Next Article in Journal
Ultimate Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Elements Damaged by Corrosion
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Construction Technology and Job-Site Equipment Demonstration: Modelling Relationship Strategies for Technology Adoption

Buildings 2019, 9(7), 159; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9070159

Article
Daylighting Retrofit Methods as a Tool for Enhancing Daylight Provision in Existing Educational Spaces—A Case Study
Department of Architecture, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 2 April 2019 / Accepted: 27 June 2019 / Published: 29 June 2019

Abstract

:
Adequate illuminance has a great effect on the health, comfort, and performance of pupils. It can be achieved by either artificial lighting or daylighting. Daylighting is usually preferred due to psychological, physiological, and economic purposes. This study aims to improve the daylight provision in existing classrooms, by investigating various retrofit methods for passive daylighting techniques in northerly oriented classrooms at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST). Data for this research are obtained using computer simulation. The retrofit methods are evaluated in terms of illuminance levels on the desks plane and the chalkboard. The retrofit methods investigated in this study included improving the material reflectance, adding clerestory to the classroom, lightshelves, anidolic ducts, as well as various combinations between these cases. By comparing the results, and in light of the recommended lighting level by The Lighting Guide 5: Lighting for Education released by Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) in 2011, the combination of the clerestory window and the anidolic ducts result in the best results. While CIBSE recommended a target illuminance of 300 lx on desks plane and 500 lx on the board, the combination registers an average of 249 lx–300 lx on the desks plane in all sensors compared to 42 lx–105 lx in the base case, and an average of 275 lx–345 lx on the board for the tested dates compared to an average of 45 lx–115 lx in the base case.
Keywords:
classrooms; retrofit; passive daylight techniques; daylight provision; simulation

1. Introduction

Educational facilities need to have the best indoor environmental quality, for the reason that teachers and pupils spend around 30% of their time in universities and schools [1]. The indoor environmental quality of classrooms has a great effect on the quality of teaching [2]. The most notable similarities between most of the existing educational facilities are high-energy consumption, and the need for retrofitting in order to enhance the comfort level [3,4].
Visual comfort has a major contribution to the creation of adequate educational environments [5]. Studies proved that lighting is important for pupils’ learning. It was found that pupils and teachers have different tendencies toward the preferred type and level of lighting. For example, a study found that teachers prefer daylight to artificial light [6]. Another study indicated the preference of teachers to have control over the lighting levels in the classroom [7]. While some researchers indicated that daylight helps students to focus and learn better [8], other researchers addressed the need for the integration of daylighting and artificial lighting [9]. However, most researchers emphasized the importance of daylighting for both visual comfort and energy efficiency [10].
Visual comfort depends on the physical quantities describing the amount of light and its distribution in space, the physiology of the human eye, and the spectral emission of the light source [11]. The assessment of visual comfort in accordance to human needs includes many parameters, such as the amount of light and its uniformity, the risk of glare for occupants, the luminance distribution, and the quality of light in rendering colors [12].
Visual comfort can be achieved either by artificial lighting or by daylighting. Daylighting is usually preferred due to psychological, physiological, and economic aspects [13,14,15,16]. It is an important strategy to achieve visual comfort and energy efficiency [17]. Besides, the up-to-date artificial light does not produce the same spectrum or instantaneous variability of daylight [17,18,19].
In classrooms, providing a comfortable indoor environment is as important as adequate energy use [20]. The high occupancy of classrooms calls for high standards of ventilation, lighting and thermal conditions [21]. To contribute in achieving the visual comfort requirements, researchers evaluated many daylighting techniques that can be applied to classrooms. Most of the daylighting techniques used in the classrooms are applied to the fenestration system, for the reason that the classrooms are usually side-lit, arranged in the form of corridor–classrooms or classrooms–corridor–classrooms [22].
This research investigates various retrofit methods to enhance daylight provision in selected educational spaces. It assesses the performance of various daylighting retrofit techniques on the northern and/or southern elevations of a typical classroom at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST), Jordan. Due to the special construction system used in JUST of having precast concrete walls with bearing loads, the investigated techniques are selected to have minimal modifications to the building envelope.

1.1. Lighting Codes for Classrooms

Activities taking place in classrooms, such as writing and reading from the chalkboard and desks, require suitable and specific illuminance levels [23]. Every country has its own codes of lighting in classrooms, but it all ranges from 300–500 lx [24]. Lighting codes mostly originate from the ones released by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Both committees recommend a target illuminance of 300 lx for classrooms [25]. The Lighting Guide 5: Lighting for Education (LG5), released by Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) in 2011, recommended a target illuminance of 300 lx on the desks plane and 500 lx on the chalkboard [26], while the EN 17037 standard, released by CEN, recommended that the high target illuminance on vertical and inclined daylight openings should not exceed 750 lx [27].

1.2. Sample of the Space under Investigation

A sample classroom, located on the ground floor, representing about 60% of typical classrooms of JUST, is chosen. The dimensions of the classroom are 7.1 m long and 8.2 m wide. All the classrooms at JUST are accessed through single loaded corridors of 2.7 m width, as seen in Figure 1. The classroom is 3.5 m high, ending with a 0.8 m false ceiling, as illustrated in Figure 2. The classroom is side-lit by vertical and narrow openings directed toward the north. The windows are 0.3 m in width and 3.3 m in height. The glazing of the windows is 6 mm clear single-pane glass. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 19%. The floors above the classroom create a projection of 1 m over the windows. The typical capacity of each classroom at JUST is 48 pupils.
Figure 3 shows a typical elevation of a classroom at JUST. The fenestration system was designed as narrow openings in a response to the hot climate of the area. Because most of the classrooms are northerly oriented, there was no need for shading devices. Various shading devices were used on the other elevations.
The most important attribute of the material for lighting design is the material reflectance. The reflectance values used in the simulation are obtained from the real buildings of JUST. The Visible Light Transmittance (VLT) of the windows’ glass is 0.9. The simulated models include a ground plane with a reflectance value of 0.2 to account for the external reflectance and the shadows under the overhangs. The reflectance of the materials used to build up the simulation model of the classroom is shown in Table 1.

1.3. Daily Sunshine at the Area of Study

The study is conducted at JUST, Irbid/Jordan. JUST’s geographical coordinates are 32.5 North and 36 East. Figure 4 shows the average daily sunshine of Irbid. The minimum hours of sunshine occur from December to January with 5.4 hours, and the maximum in June with 11.9 hours. The average annual sunshine in Irbid is 8 hours.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Simulation Software

In classrooms, tasks are performed on both horizontal and vertical planes, the desks plane and the chalkboard, respectively. Computer simulation was used to simulate the illuminance levels on both planes. Daylighting simulation software are categorized based on their approaches into three different types: BRE split flux which was developed at the British Building Research Establishment (BRE), radiosity, and raytracing [28]. BRE split flux simulate models only under diffuse sky conditions, where radiosity and raytracing are the two common approaches used under other different sky conditions.
Raytracing cannot predict the performance of complex shapes sufficiently [29]. Backward raytracing software such as Radiance can adequately simulate anidolic systems only under diffuse skies [30,31]. Standard CIE (The International Commission on Illuminance) overcast sky is usually used for daylight factor calculations. Forward raytracing software can be used to simulate anidolic systems with reliable results [32].
Radiosity-based software were used by many researches to study light redirecting systems, and their results were validated by real measurements [33,34,35]. Hence, FlucsDL, a radiosity-based engine, was used in this resaerch to simulate the cases that include anidolic ducts. Radiance, which is a backward raytracing software was also used to simulate the base case and the remaining cases. The results of both simulation software were presented as grids that show the daylighting readings with contour lines.

2.1.1. Simulation Time

Single point-by-point simulations were performed with clear sky condition three times a day: 9 am, 12 pm, and 3 pm, on 21st of March, June, September, and December. Clear sky condition was selected to depict the daylight variations within the space. The selected times of simulations were chosen to depict the daylighting conditions with the uttermost solar angles [36].

2.1.2. Radiance Parameters

Accurate results of the Radiance simulation were an outcome of the proper choice of software parameters’ values. Radiance parameters were chosen to achieve accurate results with the minimum simulation time. The values of Radiance parameters were chosen by trial. In this research, several values were tested, and it was found that the higher value of each parameter gives the best results within a reasonable time. Thus, the maximum value of each parameter was chosen. Tests also showed that a higher value of ambient accuracy (aa) doubles the simulation time with almost the same accuracy [37]. Hence, the value chosen for aa was 0.1, as recommended by the Radiance website. Table 2 shows the parameters’ descriptions and values used in this research.

2.1.3. Horizontal Sensors Grid

Sensors were used to measure the daylighting level in a software developed by the Integrated Environmental Solutions Ltd using a Virtual Environment (IES VE) and Radiance software. They were distributed symmetrically over the classroom plan, as shown in Figure 5. The sensors were placed at the desks plane, at a height of 0.75 m. The sensors grid, made of 195 sensors, was 0.5 m distant from the classroom perimeter and 0.5 m apart from each other.

2.1.4. Vertical Sensors Grid

The sensors used in the IES VE (FlucsDL) and Radiance simulations, to measure the daylighting level vertically, were distributed over the chalkboard, as shown in Figure 6. The vertical sensors grid was made of 24 sensors.

2.2. Suggested Retrofit Daylighting Techniques

The following cases of passive daylight retrofit techniques were suggested as a tool for enhancing daylight provision in JUST classrooms. The use of precast concrete in the building envelope affected the current windows’ shape and size, as well as the decision of choosing suitable retrofitting techniques.
  • Case No.1: In this case, the changes applied to the classroom were limited to the reflectance of the ceiling and the wall facing the windows (back wall). The reflectance of these elements was modified as shown in Table 3.
  • Case No.2: In this case, a clerestory window was constructed at the common wall between the classroom and the corridor, as illustrated in Figure 7. The window was double-glazed for acoustic purposes and had a transmittance value of 0.65.
  • Case No.3: In this case, six lightshelves were installed within the frame of the northern windows, at a distance of 2/3 of the windows’ height. The upper surface had a reflectance factor of 0.95, while the lower surface was matte. Every lightshelf was 0.3 m wide and extended 0.3 m to the outside and 0.3 m into the classroom, as illustrated in Figure 8.
  • Case No.4: In this case, three anidolic ducts were installed between the false ceiling and the concrete slab, as shown in Figure 9. The anidolic duct was made of stainless steel, with an internal reflectance value is 0.95. The duct extended 1.6 m outside the windows to the north, and it ended at the deeper side of the classroom, as shown in Figure 10. The entry aperture of the anidolic duct was 0.63 m × 0.7 m, while the exit aperture was 1.0 m × 0.7 m. The duct was sealed with a single-pane glass of 0.9 VLT on both entry and exit apertures. The height of the duct was 0.5 m.
  • Case No.5: In this case, three anidolic ducts were installed between the false ceiling and the concrete slab. The anidolic ducts were made of stainless steel and had an internal reflectance value of 0.95. The ducts in this case, shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, differed from the ducts in Case No.4 only by direction (to south). The exit apertures were the same for Case No.4 and Case No.5. As in Case No.4, the entry and exit apertures were sealed with a single-pane glass of 0.9 VLT.
  • Case No.6: In this case, the settings of Case No.2 and Case No.5 were combined together, clerestory window and the anidolic ducts directed toward north. The characteristics of the two settings were the same as described previously.
  • Case No.7: In this case, the settings of Case No.2 and Case No.6 were combined together, clerestory window and the anidolic ducts directed toward south. The characteristics of the two settings were the same as described previously.

3. Results and Discussion

Computer simulation results included the illuminance level and distribution of the suggested cases on the horizontal plane (desks plane) and the vertical plane (the board).

3.1. Illuminance Level and Distribution on Horizontal Plane

The results of the IES VE (FlucsDL) and Radiance simulations were shown as illuminance readings accompanied with contour lines. The simulation results of the suggested cases, conducted at selected times, were compared to the base case on the horizontal and vertical planes, as the examples shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
The sun path was the same for March and September, hence, the illuminance levels in these months were nearly the same. The illuminance of the suggested cases in March were set in comparison with the base case. Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 compare the calculated average illuminance values of the suggested cases with the base case on the horizontal plane on 21st of March, June, and December, at 9:00 am, 12:00 pm, and 3:00 pm, respectively. According to the figures, the illuminance level of the base case, Case No.1, and Case No.3 followed a descending trend when moving from the window to the back wall all around the year. Case No.2: clerestory window showed a different trend. It started with high illuminance levels near the windows, it then decreased at the middle of the classroom, and it finally ascended towards the back wall and the clerestory window.
The figures show that Case No.1 impact was barely noticed. This was due to the absence of direct sunlight and the direction of windows toward the north. This agrees with what was found by a study on the influence of the reflectance values of materials when windows are northerly oriented [38]. The absence of direct sunlight led also to a reduction of the illuminance levels inside the classroom in Case No.3. The lightshelves worked as shading devices and prevented indirect sunlight entry instead of reflecting more daylight into the classroom [39]. The base case, Case No.1, Case No.2, and Case No.3 did not meet the target illuminance required in the classroom at any simulation time.
Case No.4, Case No.5, Case No.6, and Case No.7 introduced higher illuminance values and different contour lines to the space. The area under the exit apertures formed the origin of the contour lines with the highest illuminance levels. In all months, this area had double the illuminance than that at the perimeter area of the classroom. This is consistent with what was found with a study conducted at the same climatic conditions. The study found that anidolic ducts can provide about four times the illuminance to the area under the ducts, and about one and a half times the illuminance to the surrounding areas [40].
The cases that included anidolic ducts directed toward south showed better results than those having anidolic ducts directed toward north. A study that aimed to improve the lighting conditions by using anidolic ducts in side-lit classrooms found that south-directed anidolic ducts give their best performance in summer and equinox times due to high sun elevation angles, while they fail to introduce a great improvement on illuminance in winter because of lower sun angles. It also found that only the small area under the exit apertures witnessed a great improvement [41].
In this study, the best results of Case No.4 and Case No.5 were seen on 21st of June at noon. This was due to the solar altitude in relation to the entry apertures of the anidolic ducts, as illustrated in Figure 24 and Figure 25. In June, more sunrays can go through the anidolic ducts. At noon, the sun is nearly perpendicular to the entry aperture. Case No.6 and Case No.7 also give their best results on 21st of June at noon.
In general, the cases that have anidolic ducts exceeded the targeted illuminance value of 300 lx at the area under the exit apertures in March, June, and September, while they did not meet the targeted illuminance at the peripheral areas of the classroom. In December, the area under the exit apertures reached the targeted illuminance just at noon. Generally, none of the suggested cases nor the base case introduced the target illuminance required in the classroom in December, but applying Case No.7: clerestory and anidolic ducts to south, seems a promising solution, especially if a diffuser is used to provide more uniform and well-distributed illuminance.
In retrofitting situations, where modifications to the building envelope are very limited, the daylighting systems that improve the illuminance levels in the northerly oriented classrooms are the systems that depend on redirecting the sunlight to the deep spaces, such as anidolic ducts. Results of the anidolic ducts oriented toward south did not differ dramatically from those where anidolic ducts oriented toward north. It is all about redirecting the sunrays deeper in the classrooms. Cases including anidolic ducts work efficiently regardless of the performance of the windows or fenestration system. In similar retrofit cases, designers can determine the ducts’ number and orientation based on functional, aesthetical, economical, and site limitations related to each case.

3.2. Illuminance Level and Distribution on the Vertical Plane

Figure 26 shows the comparison of illuminance levels of the suggested cases and the base case on the vertical plane in all simulated times. According to the figure, the cases that showed better illuminance levels than the base case were the clerestory window (Case No.2), anidolic ducts to north (Case No.4), anidolic ducts to south (Case No.5), the combination of clerestory and anidolic ducts to the north (Case No.7), and the combination of clerestory and anidolic ducts to the south (Case No.6), respectively. Case No.1 did not introduce any improvement, while Case No.3 reduced the illuminance on the vertical plane.
In Case No.2, the improvement of illuminance values on the vertical plane was less than on the horizontal plane. The board is hung near the north wall, hence, it was less affected by the daylight coming from the clerestory on the south wall.
The best performance of Case No.4, Case No.5, Case No.6, and Case No.7 on the vertical plane was seen on 21st of June at noon. At this time, the solar altitude was nearly perpendicular to the entry apertures of the anidolic ducts (Figure 24 and Figure 25). In Case No.4 and Case No.5, the direct sunlight was transported through the ducts, while in Case No.6 and Case No.7 the clerestory window allowed the passage of the diffuse skylight through the corridor, resulting in higher illuminance values than any other case.
All in all, Case No.2, Case No.4, Case No.5, Case No.6, and Case No.7 introduced better illuminance on the horizontal plane of the classroom, even though they did not achieve uniform illumination all over it. On the vertical plane, although none of the suggested cases introduced the targeted illuminance level, Case No.4, Case No.5, Case No.6, and Case No.7 achieved magnificent improvement. Case No.6 and Case No.7 achieved the best illuminance results on both planes, respectively.

4. Conclusions

This research investigated various retrofit passive daylighting techniques to improve the daylight provision in classrooms. Taking place at JUST/Jordan, the objective of this research was to maximize the amount of daylight entering existing classrooms. Based on the spatial and architectural design of JUST, seven cases were suggested to be evaluated. The techniques were selected to have a minimal modification to the building envelope due to the special construction system used in the building—precast concrete with bearing loads. Computer simulation was the method used to assess the performance of each suggested case.
The suggested daylighting systems and cases were evaluated under clear sky condition, on 21st of March, June, September, and December, three times a day: 9:00 am, 12:00 pm, and 3:00 pm. Selecting these times was a way of depicting daylighting conditions with the uttermost sun angles.
Among the suggested cases, the combination of clerestory and anidolic ducts to the north (Case No.6) and the combination of clerestory and anidolic ducts to the south (Case No.7) achieved the best results of illuminance levels on horizontal and vertical planes, respectively. For the tested dates, the base case provided an average illuminance level of 42 lx–105 lx on the desks plane, while LG5 recommended a target of 300 lx. It also recommended a target illuminance of 500 lx on the vertical plane, but the base case provided an average of 45 lx–115 lx. For the same dates, Case No.6 and Case No.7 introduced an average of 300 lx of the targeted illuminance level on the horizontal plane except for 21st of December, where it provided an average of 249 lx. Case No.6 provided an average of about 275 lx–330 lx of the targeted illuminance level required on the vertical plane, while Case No.7 provided 295 lx–345 lx.
The daylighting systems that benefit most in retrofitting existing classrooms, especially northerly oriented, and improving illuminance levels are those systems that depend on redirecting the sunlight to the deep spaces such as anidolic ducts. These systems work efficiently regardless of the performance of the windows or fenestration system.
Besides their contribution in enhancing the illuminance levels, if these suggested cases were adopted, the energy consumption needed for reaching the required lighting levels would be reduced, as well as the cooling loads. Moreover, introducing more daylight into the classroom would enhance the pupils’ performance as indicated by the previous studies.
Future work should include cost analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA) of the suggested techniques. Also, thermal analysis and energy consumption would give a full picture of the implementation of the systems. Moreover, different cases with different WWR should be compared to examine the effectiveness of each suggested system in the retrofitting procedure.

Author Contributions

S.M. provided the main idea of the study, provided language support, and revised the paper. B.A.-K. collected the data and analyzed it, and wrote the paper.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This research paper is an extension of the work presented at ICEER2017 and published in Energy Procedia. Authors would like to thank Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST), which provided the tools required for conducting this research, and for its financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. De Giuli, V.; Da Pos, O.; De Carli, M. Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools. Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kruger, E.L.; Zannin, P.H.T. Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in classrooms. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 1055–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. De Santoli, L.; Fraticelli, F.; Fornari, F.; Calice, C. Energy performance assessment and a retrofit strategies in public school buildings in Rome. Energy Build. 2014, 68, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Erhorn, H.; Mroz, T.; Mørck, O.; Schmidt, F.; Schoff, L.; Thomsen, K.E. The Energy Concept Adviser—A tool to improve energy efficiency in educational buildings. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdelatia, B.; Sernidor, C.; Marenne, C. Daylighting Strategy for Sustainable Schools: Case Study of Prototype Classrooms in Libya. J. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hathaway, W.E. Lights, windows, color: Elements of the school environment. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facility Planners, Alberta, OH, Canada, 26–29 September 1983; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lang, D.C. Teacher Interactions within the Physical Environment: How Teachers Alter Their Space and/or Routines Because of Classroom Character. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rittner, H.; Robbin, M. Color and light in learning. Sch. Plan. Manag. 2002, 41, 57–58. [Google Scholar]
  9. Woolner, P.; Hall, E.; Higgins, S.; McCaughey, C.; Wall, K. A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2007, 33, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Winterbottom, M.; Wilkins, A. Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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]
  12. Frontczak, M.; Wargocki, P. Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 922–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boneh, M. Comfort in Educational Buildings—Influence of Windows and Other Openings. Environ. Energy Build. 1982, 4, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Labib, R. Improving daylighting in existing classrooms using laser cut panels. Light. Res. Technol. 2013, 45, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ne’eman, E. A Comprehensive Approach to the Integration of Daylight and Electric Light in Buildings. Energy Build. 1984, 6, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Osterhaus, W.K.E. Discomfort glare assessment and prevention for daylight applications in office environments. Sol. Energy 2005, 79, 140–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alrubaih, M.S.; Zain, M.F.M.; Alghoul, M.A.; Ibrahim, N.L.N.; Shameri, M.A.; Elayeb, O. Research and development on aspects of daylighting fundamentals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 21, 494–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yu, X.; Su, Y. Daylight availability assessment and its potential energy saving estimation—A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ne’eman, E.; Shrifteilig, D. Daylighting of buildings in a hot climate. Energy Build. 1982, 4, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Al-Khatatbeh, B.J.; Ma’bdeh, S.N. Improving visual comfort and energy efficiency in existing classrooms using passive daylighting techniques. Energy Procedia 2017, 136, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dascalakia, E.G.; Sermpetzoglou, V.G. Energy performance and indoor environmental quality in Hellenic schools. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 718–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bezjak, B.; Cerne, B.; Kalcic, I.; Medved, S. Optimizing the Form of School Buildings by Using the Requirements for Daylight Illumination. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2011, 46, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yener, A.K. Daylight Analysis in Classrooms with Solar Control. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2011, 45, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kruger, E.L.; Dorigo, A.L. Daylighting analysis in a public school in Curitiba, Brazil. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 1695–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rea, M.S. The IESNA Lighting Handbook: Reference & Application, 10th ed.; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 0879952415. [Google Scholar]
  26. LG5 CIBSE/SLL. Lighting Guide 5: Lighting for Education; Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. European Committee for Standardization. Light and Lighting—Lighting of Work Places—Part 1: Indoor Work Places; EN 17037, Daylight in Buildings; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hensen, J.L.M.; Lamberts, R. Building Performance Simulation for Design and Operation, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jarosz, W. Efficient Monte Carlo Methods for Light Transport in Scattering Media. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nikpor, M.; Kandar, M.Z.; Roshan, M. Empirical validation of IES<VE>simulation in term of daylight in self-shading office room in Malaysia. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2013, 3, 106–112. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelindienst, S. Improving the Daylighting Conditions of Existing Buildings: The Benefits and Limitations of Integrating Anidolic Daylighting Systems Using the American Classroom as a Model. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  32. Linhart, F.; Wittkopf, S.K.; Scartezzini, J.L. Performance of Anidolic daylighting systems in Tropical climates-Parametric studies for identification of main influencing factors. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 1085–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ciugudeanu, C.; Beu, D. Passive Tubular Daylight Guidance System Survey. Procedia Technol. 2016, 22, 690–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Malet-Damour, B.; Boyer, H.; Fakra, A.H.; Bojic, M. Light pipes performance prediction: Inter model and experimental confrontation on vertical circular light-guides. Energy Procedia 2014, 57, 1977–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. 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]
  36. Lechner, N. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 13: 978-0470048092. [Google Scholar]
  37. Alkhatatbeh, B.J. Utilizing Daylight Potentials as a Tool for Improving Visual Comfort and Energy Efficiency in Existing Classroom—Case of Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST). Master’s Thesis, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Brembilla, E.; Hopfe, C.J.; Mardaljevic, J. Influence of input reflectance values on climate-based daylight metrics using sensitivity analysis. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2018, 11, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moazzeni, M.H.; Ghiabaklou, Z. Investigating the influence of light shelf geometry parameters on daylight performance and visual comfort, a case study of educational space in Tehran, Iran. Buildings 2016, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Freewan, A. Using Tubular Daylighting Systems to Improve Illuminance Level in Double Loaded Corridors in Educational Buildings. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 10, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grobe, L.O.; Gecit, B.H.; Sevinc, Z.; Altinkaya, G.; Aksakarya, G.; Ergin, M.; Zturk, Y.; Kazanasmaz, T. Scale-model and simulation-based assessments for design alternatives of daylight redirecting systems for side-lighting in an educational design room. METU J. Fac. Archit. 2017, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Plan of a typical classroom at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) showing seating layout, and windows’ and chalkboard locations.
Figure 1. Plan of a typical classroom at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) showing seating layout, and windows’ and chalkboard locations.
Buildings 09 00159 g001
Figure 2. Section at a typical classroom at JUST showing the class geometry and desks plane level.
Figure 2. Section at a typical classroom at JUST showing the class geometry and desks plane level.
Buildings 09 00159 g002
Figure 3. Northern elevation of a typical classroom at JUST showing the windows’ shape and location.
Figure 3. Northern elevation of a typical classroom at JUST showing the windows’ shape and location.
Buildings 09 00159 g003
Figure 4. Average daily sunshine in Irbid (http://weather-averages.com).
Figure 4. Average daily sunshine in Irbid (http://weather-averages.com).
Buildings 09 00159 g004
Figure 5. Plan of a typical classroom showing the distribution of the horizontal sensors grid.
Figure 5. Plan of a typical classroom showing the distribution of the horizontal sensors grid.
Buildings 09 00159 g005
Figure 6. Elevation of the board wall showing vertical sensors grid.
Figure 6. Elevation of the board wall showing vertical sensors grid.
Buildings 09 00159 g006
Figure 7. Section of a typical classroom showing the added clerestory window dimensions and position.
Figure 7. Section of a typical classroom showing the added clerestory window dimensions and position.
Buildings 09 00159 g007
Figure 8. Lightshelves’ location within the plan, elevation, and section of the classroom.
Figure 8. Lightshelves’ location within the plan, elevation, and section of the classroom.
Buildings 09 00159 g008
Figure 9. Ceiling plan of a typical classroom showing the suggested northern anidolic ducts.
Figure 9. Ceiling plan of a typical classroom showing the suggested northern anidolic ducts.
Buildings 09 00159 g009
Figure 10. Section in a typical classroom showing the suggested northern anidolic ducts.
Figure 10. Section in a typical classroom showing the suggested northern anidolic ducts.
Buildings 09 00159 g010
Figure 11. Ceiling plan of a typical classroom showing the suggested southern anidolic duct.
Figure 11. Ceiling plan of a typical classroom showing the suggested southern anidolic duct.
Buildings 09 00159 g011
Figure 12. Section in a typical classroom showing the suggested southern anidolic duct.
Figure 12. Section in a typical classroom showing the suggested southern anidolic duct.
Buildings 09 00159 g012
Figure 13. Illuminance level and distribution on the horizontal plane (by IES VE—FlucsDL).
Figure 13. Illuminance level and distribution on the horizontal plane (by IES VE—FlucsDL).
Buildings 09 00159 g013
Figure 14. Illuminance levels and distribution on the vertical plane (by Radiance).
Figure 14. Illuminance levels and distribution on the vertical plane (by Radiance).
Buildings 09 00159 g014
Figure 15. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 9:00 am.
Figure 15. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 9:00 am.
Buildings 09 00159 g015
Figure 16. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 12:00 pm.
Figure 16. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 12:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g016
Figure 17. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 3:00 pm.
Figure 17. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of March at 3:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g017
Figure 18. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 9:00 am.
Figure 18. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 9:00 am.
Buildings 09 00159 g018
Figure 19. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 12:00 pm.
Figure 19. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 12:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g019
Figure 20. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 3:00 pm.
Figure 20. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of June at 3:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g020
Figure 21. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 9:00 am.
Figure 21. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 9:00 am.
Buildings 09 00159 g021
Figure 22. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 12:00 pm.
Figure 22. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 12:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g022
Figure 23. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 3:00 pm.
Figure 23. Comparison of average illuminance levels on the desks plane on 21st of December at 3:00 pm.
Buildings 09 00159 g023
Figure 24. Solar altitudes of 21st of March, June, and December in relation to the entry aperture of the northern anidolic ducts.
Figure 24. Solar altitudes of 21st of March, June, and December in relation to the entry aperture of the northern anidolic ducts.
Buildings 09 00159 g024
Figure 25. Solar altitudes of 21st of March, June, and December in relation to the entry aperture of the southern anidolic ducts.
Figure 25. Solar altitudes of 21st of March, June, and December in relation to the entry aperture of the southern anidolic ducts.
Buildings 09 00159 g025
Figure 26. Comparison of illuminance levels of the suggested cases on the board.
Figure 26. Comparison of illuminance levels of the suggested cases on the board.
Buildings 09 00159 g026
Table 1. Materials’ reflectance of a typical classroom at JUST.
Table 1. Materials’ reflectance of a typical classroom at JUST.
MemberMaterial Reflectance
Ceiling0.70
Floor0.44
Walls0.56
Desks plane0.21
The chalkboard0.10
External ground0.20
Table 2. Radiance parameters’ values used in the research.
Table 2. Radiance parameters’ values used in the research.
ParameterDescriptionValue
-aaAmbient accuracy0.1
-abAmbient bounces8
-adAmbient divisions4096
-arAmbient resolution2048
-asAmbient super-samples1024
-dcDirect certainty1
-dpDirect-pretest density2048
-drDirect relays6
-dsSource substructuring1
-dtDirect thresholding0
-lrLimit reflection16
-lwLimit weight0
-psPixel sampling rate1
-ptSampling threshold0
-sjSpecular jitter0
-stSpecular threshold0
Table 3. Measured and suggested values of materialsˈ reflectance.
Table 3. Measured and suggested values of materialsˈ reflectance.
ElementMeasured Reflectance
in the Classroom
Simulated Reflectance
in Case No.1
Ceiling0.700.85
Back wall0.560.70

© 2019 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/).
Back to TopTop