNA daylight autonomy metric and the window-head-height rule of thumb both correlate well with the 60 student assessments. This result is encouraging for the IESNA Daylighting Metrics Committee. The close agreement between the rule of thumb and the daylight autonomy calculation are not surprising given that the rule was previously validated based on daylight autonomy simulations [2]. For the daylight factor,

Conclusion

Regardless of a computer algorithm’s sophistication, at the end of the day, recommended practices and digital models exist to test conditions in reality, and provide feedback for design. It is still unclear how such metrics stand up to the realities and nuances of human perception. Yet, models must be correlated to how humans perceive the world. This study proposes a simple method for such validation. Secondly, in this world of perpetuating standards and ever-more sophisticated and easy to use

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the Le Corbusier Foundation and the Harvard University Department of Visual and Environmental Studies for letting us use the Carpenter Center for the student assignment. We also thank Ms. Shelby Doyle for building a detailed Rhinoceros model of the Carpenter model. This work has been supported by the Office for Executive Education at Harvard University Graduate School of Design as well as a Dean’s Grant.

References (21)

  • C.F. Reinhart et al.

    The daylighting dashboard – a simulation-based design analysis for daylit spaces

    Building and Environment

    (2011)
  • C.F. Reinhart et al.

    Dynamic radiance-based daylight simulations for a full-scale test office with outer venetian blinds

    Energy & Buildings

    (2001)
  • C.F. Reinhart, A simulation-based review of the ubiquitous window-head-height to daylit zone depth rule of thumb....
  • P. Moon et al.

    Illumination from a non-uniform sky

    Illuminating Engineering Society of NewYork

    (1942)
  • A. Nabil et al.

    Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm to access daylight in buildings

    Lighting Research & Technology

    (2005)
  • C. Reinhart et al.

    Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design

    Leukos

    (2006)
  • J. Mardaljevic et al.

    Daylight metrics and energy savings

    Lighting Research and Technology

    (2009)
  • USGBC

    LEED-NC (leadership in energy and environmental design) version 2.2

    (2006)
  • USGBC

    LEED-NC (leadership in energy and environmental design) version 3.0

    (2009)
  • IESNA

    Lighting measurment – spatial daylight autonomy (draft)

    (September 2011)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (105)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text