Advertisement

The use of lighting simulation in the evidence-based design process: A case study approach using visual comfort analysis in offices

  • Anahita DavoodiEmail author
  • Peter Johansson
  • Myriam Aries
Open Access
Research Article Building Thermal, Lighting, and Acoustics Modeling
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

The EBD-SIM (evidence-based design, simulation) framework is a conceptual framework developed to integrate the use of lighting simulation in the EBD process to provide a holistic performance evaluation method. A real-time case study, executed in a fully operational office building, is used to demonstrate the framework’s performance. The case study focused on visual comfort analysis. The objective is to demonstrate the applicability of the developed EBD-SIM framework using correlations between current visual comfort metrics and actual human perception as evaluation criteria. The data were collected via simulation for visual comfort analysis and via questionnaires for instantaneous and annual visual comfort perception. The study showed that for user perception, the most crucial factor for visual comfort is the amount of light on a task area, and simple metrics such as Eh-room and Eh-task had a higher correlation with perceived visual comfort than complex performance metrics such as Daylight Autonomy (DA). To improve the design process, the study suggests that, among other things, post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) should be conducted more frequently to obtain better insight into user perception of daylight and subsequently use new evidence to further improve the design of the EBD-SIM model.

Keywords

building performance simulation lighting simulation lighting quality visual comfort office field study evidence-based design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Region Jönköpings Län’s FoU-fond Fastigheter and the Bertil and Britt Svenssons Stiftelse för Belysningsteknik. Also, we would like to acknowledge the valuable comments by the reviewers of the journal of Building Simulation and Professor Christine Räisänen for proofreading the manuscript.

Funding note

Open access funding provided by Jönköping University.

References

  1. Bian Y, Luo T (2017). Investigation of visual comfort metrics from subjective responses in China: A study in offices with daylight. Building and Environment, 123: 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bluyssen PM, Aries M, van Dommelen P (2011). Comfort of workers in office buildings: The European HOPE project. Building and Environment, 46: 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham JF (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cannavale A, Fiorito F, Resta D, Gigli G (2013). Visual comfort assessment of smart photovoltachromic windows. Energy and Buildings, 65: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannavale A, Hörantner M, Eperon GE, Snaith HJ, Fiorito F, Ayr U, Martellotta F (2017). Building integration of semitransparent perovskite-based solar cells: Energy performance and visual comfort assessment. Applied Energy, 194: 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlopio JR (1996). Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1: 330–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlucci S, Causone F, de Rosa F, Pagliano L (2015). A review of indices for assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building integrated design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47: 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatzikonstantinou I, Sariyildiz S (2016). Approximation of simulation-derived visual comfort indicators in office spaces: a comparative study in machine learning. Architectural Science Review, 59: 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costanzo V, Donn M (2017). Thermal and visual comfort assessment of natural ventilated office buildings in Europe and North America. Energy and Buildings, 140: 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuttle C (2015). Lighting Design: A Perception-Based Approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Davoodi A (2016). Lighting simulation for a more value-driven building design process. Licentiate Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  12. Davoodi A, Johansson P, Henricson M, Aries M (2017). A conceptual framework for integration of evidence-based design with lighting simulation tools. Buildings, 7: 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon R, Vischer JC (1987). Derivation of the Tenant Questionnaire Survey assessment method: Office building occupant survey data analysis, Public works Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Dykes C, Baird G (2013). A review of questionnaire-based methods used for assessing and benchmarking indoor environmental quality. Intelligent Buildings International, 5: 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman LA (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32: 148–170.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heschong L, Wymelenberg VD, Andersen M, Digert N, Fernandes L, Keller A, Loveland J, McKay H, Mistrick R, Mosher B (2012). IES LM-83-12. Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), IES-Illuminating Engineering Society.Google Scholar
  17. Hien WN, Poh LK, Feriadi H (2000). The use of performance-based simulation tools for building design and evaluation—a Singapore perspective. Building and Environment, 35: 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hygge S, Lofberg H (1997). User evaluation of visual comfort in some buildings of the Daylight Europe Project. In: Proceedings of Right Light Four, the fourth European conference on Energy-Efficient Lighting, Copenhagen, Denmark, vol. 2, pp. 69–74.Google Scholar
  19. Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF (2011). DIVA 2.0: integrating daylight and thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D, Daysim and Energyplus. In: Proceedings of the 12th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF (2012). The “adaptive zone”—A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Research & Technology, 44: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF, Van Den Wymelenberg K (2015). Towards an integrated framework for predicting visual comfort conditions from luminance-based metrics in perimeter daylit spaces. In: Proceedings of the 14th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
  22. Kent MG, Fotios S, Altomonte S (2019a). An experimental study on the effect of visual tasks on discomfort due to peripheral glare. Leukos, 15: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kent MG, Fotios S, Altomonte S (2019b). Discomfort glare evaluation: The influence of anchor bias in luminance adjustments. Lighting Research & Technology, 51: 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konis K, Lee E, Clear R (2011). Visual comfort analysis of innovative interior and exterior shading systems for commercial buildings using high resolution luminance images. Leukos, 7: 167–188.Google Scholar
  25. Konis K (2013). Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco, California. Building and Environment, 59: 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linhart F, Scartezzini J-L (2011). Evening office lighting—Visual comfort vs. energy efficiency vs. performance? Building and Environment, 46: 981–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malone E, Harmsen C, Reno K, Edelstein E, Hamilton D, Salvatore A (2008). An introduction to evidence based design: Exploring healthcare and design. Concord, CA: The Center for Health Design.Google Scholar
  28. Michael A, Heracleous C (2017). Assessment of natural lighting performance and visual comfort of educational architecture in Southern Europe: The case of typical educational school premises in Cyprus. Energy and Buildings, 140: 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michael A, Gregoriou S, Kalogirou SA (2018). Environmental assessment of an integrated adaptive system for the improvement of indoor visual comfort of existing buildings. Renewable Energy, 115: 620–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motamed A, Deschamps L Scartezzini J-L (2017). On-site monitoring and subjective comfort assessment of a sun shadings and electric lighting controller based on novel High Dynamic Range vision sensors. Energy and Buildings, 149: 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nabil A, Mardaljevic J (2006). Useful daylight illuminances: A replacement for daylight factors. Energy and Buildings, 38: 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newsham GR, Aries MBC, Mancini S, Faye G (2008). Individual control of electric lighting in a daylit space. Lighting Research & Technology, 40: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ochoa CE, Aries MBC, Hensen JLM (2012). State of the art in lighting simulation for building science: A literature review. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5: 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peretti C, Schiavon S (2011). Indoor environmental quality surveys. A brief literature review. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Austion, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Reinhart C, Fitz A (2006). Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design. Energy and Buildings, 38: 824–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinhart CF, Mardaljevic J, Rogers Z (2006). Dynamic daylight perormance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos, 3: 1–25.Google Scholar
  37. Ruck N, Aschehoug O, Aydinli S, Christoffersen J, Edmonds I, Jakobiak R, Kischkoweit-Lopin M, Klinger M, Lee E, Courret G (2000). Daylight in buildings—A source book on daylighting systems and components. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Stokols D, Scharf T (1990). Developing standardized tools for assessing employees’ ratings of facility performance. In: Davis G, Ventre F (eds), Performance of buildings and serviceability of facilities. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  39. USGBC (2008). LEED BD+C: New Construction ∣ v4 — LEED v4: Daylight. Available at https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-commercial-interiors-schools-new-construction-retail-new-construction-ret-1. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  40. Van Den Wymelenberg KG (2013). Evaluating human visual preference and performance in an office environment using luminance-based metrics. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M (2014). A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos, 10: 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M (2016). Evaluating a new suite of luminance-based design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos, 12: 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vassiliades C, Michael A, Savvides A, Kalogirou S (2018). Improvement of passive behaviour of existing buildings through the integration of active solar energy systems. Energy, 163: 1178–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Veitch JA, Charles KE, Farley KMJ, Newsham GR (2007). A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27: 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Velds M, Christofferesen J (2001). Monitoring procedures for the assessment of daylighting performance of buildings. IEA SHC Task 21 “Daylight in Buildings”/ECBCS Annex 29. International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  46. Vera S, Uribe D, Bustamante W, Molina G (2017). Optimization of a fixed exterior complex fenestration system considering visual comfort and energy performance criteria. Building and Environment, 113: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vischer JC (2009). Applying knowledge on building performance: From evidence to intelligence. Intelligent Buildings International, 1: 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vischer JC, Zeisel J (2008). Bridging the gap between research and design. World Health Design, 2008(July): 57–61.Google Scholar
  49. Wienold J, Christoffersen J (2006). Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and Buildings, 38: 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anahita Davoodi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Johansson
    • 1
  • Myriam Aries
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting ScienceJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations