The Impact of Evaluated Daylight to the Total Light Ratio on the Comfort Level in Office Buildings
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Buildings and Survey Population
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Field Measurement
2.4. Questionnaire
- Evaluating the satisfaction with the lighting environment
- Evaluating the satisfaction with daylight amount in comparison with artificial light
- Tendency to change the quantity of light
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Indoor Lighting Condition
3.2. Visual Preferences Ratings
3.3. Daylight to Total Light Ratio
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations of Study
- The six case studies have different characteristics (such as various orientations, WWR, WFR, interior layout, etc.). However, in data analysis, these parameters are considered equivalent. The results can be analyzed considering different spatial environments.
- The results could be case-specific because this study was conducted in six buildings. Further studies could help generalize the findings and conclusions of the present study.
- For this study, we used a questionnaire in which the occupants stated that they did not experience glare. Therefore, the study can be developed by considering luminance to determine an acceptable DTR when the occupants experience glare.
- The same office rooms were chosen for the winter and summer seasons. However, the number of rooms changed between winter and summer, since some participants were absent and were therefore unable to finish the questionnaire in some rooms.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Section A-Demographics | |||||||
Right hand/left hand | sex | age | Overall | General information | |||
Other activities | Both of them | With computer | Paper-based | Kind of work | About the work | ||
<4 h | 4–6 h | 7–8 h | >8 h | Working hours | |||
For how long you have been working in this room (in a month)? | |||||||
Do you sometimes have a severe headache? | Visual problems | ||||||
Do you have light sensitivity? | |||||||
Do you use glasses? | |||||||
Section B-Lighting perception | |||||||
Please rate your satisfaction with the room lighting: | Satisfaction of lighting | ||||||
very pleasant | pleasant | neither pleasant nor pleasant | unpleasant | very unpleasant | |||
Please rate your satisfaction with lighting when working with a computer: | |||||||
very pleasant | pleasant | neither pleasant nor pleasant | unpleasant | very unpleasant | |||
Please rate your satisfaction with lighting when writing/reading a paper: | |||||||
very pleasant | pleasant | neither pleasant nor pleasant | unpleasant | very unpleasant | |||
Please rate your satisfaction with daylight in compare with artificial light: | DTR | ||||||
acceptable | neutral | unacceptable | |||||
What is your desire to increase the amount of light? | The tendency to change the amount of light | ||||||
too much | much | Average | little | very little | |||
What is your desire to reduce the amount of light? | |||||||
too much | much | Average | little | very little |
References
- Wang, T.-H.; Huang, Y.; Park, J. Development of Daylight Glare Analysis Method Using an Integrated Parametric Modelling Approach: A Comparative Study of Glare Evaluation Standards. Buildings 2022, 12, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, R.; Yamín Garretón, J.; Pattini, A. Glare and cognitive performance in screen work in the presence of sunlight. Light. Res. Technol. 2016, 48, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leccese, F.; Salvadori, G.; Öner, M.; Kazanasmaz, T. Exploring the impact of external shading system on cognitive task performance, alertness and visual comfort in a daylit workplace environment. Indoor Built Environ. 2020, 29, 942–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esfandiari, M.; Mohamed Zaid, S.; Ismail, M.A.; Reza Hafezi, M.; Asadi, I.; Mohammadi, S.; Vaisi, S.; Aflaki, A. Occupants’ Satisfaction toward Indoor Environment Quality of Platinum Green-Certified Office Buildings in Tropical Climate. Energies 2021, 14, 2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tregenza, P.; Mardaljevic, J. Daylighting buildings: Standards and the needs of the designer. Light. Res. Technol. 2018, 50, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galatioto, A.; Beccali, M. Aspects and issues of daylighting assessment: A review study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 66, 852–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, M.; Kleindienst, S.; Yi, L.; Lee, J.; Bodart, M.; Cutler, B. An intuitive daylighting performance analysis and optimization approach. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 593–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlucci, S.; Causone, F.; De Rosa, F.; Pagliano, L. A review of indices for assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building integrated design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 1016–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aries, M.B.C. Human Lighting Demands: Healthy Lighting in an Office Environment; Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Faculteit Bouwkunde: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2005; ISBN 978-90-386-1686-5. [Google Scholar]
- Light and Lighting—Lighting of Work Places. Part 1, Indoor Work Places; BSI: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-0-580-68495-1. Available online: https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30385601.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2022).
- Reinhart, C.; Fitz, A. Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 824–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grynning, S.; Time, B.; Matusiak, B. Solar shading control strategies in cold climates—Heating, cooling demand and daylight availability in office spaces. Sol. Energy 2014, 107, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CIBSE. Daylighting and Window Design; Lighting Guide/CIBSE; Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Ed.; CIBSE: London, UK, 1999; ISBN 978-0-900953-98-9. [Google Scholar]
- DiLaura, D.L.; Harrold, R.M.; Houser, K.W.; Mistrick, R.G.; Steffy, G.R. A Procedure for Determining Target Illuminances. LEUKOS 2011, 7, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardaljevic, J.; Christoffersen, J. ‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards. Build. Environ. 2017, 113, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boubekri, M. Daylighting, Architecture, and Health: Building Design Strategies, 1st ed.; Elsevier Architectural Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-7506-6724-1. [Google Scholar]
- Boyce, P.R. Human Factors in Lighting; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, Z.; Liu, Q.; Li, X.; Hou, K.; Xing, Q. Indoor lighting effects on subjective impressions and mood states: A critical review. Build. Environ. 2022, 224, 109591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Q.; Cai, W.; Li, M.; Hu, Z.; Xue, P.; Dai, Q. Efficient circadian daylighting: A proposed equation, experimental validation, and the consequent importance of room surface reflectance. Energy Build. 2020, 210, 109784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acosta, I.; Campano, M.Á.; Leslie, R.; Radetsky, L. Daylighting design for healthy environments: Analysis of educational spaces for optimal circadian stimulus. Sol. Energy 2019, 193, 584–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, R.J.; Peirson, S.N.; Berson, D.M.; Brown, T.M.; Cooper, H.M.; Czeisler, C.A.; Figueiro, M.G.; Gamlin, P.D.; Lockley, S.W.; O’Hagan, J.B.; et al. Measuring and using light in the melanopsin age. Trends Neurosci. 2014, 37, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rea, M.; Figueiro, M. Light as a circadian stimulus for architectural lighting. Light. Res. Technol. 2018, 50, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsham, G.; Veitch, J. Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices: A new method of derivation. Light. Res. Technol. 2001, 33, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyce, P.R.; Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R.; Jones, C.C.; Heerwagen, J.; Myer, M.; Hunter, C.M. Occupant use of switching and dimming controls in offices. Light. Res. Technol. 2006, 38, 358–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R. Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: Research and practice recommendations. Light. Res. Technol. 2000, 32, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurentin, C.; Bermtto, V.; Fontoynont, M. Effect of thermal conditions and light source type on visual comfort appraisal. Light. Res. Technol. 2000, 32, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galasiu, A.D.; Veitch, J.A. Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: A literature review. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 728–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Potočnik, J.; Košir, M.; Dovjak, M. Colour preference in relation to personal determinants and implications for indoor circadian luminous environment. Indoor Built Environ. 2022, 31, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi, M.; Kandar, M.Z.; Noroozi, M. Investigating the effect of well geometry on the daylight performance in the adjoining spaces of vertical top-lit atrium buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2016, 25, 934–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abboushi, B.; Elzeyadi, I.; Van Den Wymelenberg, K.; Taylor, R.; Sereno, M.; Jacobsen, G. Assessing the Visual Comfort, Visual Interest of Sunlight Patterns, and View Quality under Different Window Conditions in an Open-Plan Office. LEUKOS 2021, 17, 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fakhari, M.; Vahabi, V.; Fayaz, R. A study on the factors simultaneously affecting visual comfort in classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. Energy Build. 2021, 249, 111232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Sabahi, M.H.; Ismail, M.A.; Alashwal, A.M.; Al-Obaidi, K.M. Triangulation Method to Assess Indoor Environmental Conditions and Occupant Comfort and Productivity towards Low Energy Buildings in Malaysia. Buildings 2022, 12, 1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellia, L.; Pedace, A.; Barbato, G. Winter and summer analysis of daylight characteristics in offices. Build. Environ. 2014, 81, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fakhari, M.; Fayaz, R.; Asadi, S. Lighting preferences in office spaces concerning the indoor thermal environment. Front. Archit. Res. 2021, 10, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, G.Y.; Kong, H.J.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.T. A field survey of visual comfort and lighting energy consumption in open plan offices. Energy Build. 2012, 46, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, J.; Theodorson, J.; Van Den Wymelenberg, K. Understanding Controls, Behaviors and Satisfaction in the Daylit Perimeter Office: A Daylight Design Case Study. J. Inter. Des. 2012, 37, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlan, N.D.; Jones, P.J.; Alexander, D.K.; Salleh, E.; Alias, J. Daylight Ratio, Luminance, and Visual Comfort Assessments in Typical Malaysian Hostels. Indoor Built Environ. 2009, 18, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Maki, Y.; Shukuya, M. Visual and thermal comfort and its relations to exergy consumption in a classroom with daylighting. IJEX 2012, 11, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwata, T.; Hatao, A.; Shukuya, M.; Kimura, K.-i. Visual comfort in the daylit luminous environment: Structural model for evaluation. Light. Res. Technol. 1994, 26, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.-Y.; Kim, J.-J. Influence of light fluctuation on occupant visual perception. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2888–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linhart, F.; Scartezzini, J.-L. Minimizing lighting power density in office rooms equipped with Anidolic Daylighting Systems. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axarli, K.; Meresi, A. 211: Objective and Subjective Criteria Regarding the Effect of Sunlight and Daylight in Classrooms. In Proceedings of the PLEA 2008—25th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Dublin, Ireland, 22–24 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Chraibi, S.; Lashina, T.; Shrubsole, P.; Aries, M.; van Loenen, E.; Rosemann, A. Satisfying light conditions: A field study on perception of consensus light in Dutch open office environments. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chellappa, S.L.; Steiner, R.; Oelhafen, P.; Cajochen, C. Sex differences in light sensitivity impact on brightness perception, vigilant attention and sleep in humans. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mui, K.W.; Wong, L.T. Acceptable Illumination Levels for Office Occupants. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2006, 49, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS; SAGE Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Cheung, H.D. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey. Build. Environ. 2014, 81, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krüger, E.L.; Tamura, C.; Trento, T.W. Identifying relationships between daylight variables and human preferences in a climate chamber. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 1292–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, D.; Ortiz, M.A.; Bluyssen, P.M. Clustering of Dutch school children based on their preferences and needs of the IEQ in classrooms. Build. Environ. 2019, 147, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andargie, M.S.; Azar, E. An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office environmental factors on occupants’ comfort and working conditions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 46, 101447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinazzo, G.; Wienold, J.; Andersen, M. Influence of indoor temperature and daylight illuminance on visual perception. Light. Res. Technol. 2020, 52, 350–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bluyssen, P.M.; Zhang, D.; Kurvers, S.; Overtoom, M.; Ortiz-Sanchez, M. Self-reported health and comfort of school children in 54 classrooms of 21 Dutch school buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 138, 106–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dianat, I.; Sedghi, A.; Bagherzade, J.; Jafarabadi, M.A.; Stedmon, A.W. Objective and subjective assessments of lighting in a hospital setting: Implications for health, safety and performance. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1535–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suk, J.Y. Luminance and vertical eye illuminance thresholds for occupants’ visual comfort in daylit office environments. Build. Environ. 2019, 148, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Despenic, M.; Chraibi, S.; Lashina, T.; Rosemann, A. Lighting preference profiles of users in an open office environment. Build. Environ. 2017, 116, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael, A.; Heracleous, C. Assessment of natural lighting performance and visual comfort of educational architecture in Southern Europe: The case of typical educational school premises in Cyprus. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, M.; Houser, K.W.; Orland, B.; Lang, D.H.; Ram, N.; Sliwinski, M.J.; Bose, M. Field study of office worker responses to fluorescent lighting of different CCT and lumen output. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 39, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicol, F.; Wilson, M.; Chiancarella, C. Using field measurements of desktop illuminance in European offices to investigate its dependence on outdoor conditions and its effect on occupant satisfaction, and the use of lights and blinds. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 802–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escuyer, S.; Fontoynont, M. Lighting controls: A field study of office workers’ reactions. Light. Res. Technol. 2001, 33, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucia Castaldo, V.; Pigliautile, I.; Rosso, F.; Laura Pisello, A.; Cotana, F. Investigation of the impact of subjective and physical parameters on the indoor comfort of occupants: A case study in central Italy. Energy Procedia 2017, 126, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Building | Window Orientation | WWR | WFR | Number of Questionnaires | Number of Rooms | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Winter | Summer | Winter | Summer | ||||
Building A | North, south, east, and west | 23% | 17% | 24 | 42 | 21 | 27 |
Building B | North, south, east, and west | 30% | 22% | 42 | 26 | 27 | 18 |
Building C | North, south, east, and west | 30% | 22% | 14 | 20 | 10 | 9 |
Building D | North, south, east, and west | 29% | 16% | 29 | 32 | 21 | 25 |
Building E | North and south | 73% | 26% | 46 | 65 | 9 | 17 |
Building F | North, south, east, and west | 35% | 17% | 74 | 95 | 21 | 50 |
Lighting Satisfaction | Total | Building A | Building B | Building C | Building D | Building E | Building F |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spearman Correlation p-value | 0.528 0.000 | 0.601 0.000 | 0.661 0.000 | 0.507 0.020 | 0.466 0.000 | 0.474 0.000 | 0.479 0.000 |
Lighting Satisfaction | Total Illuminance | Daylight Illuminance | Artificial Illuminance | DTR |
Spearman Correlation p-value | 0.528 0.000 | 0.546 0.000 | 0.131 0.003 | 0.452 0.000 |
Satisfaction Level | p-Value | |
---|---|---|
Buildings (six buildings) | Unacceptable | 0.562 |
Neutral | 0.120 | |
Acceptable | 0.007 | |
Season (winter/summer) | Unacceptable | 0.009 |
Neutral | 0.000 | |
Acceptable | 0.034 | |
Window (one-sided/two-sided) | Unacceptable | 0.839 |
Neutral | 0.998 | |
Acceptable | 0.003 | |
Office type (cubicles/open office) | Unacceptable | 0.40 |
Neutral | 0.86 | |
Acceptable | 0.053 |
Building | Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation | Building | Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building A | Unacceptable | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.1 | Building D | Unacceptable | 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.22 |
Neutral | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.2 | Neutral | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.21 | ||
Acceptable | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.22 | Acceptable | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.15 | ||
Building B | Unacceptable | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.2 | Building E | Unacceptable | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.22 |
Neutral | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.22 | Neutral | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.26 | ||
Acceptable | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.20 | Acceptable | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.25 | ||
Building C | Unacceptable | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.07 | Building F | Unacceptable | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.14 |
Neutral | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.19 | Neutral | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.11 | ||
Acceptable | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.06 | Acceptable | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.10 |
Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation | Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Summer | Unacceptable | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.12 | Winter | Unacceptable | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.20 |
Neutral | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.12 | Neutral | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.22 | ||
Acceptable | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.14 | Acceptable | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.21 |
Window | Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation | Office Type | Satisfaction Level | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-sided | Unacceptable | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.17 | Cubicles | Unacceptable | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.17 |
Neutral | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.18 | Neutral | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.18 | ||
Acceptable | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.14 | Acceptable | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.16 | ||
Two-sided | Unacceptable | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.22 | Open plan | Unacceptable | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.16 |
Neutral | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.15 | Neutral | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.09 | ||
Acceptable | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.21 | Acceptable | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.08 |
F | df | t | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Season | 20.267 | 509 | 14.147 | 0.000 |
One side/Two side Window | 14.526 | 509 | 4.376 | 0.000 |
Cublic/Open Plan | 3.572 | 509 | 0.460 | 0.059 |
Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building type | 337.792 | 5 | 67.558 | 10.431 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fakhari, M.; Fayaz, R.; Lollini, R. The Impact of Evaluated Daylight to the Total Light Ratio on the Comfort Level in Office Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122161
Fakhari M, Fayaz R, Lollini R. The Impact of Evaluated Daylight to the Total Light Ratio on the Comfort Level in Office Buildings. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122161
Chicago/Turabian StyleFakhari, Maryam, Rima Fayaz, and Roberto Lollini. 2022. "The Impact of Evaluated Daylight to the Total Light Ratio on the Comfort Level in Office Buildings" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122161