Daylight Discomfort Glare Evaluation with Evalglare: Influence of Parameters and Methods on the Accuracy of Discomfort Glare Prediction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Datasets
3. Methodology
3.1. Studied Evalglare Methods and Parameters
3.2. Statistical Approaches
3.2.1. Spearman Correlation Coefficient
3.2.2. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve of Binomial Logistic Regression Models
3.2.3. Corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion of Ordinal Logistic Regression Models
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Evalglare Methods
4.2. Background Luminance Definition
4.3. Search Radius
4.4. Task Area Size
4.5. Smooth Option
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE). Discomfort Glare in the Interior Working Environment; Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage: Vienna, Austria, 1983; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Pierson, C.; Wienold, J.; Bodart, M. Review of factors influencing perceived discomfort glare from daylighting. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. N. Am. 2018, 14, 111–148. [Google Scholar]
- Wienold, J.; Christoffersen, J. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of ccd cameras. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wienold, J.; Reetz, C.; Kuhn, T.E.; Christoffersen, J. Evalglare—A new radiance-based tool to evaluate daylight glare in office spaces. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Radiance Workshop, Fribourg, Switzerland, 11–12 October 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Wienold, J. New features of evalglare. In Proceedings of the 11th International Radiance Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–14 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wienold, J.; Andersen, M. Evalglare 2.0–new features faster and more robust hdr-image evaluation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Radiance Workshop, Padua, Italy, 29–31 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wienold, J. Daylight Glare in Offices. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Freiburg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Jakubiec, J.A.; Reinhart, C.F. Diva 2.0: Integrating daylight and thermal simulations using rhinoceros 3d and energyplus. In Proceedings of the Building Simulation 2011 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, Australia, 14–16 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Pierson, C.; Piderit, M.B.; Wienold, J.; Bodart, M. Discomfort glare from daylighting: Influence of culture on discomfort glare perception. In Proceedings of the CIE 2017 Midterm Meeting, Jeju, Korea, 23–25 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Moosmann, C.; Wienold, J.; Wagner, A.; Wittwer, V. AbschluErmittlung Relevanter Einflussgrößen auf Die Subjektive Bewertung von Tageslicht zur Bewertung des Visuellen Komforts in Büroräumen. Abschlussbericht. 2012. Available online: https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000034968 (accessed on 6 June 2018).
- Dubois, M.-C. Impact of Shading Devices on Daylight Quality in Office—Simulations with Radiance; TABK–01/3062; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2001; p. 162. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, J.Y.; Yun, G.Y.; Kim, J.T. View types and luminance effects on discomfort glare assessment from windows. Energy Build. 2012, 46, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bülow-Hübe, H. Daylight in Glazed Office Buildings—A Comparative Study of Daylight Availability, Luminance and Illuminance Distribution for an Office Room with Three Different Glass Areas; EBD-R--08/17; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2008; p. 98. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, E.S.; Clear, R.D.; Fernandes, L.; Ward, G. Commissioning and Verification Procedures for the Automated Roller Shade System at the New York Times Headquarters, New York; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL): Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007; p. 112.
- Van Den Wymelenberg, K.; Inanici, M.; Johnson, P. The effect of luminance distribution patterns on occupant preference in a daylit office environment. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 2010, 7, 103–122. [Google Scholar]
- Chauvel, P.; Collins, J.B.; Dogniaux, R.; Longmore, J. Glare from windows: Current views of the problem. Light. Res. Technol. 1982, 14, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einhorn, H.D. Discomfort glare: A formula to bridge differences. Light. Res. Technol. 1979, 11, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisekis, K.; Davies, M.; Kolokotroni, M.; Langford, P. Prediction of discomfort glare from windows. Light. Res. Technol. 2003, 35, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirning, M.B.; Isoardi, G.L.; Cowling, I. Discomfort glare in open plan green buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 70, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, C.J. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 2009, 40, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diedenhofen, B.; Musch, J. Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed; Wiley: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Safari, S.; Baratloo, A.; Elfil, M.; Negida, A. Evidence based emergency medicine; part 5 receiver operating curve and area under the curve. Emergency 2016, 4, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Venkatraman, E.S.; Begg, C.B. A distribution-free procedure for comparing receiver operating characteristic curves from a paired experiment. Biometrika 1996, 83, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLong, E.R.; DeLong, D.M.; Clarke-Pearson, D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988, 44, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pepe, M.; Longton, G.; Janes, H. Estimation and Comparison of Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves; Biostatistics Working Paper Series; The Berkeley Electronic Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Murtaugh, P.A. In defense of p values. Ecology 2014, 95, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed.; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Brewer, M.J.; Butler, A. Model Selection and the Cult of Aic; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hurvich, C.M.; Tsai, C.-L. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 1989, 76, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarey Khanie, M.; Jia, Y.; Wienold, J.; Andersen, M. A sensitivity analysis on glare detection parameters. In Proceedings of the BS2015-14th International Conference of the International Building Performance Simulation Association, Hyderabad, India, 7–9 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Suk, J.Y.; Schiler, M.; Kensek, K. Investigation of existing discomfort glare indices using human subject study data. Build. Environ. 2017, 113, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhart, C.; Wienold, J. The daylighting dashboard—A simulation-based design analysis for daylit spaces. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyce, P.R. Human Factors in Lighting, 3rd ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; p. 690. [Google Scholar]
Experiment | Subjects | Men/Women Ratio (%) | Mean Age (SD) | Glare Evaluations | 4-Point Glare Scale | Glare Rating Ratio (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Field study | 82 | 43/57 | 36 (11) | 141 | No discomfort A small discomfort A moderate discomfort A large discomfort | 65 20 11 4 |
Laboratory study | 41 | 73/27 | 26 (3) | 180 | Imperceptible Noticeable Disturbing Intolerable | 53 30 17 1 |
def | r0.06 | r0.3 | Lb | sm | ta0.52 | ta1.57 | |
b5 | |||||||
b6 | |||||||
b7 | |||||||
b8 | |||||||
b1000 | |||||||
b2000 | |||||||
b4000 | |||||||
t3 | |||||||
t4 | |||||||
t5 | |||||||
t6 |
Experiment | DGP | DGI | CGI | DGImod | UGP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Field study | 0.19 | 11.55 | 12.18 | 17.76 | 0.49 |
Laboratory study | 0.33 | 11.82 | 12.6 | 18.85 | 0.5 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t6 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 6 |
t5 | 11 | 0 | 16 | 40 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
t4 | 24 | 28 | 40 | 79 | 19 | 13 | 7 | 0 | ||
t3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
b4000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||||
b2000 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 33 | 0 | |||||
b1000 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 27 | ||||||
b8 | 26 | 43 | 44 | |||||||
b7 | 2 | 6 | ||||||||
b6 | 2 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t6 | 20 | 33 | 71 | 80 | 16 | 42 | 20 | 20 | 11 | 27 |
t5 | 38 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 13 | 20 | 13 | 0 | 0 | |
t4 | 27 | 67 | 80 | 80 | 7 | 20 | 13 | 7 | ||
t3 | 33 | 60 | 67 | 80 | 7 | 29 | 13 | |||
b4000 | 82 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 7 | 0 | ||||
b2000 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 20 | |||||
b1000 | 38 | 62 | 80 | 80 | ||||||
b8 | 80 | 73 | 7 | |||||||
b7 | 73 | 22 | ||||||||
b6 | 24 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIE Lb >< Math. Lb | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIE Lb >< Math. Lb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r0.2 >< r0.06 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
r0.2 >< r0.3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62 | 22 | 0 | 0 |
r0.06 >< r0.3 | 0 | 13 | 7 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r0.2 >< r0.06 | 13 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 15 | 27 | 40 | 40 |
r0.2 >< r0.3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
r0.06 >< r0.3 | 15 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 | 33 | 40 |
t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
60° X 30° | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
60° X 90° | 2 | 0 | 24 | 13 |
30° X 90° | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
60° X 30° | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
60° X 90° | 0 | 16 | 0 | 26 |
30° X 90° | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smooth >< Non-smooth | 12 | 24 | 44 | 49 | 2 | 16 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 29 |
b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | b1000 | b2000 | b4000 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smooth >< Non-smooth | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 35 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pierson, C.; Wienold, J.; Bodart, M. Daylight Discomfort Glare Evaluation with Evalglare: Influence of Parameters and Methods on the Accuracy of Discomfort Glare Prediction. Buildings 2018, 8, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8080094
Pierson C, Wienold J, Bodart M. Daylight Discomfort Glare Evaluation with Evalglare: Influence of Parameters and Methods on the Accuracy of Discomfort Glare Prediction. Buildings. 2018; 8(8):94. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8080094
Chicago/Turabian StylePierson, Clotilde, Jan Wienold, and Magali Bodart. 2018. "Daylight Discomfort Glare Evaluation with Evalglare: Influence of Parameters and Methods on the Accuracy of Discomfort Glare Prediction" Buildings 8, no. 8: 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8080094