Lighting Res. Technol.

2010; 42: 7–31

A rules of thumb-based design sequence for

diffuse daylight
CF Reinhart Dr Inga,b and VRM LoVerso PhD Archa,c
a
National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction
1200 Montreal Road, K1A 0R6 Ottawa, Canada
b
Harvard University, Graduate School of Design 48 Quincy Street, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
c
TEBE Research Group, Politecnico di Torino, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy

Received 20 December 2007; Revised 20 February 2009; Accepted 27 February 2009

This paper proposes and validates a daylighting design sequence for sidelit
spaces. Since the design sequence uses the daylight factor as a performance
metric, it is aimed towards spaces that primarily receive diffuse daylight. It should
be complemented by a design analysis that looks at direct sunlight for glare and
energy considerations. The sequence interconnects and refines earlier proposed
rules of thumb and is intended to be used during the earliest design stages when
concepts regarding programming, floor plans, massing and window areas are
initially explored. All steps within the sequence were ‘validated’ using Radiance
simulations of over 2300 sidelit spaces. During step one of the sequence the
effective sky angles are calculated and target daylight factors are defined for all
potential daylit zones within a building. In step two a refined version of the
‘daylight feasibility study’ is used to help the design team to identify building
zones with high daylighting potential based on a target mean daylight factor
criterion. During step three suitable interior room dimensions and surface
reflectances are determined using a combination of the Lynes’ limiting depth,
‘no sky line’, and window-head-height rules of thumb. Step four provides a more
accurate estimate of the required glazing area for each zone based on the Lynes
daylight factor formula which is also validated as part of this work. The effect of
external obstructions is considered throughout the process. The paper closes with
a discussion of the merits of the design sequence compared to the glazing factor
spreadsheet calculation method promoted by LEED-NC 2.2.

List of symbols DF average daylight factor on the

work plane (%)
AEA adjusted effective aperture (–)
DFF daylight feasibility factor
Aglazing net glazing area (m2)
DLynes limiting room depth (m)
Atotal total area of interior surfaces
hwindow-head-height window-head-height (m)
(including windows) (m2)
OF obstruction factor (–)
Awall gross window þ wall area (m2)
Rmean area-weighted mean surface
 obstruction angle (8)
reflectance (–)
 vis visible glazing transmittance (–)
y sky angle ¼ vertical angle of sky,
calculated from the centre of the
Address for correspondence: CF Reinhart, Harvard glazing (8)
University, Graduate School of Design, 48 Quincy Street,
Cambridge MA 02138, USA. w interior room width (m)
E-mail: reinhart@gsd.harvard.edu WWR window-to-wall ratio (%)

ß The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2010 10.1177/1477153509104765

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015

8 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
1. Introduction
Daylighting rules of thumb are simple, numer-
ical expressions that relate a design quantity of
interest, e.g. how far daylight will penetrate
into a building, to one or several design
parameters, e.g. the window-head-height.
According to two recent surveys of close to
400 design practitioners ‘experience from pre-
vious work’ and ‘rules of thumb’ are the two
daylight prediction tools on which design
practitioners most commonly rely during the
schematic design phase.1,2 The main appeal of
rules of thumb is that they are easy to learn
and offer quick advice regarding key design
parameters without slowing down the design
process. Daylight simulations and scale
models offer an effective means to go beyond
rules of thumb and refine a daylighting con-
cept later in the design process. But, since
many design teams still lack the know-how,
time, or resources for such detailed design
investigations, the daylighting analysis of
many buildings begins and ends with the use
of rules of thumb. Given the resulting impor-
tance of rules of thumb for daylighting design
practice today, one might wonder which rules
are actually being used in the ‘trenches’. The
participants of the two above-mentioned
surveys listed a series of different daylighting
rules-of-thumb. The rules were concerned with
different design aspects such as space propor-
tions, glazing area, building orientation, etc.
While most of the rules cited evolved around
common themes and ideas, their exact wording
substantially differed from participant to par-
ticipant. As an example, the popular rule of
thumb that links window-head-height and
daylight penetration depth was quoted by
many participants with recommended ratios
ranging from 1.5 to 2.5. A review of various
popular design guides showed that these
guides also differ in their exact formulation
of this rule.3 Why is the formulation of rules of
thumb so ‘non-standardised’? Part of the
answer might be that they are ‘just’ rules of
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
thumb, i.e. ‘a useful principle having wide
application but not intended to be strictly
accurate or reliable in every situation’4 In the
context of daylighting another explanation
might be that rules of thumb tend to be purely
empirical, i.e. neither derived from scientific
principles nor experimentally validated.
Notable exceptions are two equations derived
by Lynes, which approximate the average
daylight factor and limiting depth of a
sidelit space5 as well as a previous study by
one of the authors that compared the window-
to-head height rule of thumb to annual day-
light simulations.3 Both studies are further
described below.
The objective of the current paper is to
critically review several previously proposed
daylighting rules of thumb (Section 2), to test
their validity using Radiance simulations of
over 2300 sidelit spaces (Sections 3 and 4),
and to reformulate and combine them into a
four-step design sequence for diffuse day-
lighting (Section 5). The limits and merits of
the sequence as well as the US Green Building
Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design – New Construction
(LEED-NC) glazing factor formulae are
discussed in Section 6.
2. A review of three rules of thumb
This section reviews three previously pub-
lished daylighting rules of thumb that can be
used to influence key daylighting-related
design decisions.
2.1 Daylight feasibility study
The ‘daylight feasibility study’ offers a
quick test to identify which zones within a
building can potentially be daylit or not.
In this context a zone consists of a series of
spaces in a building with similar daylighting
characteristics. Key parameters that influence
these daylighting characteristics are façade
orientation and external obstructions such as

surrounding landscape or buildings. The
daylight feasibility study suggests that if a
zone’s adjusted effective aperture, AEA, is
larger than a certain threshold level called the
daylight feasibility factor, DFF, then the zone
has a high potential for daylighting and
merits a more comprehensive daylighting
analysis. The adjusted effective aperture is
defined as the product of a zone’s effective
aperture and its obstruction factor, OF. The
effective aperture is in turn the product of a
zone’s window-to-wall ratio, WWR, and the
mean visible transmittance of all façade
openings (Equation (1)).
Adjusted effective aperture
¼ WWR  vis  OF4DFF ð1Þ
The WWR is here defined as the overall
area of all translucent or transparent façade
openings excluding mullions and frames
divided by the zone’s exterior wall area,
Awall. Awall is the part of the window wall
that borders the space, i.e. it is the product of
the space width times the floor-to-ceiling
height. The obstruction factor approximates
the effect of external obstructions and is
determined as a function of the ‘percentage
of the view obstructed as seen from a typical
task location’.6 As shown in Figure 1, the
obstruction factor is defined for four ‘per-
centage of obstructed view’ ranges between
If view <50% obstructed, If view >50% and <70% obstructed,
OF = 1.00 OF = 0.85
Figure 1 Relationship between the percentage of view obstructed by surrounding landscape and the obstruction
factor
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 9
zero (no obstructions) and 100% (view out
fully obstructed).
The daylight feasibility study was originally
introduced in the 1989 Public Works and
Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
‘PWC Daylighting Manual’.6 The ‘Tips for
Daylighting with Windows’ document from
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) later cited a slightly modified version
of the rule.7 Both design guides presented the
rule ‘as is’ without any further justification.
The DFFs given by PWGSC and LBNL were
0.22 and 0.25, respectively.
While the daylight feasibility test does not
seem to have been systematically validated in
the past, its appeal for designers is that it can
easily be applied from the earliest design
stages onwards. As a simple pass/fail criterion
the test can effectively inform fundamental
programming decisions such as where to
locate zones with a high need for daylight
within a building. The physical basis of the
rule is that the adjusted effective aperture is a
direct measure of the relative amount of the
daylight flux that can enter a particular space
compared to the same space with an unob-
structed, fully opened façade. External
obstructions, reduced window opening sizes
and glazing transmittances all reduce the
incoming daylight to a point below which its
contribution to lighting the space ceases to be
meaningful. This minimum level corresponds
to the DFF (Equation (1)). The important
If view >70% and <90% obstructed, If view >90% obstructed,
OF = 0.65 OF = 0.40
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
10 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
question is what this minimum level should be
for different space types, i.e. what does a
daylight feasibility factor of 0.22 (PWGSC) or
0.25 (LBNL) imply for the amount of day-
light available within a space? This question is
addressed below.
2.2 Daylight quantity – average daylight
factor
The daylight feasibility study evaluates
whether the amount of daylight penetrating
through a façade can – in principle – lead to
good daylighting in a space bordering the
façade or not. The rule essentially constitutes
a ‘necessary condition’ for daylighting. How
satisfactory the daylight within a space actu-
ally ends up being is further dependent on the
specific lighting requirements of the space
(quantity) as well as the uniformity of the
daylight throughout the space. Daylight
quantity and uniformity both depend on
interior space dimensions and surface reflec-
tances. This section deals with the quantity
aspect. Uniformity is addressed in Section 2.3.
One still commonly used metric to char-
acterise the overall quantity of diffuse day-
light within a space is the average daylight
factor on the work plane. A number of design
guides and standards recommend different
average daylight factor values for different
space types. For example, the British
Standards Institution, BS 8206 Part 2 pre-
scribes that: ‘if electric lighting is not nor-
mally to be used during daytime, the average
daylight factor should not be less than
5% . . . [whereas] . . . if electric lighting is to be
used throughout daytime, the average day-
light factor should be not less than 2% if a
predominantly daylit appearance is wanted’.8
Along the same lines, the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) Lighting Handbook suggests that
‘when an average daylight factor is 5% or
greater an interior space will appear to be well
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
lighted. When the average daylight factor is
less than 2%, the interior space will seem
dimly lighted’.9 One of the compliance paths
for the daylighting credit 8.1 within the
LEED for New Construction version 2.2
green building rating system requires a glazing
factor above 2% in 75% of all regularly
occupied areas. The LEED glazing factor
method is examined in detail in Section 6.
While these few examples show that the
daylight factor plays a pivotal role in current
norms and guidelines, the authors would like
to stress that a number of research efforts
currently aim towards developing new day-
lighting metrics in order to complement/
replace the daylight factor. There is a partic-
ularly strong push towards climate-based
metrics which take local climate, specific
lighting requirements and space use into
account.10
The latter caveat notwithstanding, the
daylight factor remains an important day-
lighting design factor and rules of thumb to
estimate the average daylight factor for a
space are hence useful for design practitioners
using this metric. In a seminal paper in 1979
Lynes derived the following expression
(Equation (2)) of the average daylight factor
(DF) in percentage for a rectangular, sidelit
space5:
Aglazing vis y
DF ¼ ð2Þ
Atotal 2ð1  Rmean Þ
where Aglazing ¼ net glazing area,  vis ¼ visual
glazing transmittance, y ¼ sky angle ¼ vertical
angle in degrees subtended at the centre of
the glazing area by direct view of the sky
(Figure 2(a)), Atotal ¼ total area of all interior
surfaces including windows and Rmean ¼ area-
weighted mean surface reflectance of all
interior surfaces. While Lynes derived DF
as the mean daylight factor over all inte-
rior room surfaces, DF is nowadays usually
interpreted to be the mean daylight on the

(a)
θ γ
Figure 2 (a) Geometrical relationship between the sky angle y and the obstruction angle, ; (b) definition of the no
sky line depth
work plane. Lynes derived Equation (2) by
equating the light flux entering a sidelit space
to the flux absorbed by all interior surfaces.
Based on empirical findings he further
expressed the effect of surrounding buildings
on the incoming flux as a function of the sky
angle, y. The rule is well established and
different versions of it appear in several design
guides.6,7,11
The only study that the authors are aware
of that ever empirically tested the Lynes
formula (Equation (2)) was presented by
Crisp and Littlefair in 198412. In that paper
the authors compared predictions from
Equation (2) to daylight factor measurements
in a model classroom under an artificial sky.
From what the authors could gather from the
Crisp and Littlefair paper, measurements
were taken in a scale model of a classroom
that was supposed to be 7.8 m deep, 8.8 m
wide and had a variable height of 2.7–4.1 m.
Another parameter that was varied was the
wall reflectance. The effect of neighbouring
buildings was not taken into account. The
classroom was sidelit through a window that
spanned the whole width of the façade. The
study found that the Lynes formula tended to
underestimate the mean daylight factor in the
investigated spaces with a standard deviation
of about 10%.The authors accordingly sug-
gested a modified version of the Lynes
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 11
(b)
α
Work plane height No sky line depth
formula (Equation (3)) which is identical to
the Lynes formula except that the
1/2(1Rmean) is changed to 1/(1Rmean 2), i.e.:
Aglazing vis y
DF ¼ ð3Þ
Atotal ð1  R2mean Þ
For the scale model measurements used by
Crisp and Littlefair the ‘derivate’ of the Lynes
formula generated a better fit to the results
than the original formula (Equation (2)). The
derivate is currently recommended in the
IESNA Lighting Handbook9 as well as in
other guides and standards6,13. Both formulae
will be systematically tested further below.
2.3 Daylight uniformity – limiting room depth
In a sidelit space where an oversupply of
daylight near the window may push the
average daylight factor unduly up, the con-
cept of a maximum space depth for day-
lighting can help designers to avoid too high
illuminance contrast ratios. In the above-
mentioned paper Lynes also proposed a
limiting room depth for daylighting, DLynes:
2 . 1 1

DLyne ¼ þ
1  Rmean w hwindow-head-height
ð4Þ
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
12 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
where w ¼ interior room width, hwindow-head-
height ¼ distance between the floor and the
window head. In Lynes’ original paper the
Rmean in Equation (4) was the mean area-
weighted reflectance of the back half of a
space. But, for ease of use the rule has been
generally simplified to the use of Rmean as the
mean reflectance of all interior room surfaces
including glazings. Equation (4) is based on
the assumption that if the ‘ratio of the average
daylight factor in the front half of a room
[which includes the window] to the average
daylight factor in the back half of the room
exceeds three, the diversity is likely to prove
unacceptable’5.
In the presence of external obstructions
Lynes further suggested for Equation (4) that
the limiting depth should correspond to the
smaller measure of either DLynes or the ‘no
sky line’, i.e. the line on the working plane
beyond which no direct sky can be seen
(Figure 2(b)). The angle a from Figure 2(b)
can usually be approximated to be equal to y.
Thus, the no sky line depth becomes:
Dno sky line ¼
ðhwindow-head-height  work plane heightÞ  tanðyÞ
ð5Þ
Please note that this approximation only
holds if the height difference between the
obstructing building and the centre of the
glazing is substantially larger than the dis-
tance between the window head and the
centre of the glazing.
Finally, an earlier mentioned study by one
of the authors validated the following rela-
tionship between the depth of the daylight
area, Ddaylit area, and the window-head-height:
‘In a sidelit space with a standard window and
venetian blinds, the depth of the daylit area
usually lies between 1 and 2 times the
window-head-height. The exact number for
a particular space is largely influenced by the
glazing type and the target illuminance level
in the space. If a space does not require the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
use of a shading device, the ratio range can
increase up to 2.5’.3 In short,
2  hwindow-head-height
f
if a shading device is required
Ddaylight 5
penetration
2:5  hwindow-head-height
if no shading device is required
ð6Þ
Equation (6) was derived based on an series
of annual daylight simulations of the daylight
penetration depth in sidelit spaces for five
North American cities. In that study the ‘daylit
area’ was defined as ‘the area in which a task-
specific minimum illuminance is maintained
through daylight for a significant proportion
of the year when the area is occupied. This
proportion is also called daylight autonomy.
The boundary/depth of the daylit area corre-
sponds to points at which the daylight auton-
omy falls to half of its maximum value’.3
2.4 A four-step design sequence for daylighting
The basic assumption of the ‘new’ day-
lighting design sequence proposed in this paper
is that – once validated – Equations (1)–(6)
can be effectively combined to initially iden-
tify potential daylit zones within a building,
to choose appropriate zone dimensions, and
to determine the required glazing area and
type based on desired daylight factor levels.
The resulting design sequence should have a
strong appeal for designers as it allows them
to quickly establish a daylighting concept for
a whole building. At this point the authors
would already like to stress that the design
sequence only considers diffuse daylight, i.e.
it helps to design minimum façade openings
and space dimensions required to reach ade-
quate lighting levels throughout a space
under overcast sky conditions. The effect of
direct sunlight is ignored by the sequence.
This limitation is further explored in the
discussion section.

Several issues have to be resolved before
the design sequence can be recommended to
practitioners:
 Suitable daylight feasibility factors, DFF,
have to be determined for different space
types.
 Equations (2)–(4) have to be tested in a
series of sidelit spaces.
 The effect of external obstructions has to be
expressed through a single, convenient
quantity in Equations (1)–(3).
 External obstructions must be considered
when determining the limiting room depth.
2.5 Effective obstruction angle
This paragraph proposes a common
obstruction correction factor for Equations
(1)–(3). As explained above, Equation (2)
uses the sky angle, y, to characterise the
degree of obstruction of a space (Figure 2a).
Intuitively, the effect of external obstruction
on the daylight available in a building should
vanish for a sky angle of 908 (no obstructions)
and reach its maximum for a sky angle of 08
(fully obstructed sky). Following Equation (2),
which postulates a simple linear relationship
between y and the obstruction correction
factor, one gets (Equation (7)):
Obstruction correction factor
y that of the ‘sky solid angle’ proposed by
¼ for 0  y  908
908
(a) Target space
Figure 3 Two examples of external obstructions – (a) discontinuous obstruction, sky angle 608, single story target
building; (b) continuous obstruction, sky angle 608, target building same height as the neighbouring structures
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 13
Equating this obstruction correction factor
with the obstruction factor, OF, in the day-
light feasibility study changes Equation (1) to:
y
WWR  vis  4DFF ð8Þ
908
A limitation of Equation (7) for practical
design purposes is that the sky angle accord-
ing to Lynes is only defined for linear
obstructions, i.e. a space that is obstructed
by a structure of uniform height that is
located parallel to the façade plane of the
space (e.g. Figure 3(b)). How can the sky
angle be used for a discontinuous obstruction
situation such as the one in Figure 3(a)? In
order to answer this question one should note
that the underlying notion of Equation (7) is
that each solid angle of the celestial hemi-
sphere that is ‘seen’ from an obstructed space
equally contributes to the daylight within the
space. Using this simplification it is possible
to theoretically replace any complex external
obstruction situation with a linear obstruction
that shades the same amount of sky. The
‘effective’ sky angle resulting from this linear
obstruction will be used during the validation
of Equation (2), (3) and (7). The concept of
the effective sky angle is largely identical to
ð7Þ
Capeluto.14 Using Radiance simulations of
(b)
Target space
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
14 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
sidelit spaces, Capeluto showed that a correc-
tion factor of the solid angle of sky ‘seen’ by
an obstructed façade (measured in steradians)
divided by p correctly approximates the effect
of external obstructions on the daylight factor
in sidelit spaces. The ‘solid angle over p
correction term effectively corresponds to the
y/908 term in Equation (7). In practice, there
are a number of ways to estimate this correc-
tion factor. As shown by Capeluto, a simple
raytracer combined with a three-dimensional
CAD model of a building and its surround-
ings can be used to quickly model the amount
of sky ‘seen’ by any particular building
surface. Alternatively, a Waldram diagram
can be used to approximate the same quantity
manually.
3. Methodology
In order to test the validity of Equations (1)–(4)
for sidelit spaces a series of Radiance simula-
tions was carried out.15 Radiance is a
validated backward raytracer that can reli-
ably model the daylight factor distribution in
the standard sidelit spaces investigated in this
study.16 Simulations were used as opposed to
measurements since the daylight factor is
notoriously difficult to measure reliably in
real spaces. The reason for this is that actual
overcast sky conditions hardly ever corre-
spond to the idealised CIE overcast sky.
Table 1 Design variables that were modified for the Radiance parameter study
Design variable
Glazing transmittance,  vis (%) 35
Ceiling reflectance (%) 80
Window width (–) Full façade width
Balustrade (–) Yes
Window header (–) Yes
Space width (–) 1.0 * window-
head-height
Sky angle (8) 90 75
Neighbouring construction (–) Continuous
Target building (–) Same height as neighboring structure
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
Tregenza already showed in 1980 that mea-
sured internal to external illuminance ratios in
the same space can vary by ‘as much as twice
or as little as half the real value’.17
3.1 Space descriptions
All spaces investigated in this study were
rectangular, sidelit rooms with a single
window of varying dimension and position
within the façade. Table 1 shows all design
variables that were changed resulting in a total
of 2304 different spaces. All spaces had the
same window-head-height of 2.74 m (9 ft).
Spaces that had a window header with a
height of 0.9 m had an increased floor-to-
ceiling height of 3.65 m to maintain the same
window-head-height. The visual glazing trans-
mittance of the window was either 35% or
75%. The width of the window with respect to
the façade varied between full width and 50%
of the space width. The balustrade below the
main window had a height of 0.75 m and was
either glazed with the same visual transmit-
tance as the main window or opaque. The
overall space width varied from 2.74 to 9.86 m
(3.6 times the window-head-height). All walls
and window frames had a diffuse reflection of
50%, floors had a diffuse reflectance of 20%,
and ceiling reflectances were varied between
50% and 80%. External ground and neigh-
bouring building reflectances were set to 30%
and the thickness of all external walls was
250 mm. The depth of all target spaces was
Range #
75 2
50 2
50% of façade 2
width, centred
No 2
No 2
1.8 * window- 3.6 * window- 3
head-height head-height
60 45 30 15 6
Discontinuous 2
Two storey 2

varied to match that of the Lynes uniformity
depth from Equation (4). For example, for a
9.86 m wide and 2.74 m high space with an
area-weighted mean surface reflectance of
48% the space depth was set to 8.25 m. These
particular depths were chosen to combine
Equation (1)–(4) into a self-consistent day-
lighting design sequence. The combination of
all design variables in Table 1 resulted in 24
room geometries with window-to-wall ratios
(WWR) ranging from 21% to 84%. Note that
a WWR of 84% corresponds to a ‘fully glazed
façade’ i.e. a rough façade opening of 100%.
In order to quantify the effect of neighbour-
ing buildings all spaces were located on the
second floor of a dense urban surrounding
(Figure 3)34. As shown in Table 1 the
surrounding landscape was defined through
three parameters. The height of all neighbour-
ing buildings, whether these buildings were
forming a continuous obstruction or not, and
the height of the target building in which the
investigated space was located. The height of
all neighbouring buildings was varied between
six different sky angles with respect to the
target space from 908 (no obstructions) to 158
(severe obstructions). The height or the target
building, i.e. the building in which the
investigated space was located, was either
two stories – meaning that the investigated
building was located directly under the roof –
(Figure 3(a)) or corresponded to the height of
the neighbouring buildings (Figure 3(b)). The
neighbouring buildings either consisted of
eight ‘continuous’ blocks (Figure 3(b)) or 64
‘discontinuous’ blocks (Figure 3(a)).
3.2 Radiance simulations
Daylight factor levels on a 0.305 m  0.305
m (1 ft  1 ft) grid located 0.85 m above the
Table 2 Utilised Radiance simulation parameters
Ambient Ambient Ambient
bounces division sampling
6 1000 20
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 15
floor were simulated in all 2304 spaces using
Radiance. Table 2 shows the Radiance sim-
ulation parameters used. For all spaces the
following quantities were calculated: mean
daylight factor for the front half, back half
and full space; window-to-wall-ratio, total
room surface area, area-weighted mean sur-
face reflectance and glazing area.
4. Results
4.1 Lynes daylight factor formula
Figure 4 shows a plot of the mean daylight
factor calculated with Radiance versus the
mean daylight factor according to the Lynes
formula (Equation (2)) for all 2304 spaces.
Upon first inspection the two prediction
methods agree pretty well with an R2 of 0.90
and a slope of 0.81. The mean bias error
(MBE) and root mean square error (RMSE)
for all spaces are 4% and 50%, respectively.
Most of the larger relative errors appear for
daylight factors under 1%. Excluding those
Mean daylight factor according to lynes formula (%)
5 y = 0.813x
R2 = 0.8961
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean daylight factor according to Radiance (%)
Figure 4 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance
versus the mean daylight factor according to the Lynes
formula (Equation (2)) for all 2304 spaces
Ambient Ambient Direct
accuracy resolution threshold
0.05 300 0
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
16 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso

low values (which anyhow lie below typical (Equation (3)) to Radiance-based mean day-
daylight factor target levels) from the statis- light factors. The correlation between the two
tical analysis leads to MBE and RMSE values data series is equally good as for the Lynes
of 18% and 18%, respectively. formula with an R2 value of 0.90. The main
How significant are these errors when it difference is that the slope of the best fit curve
comes to using the Lynes formula for practical in Figure 5 is 1.13, i.e. the rule tends to yield
design purposes? First, in order to judge the slightly higher values than Radiance. This is
magnitude of these errors one should remem- not surprising given that:
ber that the Radiance simulations themselves
also include errors of around 10% (MBE) and 1 1
25% (RMSE).18 Second, the key issue for a 2
¼
ð1  Rmean Þ ð1 þ Rmean Þð1  Rmean Þ
user of these tools is not necessarily the size of ð9Þ
the relative errors of both methods but rather 1

how reliably each method predicts a particular 2ð1  Rmean Þ
performance metric. Using a target mean
daylight factor level of 2%, the Lynes formula
and Radiance disagree in 304 of all 2304 spaces
Using the same analysis as for the Lynes
(13%), i.e. there are 304 spaces for which
daylight formula for daylight factor target
Radiance predicts a mean daylight factor of levels of 2% yields that Lynes modified and
2% and Lynes does not or vice versa. For these Radiance diverge in 208 spaces with the rule of
304 spaces the Lynes predictions tend to be thumb predicting for 158 spaces that the space
more conservative: there are only 18 spaces meets the 2% requirement when Radiance
(less than 1%) for which Lynes predicts a predicts the opposite. In other words the
daylight factor above 2% while Radiance does modified Lynes formula agrees more often
not. These numbers suggest that the Lynes with Radiance than the Lynes formula but
formula is a surprisingly reliable calculation when both methods diverge the rule of thumb
method to estimate the mean daylight factor in is more optimistic than Radiance. While the
sidelit spaces. overall performances of the modified and
Figure 5 compares the mean daylight factor the original Lynes formula are satisfactory,
according to the modified Lynes formula the authors tend more towards using the
original Lynes formula (Equation (2)) as it
Mean daylight factor according to lynes formula (%)

includes a ‘safety margin’. The topic is

5
revisited in the discussion section.
4

3
4.2 Daylight feasibility study
y = 1.1323x Figure 6 compares the mean daylight factor
R2 = 0.8965
2
calculated with Radiance versus the daylight
feasibility factor from Equation (8). A strong
1 correlation between the two quantities is
visible with an R2 of 0.87. The main signif-
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
icance of the figure is that it directly links the
Mean daylight factor according to Radiance (%) daylight feasibility factor to a daylight factor
requirement for a space. For example, a mean
Figure 5 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance
versus the mean daylight factor according to the daylight factor distribution of 2% roughly
modified Lynes formula (Equation 3) for all 2304 spaces corresponds to a daylight feasibility factor
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015


0.60 DFF = 0.0883 DFmean
R2 = 0.87
0.50
Daylight feasibility factor
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00
Mean daylight factor according to Radiance (%)
Figure 6 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance
versus the daylight feasibility factor (Equation (8)) for all
2304 spaces
of 0.18. In other words, if for a given
combination of external obstructions,
window-to-wall ratio, and glazing type the
daylight feasibility factor lies above 0.18, then
a space proportioned according to Equation
(3) should have a mean daylight factor of
around 2%. Similarly, a daylight factor crite-
rion of 3% would translate into a daylight
feasibility factor of 0.088*3.0%  0.26. Using
the best-fit line in Figure 6, Equation (8) can
be rewritten as:
DFF 908 0:088  DF 908
WWR4  
vis y vis
Equation (10) establishes a minimum
WWR criterion that can be used from the
earliest design stages onward. Since the WWR
defined in Equation (7) excludes mullions and
window frames from the window area the
rough facade opening resulting from any
given WWR is about 20–25% larger then
the WWR, i.e. only building zones for which
Equation (10) yields a minimum WWR below
80% can be ‘easily’ daylit without the use of
any advanced daylight techniques such a light
redirecting façade elements, high-reflective
surfaces, etc.
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 17
In order to gain more insight into Equation
(10) one can also ‘derive’ it analytically from
Equations (2), (4) and (8). Using:
Ag
WWR ¼ ;
Awall

Atotal ¼ 2  Awall þ DLynes hfloor-to-ceiling

þ w  DLynes ;
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
hfloor-to-ceiling
c¼ ð11Þ
hwindow-head-height
Solving for DDF the following relationship
is established:
3  Rmean
DFF4  DF ð12Þ
22:5  c
This is an analytically accurate equation
which links DDF to a minimum DF, also
accounting for the mean interior surface
reflectance and the relative window-header
geometry. Applying Equation (12) to the sidelit
spaces investigated in this study which have an
average area-weighted reflectance of 0.44 and a
 ð10Þ ‘c’ value of 1.16 reduces Equation (12) to
y
DFF  0.097*DF. This result is reasonably
close to the best fit slope of 0.088 from Figure
6. While Equation (12) yields more insight in
the relationship between DDF and DF than a
slope of 0.088, the authors still recommend the
use of Equation (10) ‘as is’, because neither
Rmean nor ‘c’ are typically known at the time
the daylight feasibility study is to be applied in
the design sequence (Section 5).
4.3 Limiting Depth
This section investigates the limiting room
depth criterion from Equation (4). As
described in the methodology section, the
depth of all investigated spaces was chosen in
accordance with Equation (4). If Lynes’
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
18 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso

original derivation of the formula is valid, ‘the as high as 20. It falls below three for a few of
ratio of the average daylight factors in the the most heavily obstructed spaces.
front and back half of . . . [all spaces Since the Lynes limiting depth formula
should] . . . lie below three’.5 Figure 7 shows does not result in spaces in which a 3:1
that this is actually not the case. The figure daylight factor uniformity criterion is met, the
shows the ratios of simulated daylight factors question arises whether its use should be
in the front and in the back half of the spaces recommended at all? To answer this question
for different sky angles. The dotted line one should first reexamine the 3:1 uniformity
corresponds to a ratio of three as predicted ratio criterion itself, i.e. do daylit spaces
by Lynes. In the absence of external obstruc- with a daylight factor uniformity ratio
tions (sky angle of 908) the ratio lies between above three exhibit ‘inadequate’ daylighting
4.8 and 6.0. With obstructions the ratio goes conditions? Probably not: Figure 8 shows
that spaces that do meet the 3:1 daylight
20.0
Continuous obstruction
factor ratio criterion have uncommonly low
18.0
Discontinuous obstruction
room depths. The solid line in Figure 8(a)
16.0 shows the daylight factor distribution in one
of the study spaces with a WWR of 28%
Ratio DFFront/DFBack

14.0

12.0 and no external obstruction. The dotted line

10.0 shows the front-to-back daylight factor
8.0 ratio for varying room depths. For the
6.0 investigated space the ratio reaches three at
4.0 Theoretical lynes uniformity ratio 2.74 m which corresponds to the space’s
2.0 window-head-height. Figure 8(b) shows the
0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
corresponding 3:1 room depths for all 2304
More obstruction Sky angle (°) Less spaces. In the absence of external obstructions
the allowable room depth lies between 0.9
Figure 7 Ratio of the mean daylight factor in the front
half to the back half of all spaces plotted against the sky and 1.3 times the window-head-height.
angle. According to Lynes the ratio should be around The depth only rises to 2.5 times the
three for all spaces (dotted line)
window-head-height for a few very heavily

(a) 10 5 (b) 3
Limiting depth (multiple of window-head-height)

8 4
Daylight factor ratio
Daylight factor (%)

2
Lynes uniformity ratio
6 3

Daylight factor
4 Daylight factor ratio 2
1

2 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 15 20 45 60 75 90
Distance to facade (m)/Limiting room depth (M) Sky angle (°)

Figure 8 (a) Plot of the daylight factor distribution with distance to the facade in one of the database spaces with a
WWR of 28% and without external obstructions. The dotted line shows the front-to-back daylight factor ratio for
various space depths; (b) Limiting depth for all spaces leading to a front-to-back daylight factor ratio of 3:1

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015

 A design sequence for diffuse daylight 19

obstructed spaces with average daylight fac- sky line rule becomes more conservative than
tors of less than one. the other two methods for sky angles below
Based on the above argument the authors 458. In fact, the daylit area for the no sky line
conclude that a front-to-back daylight factor depth becomes a narrow band that is less than
ratio below 3 is not a suitable requirement for one times the window-head-height wide for a
good daylighting. The question remains 158 sky angle. This prediction reflects that
whether one should use the Lynes limiting daylighting becomes meaningless for heavily
depth formula? As explained above, Lynes obstructed facades. Based on Figure 9 the
actually suggested in the presence of external authors recommend interpreting the minimum
obstructions to use the smaller of the limiting of the three depths as the ‘depth of the daylit
depth and the ‘no sky line depth’.5 Figure 9 zone’ for a sidelit room. The implications of
compares the Lynes limiting depth of all this interpretation for practical considerations
spaces with their corresponding no-sky-line are further discussed below.
depth. The figure also shows a limiting depth
of 2.5 times the window-head-height which
corresponds to the recommended room depth 5. A new design sequence for diffuse
for a sidelit space without a shading device daylighting
(Equation (6)).
Figure 9 shows that the Lynes limiting Based on the results from the proceeding
depths vary between 1.7 and 3.0 times the section Table 3 proposes a new daylighting
window-head-height for all investigated design sequence for sidelit spaces. The design
spaces, i.e. they sometimes go beyond the sequence is meant to serve two purposes:
upper limit of 2.5 predicted by the window- 1) It allows design teams to quickly verify a
head-height rule. The predictions of both building zone’s potential for diffuse day-
rules of thumb do not change for different lighting based on its obstruction situation
obstruction situations. The no sky line limit- and intended usage.
ing depth lies above those of the two other 2) It can be used throughout all design stages
rules for sky angles above 458. At around 458 to check whether daylighting remains fea-
all three methods more or less agree. The no sible as the building design evolves.
In the following an example application of
2 1 1
the design sequence from Table 3 is given for
Limiting depth (multiple of window-head-height)

1–R w + hwindow-head-height
4
No sky line
2.5*hwindow-head-height a heavily obstructed urban site that is
bordered by a 20 m wide street and obstructed
3
by a 40 m high existing building (Figure 10).
The program for a new building foresees
2 retail spaces at street level and private offices
starting on the eighth floor (assuming a floor-
1
to-floor height of 4m). The design sequence is
applied in the following to determine whether
both building zones can be daylit.
0
90° 75° 60° 45° 30° 15° Step 1: The effective sky angles from the
Sky angle (°)
centre of the façade for zones 1 and 2 are
Figure 9 Comparison of the Lynes limiting depth, the no y1 ¼ arctan(20m/38m)288 and y2 ¼ arctan
sky line depth, and window-head-height rule of thumb (20m/6m)738, respectively. The desired day-
for all 2304 spaces
light factor level for both zones is 2%.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015

20 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
Table 3 Design sequence for diffuse daylight

Step (1) Site conditions and programming needs:

Mentally divide your design into daylit zones, i.e. areas within your building with comparable programmatic needs for
daylight and similar exposure to the celestial hemisphere. Calculate the effective sky angles, y (in degree), and define
target daylight factors, DF (in percent), for all potential daylit zones.
Step (2) Daylight feasibility test:
Pick a glazing transmittance,  vis, and determine the minimum required window-to-wall ratio, WWR, for each daylit
zone from step (1) according to:
0:088  DF 90o
WWR > 
vis y
Given that this WWR excludes mullions and frames, only zones with a minimum WWR below 80% can be realistically
daylit. Remember that increasing the visual transmittance of the selected glazing can reduce the required minimum
WWR.
! If zones that should be daylit have a minimum WWR above 80% (Aglazing ¼ 0.8 * Aopening) you should reconsider
your design scheme or space usage for these zones.
! Continue to steps (3) and (4) for zones that pass the daylight feasibility test.
Step (3) Room proportions:
Working with the formulae below select mean surface reflectances, space widths and window-head-heights for all
zones that passed step (2). The depth of the daylit area within each zone is going to be:
0   1
2 1 1
B = þ C
B 1  Rmean w hwindow-head-height C
B C
B
Depth of daylit area < minimum B ðh window-head-height  work plane heightÞ  tanð y Þ C
C
B 2:0  h if a shading device is required C
@ window-head-height A
2:5  hwindow-head-height if no shading device is required
Note that working with these formulae should be an iterative process until you have satisfactory daylighting depths
for all zones.
Step (4) Required glazing area:
In order to calculate the minimum required glazing area, Aglazing, required for each daylit zone you may assume that
the room depth of the zone corresponds to the depth of the daylight zone that you calculated in step (3). Calculate the
total interior surface area, Atotal, according to this ‘virtual room depth’ and derive Aglazing using:
Aglazing ¼ DF  2Atotal ð1Rmean Þ
vis  y

! Verify that the resulting Aglazing and  vis values are compatible with competing design requirements such as solar
gain control and glare.

Step 2: Choosing a typical double glazing

with a visual transmittance of 0.8 results
in minimum WWRs for zones 1 and 2
θ2 of (0.088*2*908)/(0.8*288) ¼ 71% and
Zone 2 32 m above street level
(0.088*2*908)/(0.8*738) ¼ 27%, respectively.
Both zones show some daylight potential
even though the daylighting potential for the
θ1 retail space (zone 1) is borderline. It is
Zone 1 Street level
therefore worthwhile to continue the analysis
Existing building Street width (20 m)
(40 m high)
New building
for both zones in steps 3 and 4.
Step 3: Assuming a window-head-
Figure 10 Section of a hypothetical urban site. The site height and a floor-to-ceiling-height for the
is bordered by an existing building and the design
sequence is applied to determine the daylighting poten- retail space of 3.5m, a space width of 10m, a
tial of zone1 (retail) and zone 2 (office) mean surface reflectance of 50%, no shading
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015


device and a workplane height of zero
results in:
Depth of daylit area ðretail Þ5minimum
0  1  1
2 1
10:5= 10m þ 3:5m  10:3m
B C
@ ð3:5m  0mÞ  tanð288Þ  1:9m A ¼ 1:9m
2:5  3:5m  8:8m
This shows that – due to the high obstruc-
tion – the retail space is only going to have a
very narrow daylit area very close to the
window. For the offices the window-head-
height is set equal to 2.8m, the space width is
3m, the mean surface reflectance is 50%, and
a shading device is required. This results in:
Depth of daylit area ðofficeÞ5minimum
0 1  1
2 1
10:5= 3m þ 2:8m  5:8m
B C
@ ð2:8m  0:85mÞ  tanð738Þ  6:4m A ¼ 5:6m
2:0  2:8m ¼ 5:6m
Step 4: The minimum required glazing
areas for daylighting a 1.9m (5.6) deep zone
for the retail (office) space are:
Aglazing ðretailÞ
2  2  2ð10m  3:5m þ 10m  1:9m
þ1:9m  3:5mÞð1  0:5Þ
¼
0:8  288
 11m2 ) WWR ¼ 31%
Aglazing ðofficeÞ
2  2  2ð3m  2:8m þ 3m  5:6m
þ5:6m  2:8mÞð1  0:5Þ
¼ some safety margin within the analysis. Since
0:8  738
2 the sequence should be easy to learn and
 2:8m ) WWR ¼ 33%
The two resulting minimum WWRs of
around 30% follow good daylighting practice.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 21
The analysis for the retail space shows that
there will only be a 1.9 m deep daylit area
directly bordering the façade which could
serve as a niche application such as a seating
area for a cafe. The required glazing area for
the retail space fell from 71% (step 2) to 31%
because of the depth of the daylit area is so
low. The resulting design assumes that the
ð13Þ designer only intends to daylit a narrow band
adjacent to the façade. This is an unlikely
scenario given that even partial daylight is a
sought after amenity in retail spaces. If the
designer instead ‘demanded’ a daylit zone
depth of 6 m for the retail space – essentially
ignoring the result of step (3) – then the
required WWR would double to 59%. The
resulting expanded daylight area would have a
strong daylight illuminance gradient which
would have be balanced with an electric
lighting system that is mostly switched on in
the back of the space. The designer would
obviously be well advised to analyse the energy
and glare implications of this dramatic design
ð14Þ change.
6. Discussion
This section discusses the merits and limita-
tions of the proposed design sequence. Predic-
tions by the sequence are compared to those of
the LEED-NC 2.2 glazing factor method.
6.1 A sequence for diffuse daylighting
The design sequence proposed in this paper
provides an effective and reliable means for
designing sidelit spaces that meet a given
average daylight factor requirement.
Predictions of the sequence tend to be slightly
ð15Þ lower than Radiance simulations allowing for
apply it has the potential to become popular
among design practitioners. In fact, the first
author has already used the design sequence
in a homework assignment in two classes for
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
22 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
architectural students at the Harvard Design
School during the fall 2008 term. These initial
teaching experiments confirmed that architec-
tural students can learn how to use the design
sequence within a 90-min lecture. The results
for the homework assignments further sug-
gested that – if used in combination with
other daylighting analysis methods – the
sequence can help designers to come up with
a solid first daylighting scheme for their
projects. On the other hand, it was noted
that – if used in isolation – the sequence
tempts designers to oversize their windows.
This is not surprising given that the sequence
is based on a daylight factor approach which
favours a ‘the more the better’ attitude
towards daylight.10 Given these known lim-
itations of the daylight factor metric one
might therefore wonder whether a widespread
adoption of the design sequence is actually
desirable? This question is addressed in the
following.
As mentioned in the introduction, the
daylight factor is currently under scrutiny as
a daylight performance metric as it does not
take direct sunlight, local climate, façade
orientation and movable shading devices
into account.10 Climate-based daylight per-
formance metrics, that are based on annual
daylight simulations combined with an occu-
pant behaviour model, can be used to over-
come these limitations. Integrated
daylighting/energy design tools such as
Daylight1-2-319 and ComFen20 have been
specifically developed to allow simulation
novices to calculate more advanced metrics
in offices and classrooms at the earliest design
stages. The use of such tools is therefore
recommended over the use of rules of thumb.
But, these tools follow a somewhat ‘micro-
scopic’, space-by-space approach to daylight-
ing design whereas the design sequence fosters
a more holistic initial approach to daylighting
that encompasses the whole building. Also,
given that it will still take some time before
the use of simulations becomes more
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
mainstream, the authors maintain that, if no
daylight simulations are carried out because
of time, know-how and/or financial con-
straints, then applying the validated daylight-
ing design sequence is preferable to using no
quantitative information or (even worse)
relying on rules of thumb that yield wrong
results (see below).
In any instance, the design sequence should
be interpreted as a tool for designing spaces in
which a certain amount of daylight is avail-
able under diffuse sky conditions. In predo-
minantly overcast, temperate climates the
sequence should yield meaningful results by
itself. In sunnier climates the sequence
obviously has to be combined with an addi-
tional solar gains and glare analysis. In the
extreme case of a sunny climate and a South-
or West-facing, unobstructed façade, the
results of the design sequence become largely
irrelevant as overheating and glare concerns
will (or should) determine the overall facade
design. In denser urban settings in which
façades are subject to moderate or high
external obstructions the effect of direct
sunlight, orientation and local climate is
somewhat tempered and the design sequence
again becomes more relevant even in sunny
climates.
6.2 Limitations
As shown above, the design sequence can
be confidently applied to standard sidelit
spaces with mostly Lambertian surfaces. The
effect of certain design measures such as
highly reflective ceilings can only be partly
considered through the sequence through an
increased mean room reflectance. The method
cannot distinguish between specular versus
matte reflectances or between highly reflective
ceilings versus highly reflective walls or floors.
Likewise, the effect of light-redirecting façade
elements cannot be predicted using the
sequence. If such ‘advanced’ daylighting mea-
sures are of interest the use of daylight
simulations is recommended.

The sequence has been validated in ‘empty’
spaces. Accordingly the results cease to be
reliable if internal partitions and other furni-
ture are introduced. As shown in an earlier
parametric study of open plan offices the
presence of obstructions with a height of only
1.1 m can significantly reduce the annual
amount of daylight available beyond the
partition21, i.e. the sequence is only applicable
within the area between the façade and any
objects higher than about 1.1 m. Likewise,
objects such as desks which are located near
the facade block all daylight incoming
through glazed areas below desk height. In
the presence of such objects any blocked
glazing area should not be considered in the
calculation. Note, however, that in the
absence of such objects low-lying façade
areas do contribute to the overall daylight
within a space. This is especially true in the
presence of significant external obstructions
when most daylight is reflected at least once
outside before entering a space, i.e. the overall
directionality of incoming daylight changes
from ‘downwards’ to ‘sideways’.
6.3 Lynes formula and its derivates
Since its initial publication in 1979 the
Lynes daylight factor formula5 and its deri-
vate (Equation (4)) have been quoted by a
number of design guides. Its popularity
underlines the attraction of easy-to-use rules
of thumb for design practitioners. As
explained above, the comparison of predic-
tions using either formula lead to good
approximations of daylight factor simulations
in Radiance. The authors slightly favour the
original version since it provides reliable,
slightly more conservative results than the
derivate formula. This conclusion diverges
from those of the Crisp and Littlefair12 study
in which the derivate was developed and
which showed significantly better results for
the derivate formula. What might be the
reasons for these opposing conclusions? Part
of the discrepancy might have been caused by
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 23
different scene assumptions, i.e. Crisp and
Littlefair worked with a ground reflectance of
about 20% whereas this study used a 30%
ground reflectance. This value was chosen
based on a sample of reflectance measure-
ments of typical urban sidewalks. Other
differences might have been caused by the
different type of benchmark data that was
used in the two studies: Artificial sky mea-
surements in the Crisp and Littlefair study
and Radiance simulations in this study. While
it is hard to determine now which method is
more reliable, one should remember that the
daylight factor is an idealised mathematical
construct that is hard/impossible to measure
correctly in practice17 and that scale model
measurements – same as simulations – come
with a significant error margin.22 For a self-
shading scene parallax errors become increas-
ingly important for artificial sky measure-
ments.23 For a daylight factor evaluation
involving self-shading one could therefore
argue that simulations are more reliable
than artificial sky measurements.
6.4 LEED-NC 2.2 Glazing Factor
A spreadsheet method that bears some
resemblance to the Lynes daylight factor
formula is the earlier mentioned glazing
factor method, a compliance path for
‘Daylighting Credit 8.1’ within LEED–NC
2.224. Within LEED a compliance path is a
method to demonstrate that a building design
meets the intent of a given credit. The glazing
factor compliance path requires a ‘minimum
glazing factor of 2% in a minimum of 75% of
all regularly occupied spaces’.24 The ‘glazing
factor’ is a somewhat confusing term that was
introduced in LEED-NC version 2.2. Its
definition is identical to that of the daylight
factor except that it rather vaguely refers to a
‘known overcast sky condition’ as the refer-
ence sky as opposed to the CIE overcast sky
that is used by the daylight factor.25 The
LEED reference guide provides the following
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
24 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso

formula to calculate the mean glazing factor
in a space:
Glazing Aglazing Window geometry
¼ 
factor Afloor
 vis actual
 
 vis reference
Some of the elements of the Lynes formula
can be found in Equation (16) even though
the area in the denominator is the floor area
instead of the sum of all internal surfaces. The
geometry and height factors are correction
factors to account for where within the
building envelope a particular glazing is
located. The LEED Reference Guide is
explicit in that the glazing factor calculation
method ‘does not take into account light
shelves, partitions, significant exterior
obstructions or exterior reflective surfaces’.24
Figure 11 compares the predictions of the
glazing factor method with the Radiance
simulations for the 2304 spaces.
While the two prediction methods agree
reasonably well for spaces without external
obstructions (black dots; R2 ¼ 0.9;
6.00
Glazing factor according to LEED 2.2 (%)
slope ¼ 0.8) the glazing factor method fails
in the presence of external obstructions
(crosses). This finding is not surprising as
this limitation is clearly stated in the LEED
reference guide. Nevertheless, Figure 11
factor
clearly shows how severe this shortcoming
Window height of the glazing factor method is given that
factor ‘green’ building design generally promotes the
(re)development of urban sites. As a ‘quick
ð16Þ
fix’ Figure 12 compares the predictions of the
glazing factor method enhanced with the
obstruction correction factor from Equation
(7) with the Radiance simulations for the 2304
spaces:
Glazing Aglazing Window geometry
¼ 
factor Afloor factor
 vis actual Window height y
  
 vis reference factor 908
ð17Þ
Figure 12 shows that adding the obstruc-
tion correction factor introduces a dramatic
improvement over Figure 11. In fact, the least
square fit for all 2304 spaces now corresponds
to R2 ¼ 0.90 with a slope of 0.79, i.e. there is
some safety margin between the prediction of
the enhanced glazing factor method and

Glazing factor with obstruction correction factor (%)

5.00 6

4.00 5

3.00 4

2.00 3

y = 0.7854x
1.00 Spaces without obstructions
2 R2 = 0.9017
Spaces with obstructions
0.00 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean daylight according to Radiance (%)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 11 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance Mean daylight factor according to Radiance (%)
versus the mean glazing factor according to LEED-NC 2.2
for all 2304 spaces. Spaces without external obstructions Figure 12 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance
are marked as black dots; all other spaces are marked as versus the enhanced glazing factor method with an
crosses obstruction correction factor of y/908 for all 2304 spaces

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015

 A design sequence for diffuse daylight 25

Radiance. Comparing once more the results to reasonably accurate results compared to
from Radiance versus those of the glazing simulations, it does not lead to spaces that
factor for a target mean daylight factor level meet the formal requirement of the compli-
of 2% leads to diverging results in 329 spaces ance path, i.e. a glazing factor/daylight factor
and only 16 spaces in which the glazing factor above 2% in 75% of the space area. This is
prediction is over 2% when Radiance is not. important since several simulation programs
This excellent agreement suggests that (a) the now automatically calculate the daylight
glazing factor should be renamed again into factor on a point-by-point basis in a space
the daylight factor to avoid further confusion in order to demonstrate compliance with the
and (b) an obstruction correction factor of y/ LEED daylighting credit. Figure 13 shows
908 should be added to Equation (16). that getting the credit via individual point-by-
Finally, before closing this section, it is point calculations is harder than just meeting
instructive to reconsider once more the actual the 2% mean glazing factor criterion. This
requirement of the glazing factor method in dilemma provokes the question as to whether
LEED namely a ‘minimum glazing factor/ the whole glazing factor/daylight factor con-
daylight factor of 2% in at least 75% of all cept in LEED should be discarded altogether?
regularly occupied spaces’. How far are the The authors’ opinion in this matter is ‘yes’ but
mean daylight factor and the overall daylight not because the 75% of floor area require-
factor distribution within a space correlated? ment is not met. Field work by Roche and
Figure 13 compares the mean daylight factor Littlefair in the UK suggests that in primarily
according to Radiance to the percentage of overcast climates ‘satisfaction with daylight
floor area with a daylight factor over 2%. As can be maximised for average daylight factors
one would expect the correlation between the between 2% and 5%’.26 So, a mean glazing
two quantities is reasonably high. What might factor/daylight factor requirements of 2%
be surprising is that the percentage of floor seems reasonable. The daylight factor should
be replaced with climate-based metrics
area with a daylight factor over 2% never
because of its already mentioned intrinsic
reaches 75% for all 2304 spaces even though a
limitations as a design metric.10 Yet, this
large proportion of these spaces have a mean
change should only take place once suitable
daylight factor over 2%. This reveals that
minimum levels for one or several climate-
while the glazing factor rule-of-thumb leads
based metrics have been established and
validated. Rules of thumb for the daylight
Percentage of floor area with a DF over 2% (%)

factor will remain a useful design tool, at least

60 until comparable rules are available for
climate-based metrics.
45
y = 14.342x
R2 = 0.8222
7. Conclusion and outlook
30

This paper introduces and validates a new

15
design sequence for diffuse daylighting and
reviews several other rules of thumb. The
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
daylight feasibility study is expanded and
Mean daylight factor according to Radiance(%) linked to a minimum daylight factor criterion.
Figure 13 Mean daylight factor calculated with Radiance
Results from the Lynes mean daylight factor
versus the percentage of floor area with a daylight factor formula are compared to Radiance simula-
over 2% for all 2304 spaces tions revealing that there are only 18 out of
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015

26 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
2304 spaces for which Lynes predicts a mean
daylight factor above 2% when Radiance did
not. At the same time it was suggested that
the Lynes limiting depth formula should be
used in combination with the validated
window-head-height rule of thumb and the
‘no sky line’ method. Combined, the three
rules of thumb form a powerful and easy-to-
use design sequence for diffuse daylighting
(Table 3).
While the paper shows that the rules of
thumb used by the design sequence yield
surprisingly reliable estimates, the LEED
glazing factor formula is less reliable for the
standard sidelit space investigated. A closer
investigation of the glazing factor approach in
LEED-NC 2.2 suggests that an obstruction
correction factor of y/908 should be added to
the glazing factor formula to include the
effect of external obstructions. The glazing
factor should also be renamed again into the
daylight factor to avoid confusion.
While the design sequence is based on the
daylight factor, a design metric with several
recognised shortcomings, its use is recom-
mended by the authors with all the caveats
that come with a method that only considers
diffuse daylight, at least until a comparable
design sequence based on climate-based
metrics becomes available.
This paper has the larger goal of bridging
the gap between design practice and advanced
daylight simulation research by clarifying
within what boundaries the use of a particular
rule of thumb is justifiable and when design
practitioners should ‘move on’ to simulations.
At the same time the paper clearly demon-
strates the need to validate rules of thumb
showing that some popular rules are less
reliable than others. As far as future work is
concerned, the design sequence has thus far
only been validated for sidelit spaces and clear
glazings. An expansion to toplit spaces and a
larger variety of façade elements therefore
seems to be opportune at some point in
the future.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
References
1 Galasiu A, Reinhart CF. Current daylighting
design practice: A survey. Building Research
and Information 2007; 36(2): 159–174.
2 Reinhart CF, Fitz A. Findings from a survey
on the current use of daylight simulations in
building design. Energy and Buildings 2006;
38(7): 824–835.
3 Reinhart CF. A simulation-based review of the
ubiquitous window-head-height to daylit zone
depth rule of thumb: Proceedings of the
Buildings Simulation. Montreal, Canada:
IBPSA, 2005.
4 Houghton-Mifflin. The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language,
4th Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company & Bartleby.com, 2004.
5 Lynes JA. A sequence for daylighting design.
Lighting Research & Technology 1979; 11(2):
102–106.
6 Public Works and Government Services
Canada (PWGSC). PWC Daylighting Manual.
Ottawa, Canada: PWGSC, 1989.
7 O’Connor J, Lee E, Rubinstein F, Selkowitz S.
Tips for Daylighting with Windows Report
LBNL-39945. Berkeley CA, USA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, 1997.
8 British Standards Institution. British Standard
BS8206 Lighting for buildings – Part 2: Code of
Practice for Daylighting. London: BSI, 1992.
9 Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America. IESNA Lighting Handbook, Ninth
Edition, New York: IESNA, 2000.
10 Reinhart CF, Mardaljevic J, Rogers Z.
Dynamic daylight performance metrics for
sustainable building design. Leukos 2006;
3(1): 1–20.
11 Public Works and Government Services
Canada. Canadian Tips for Daylighting.
Ottawa, Canada: PWGSC, 2002.
12 Crisp VHC, Littlefair PJ. Average daylight
factor prediction: Proceedings of the CIBSE
National Lighting Conference, Robinson
College, Cambridge, UK: Chartered
Institution of Building Services, 1984.
13 Chartered Institution of Building Services
Engineers. Lighting Guide 10: Daylighting and
Window Design. London, UK: CIBSE, 1999.
14 Capeluto IG. The influence of the urban
environment on the availability of daylighting

in office buildings in Israel. Building and
Environment 2003; 38: 745–752.
15 Ward G, Shakespeare R. Rendering with
RADIANCE. The Art and Science of Lighting
Visualization. San Francisco, USA: Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, 1998.
16 Mardaljevic J. Validation of a lighting simu-
lation program under real sky conditions.
Lighting Research & Technology 1995; 27(4):
181–188.
17 Tregenza PR, Waters IM. The daylight factor
and actual illuminance ratios. Lighting
Research & Technology 1980; 12(2): 64–68.
18 Reinhart CF, Walkenhorst O. Dynamic
RADIANCE-based daylight simulations for a
full-scale test office with outer venetian blinds.
Energy & Buildings 2001; 33(7): 683–697.
19 Reinhart CF, Bourgeois D, Dubrous F,
Laouadi A, Lopez P, Stelescu O. Daylight
1-2-3 – A state-of-the-art daylighting design
software for initial design investigations:
Proceedings of the Buildings Simulation 2007.
Beijing, China: IBPSA, 2007.
20 Hitchcock RJ, Yazdanian M, Lee E, Huizenga
C. ComFen - A commercial fenestration/facade
design tool: Proceedings of SimBuild 2008.
Berkeley. CA: IBPSA USA, 2008.
21 Reinhart CF. Effects of interior design on the
daylight availability in open plan offices:
Proceedings of the American Commission for an
Energy-Efficient Environment 2002 Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Pacific
Grove, USA: ACEEE, 2002.
22 Cannon-Brookes SWA. Simple scale models
for daylighting design: Analysis of error
illuminance prediction. Lighting Research
& Technology 1997; 29(3): 135–142.
23 Mardaljevic J. Quantification of parallax
errors in sky simulator domes for clear sky
conditions. Lighting Research & Technology
2002; 34(4): 313–332.
24 US Green Building Council. LEED-NC
Version 2.2 (2006). www.usgbc.org/LEED/,
last accessed February 2009.
25 Moon P, Spencer DE. Illumination from a
non-uniform sky. Illuminating Engineering
1942; 37: 707–726.
26 Roche L, Dewey E, Littlefair P. Occupant
reactions to daylight in offices. Lighting
Research & Technology 2000; 32(3): 119–126.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 27
Discussion
Comment 1:
J-L Scartezzini (Professor, Laboratoire
d’Energie Solaire et de Physique du
Batiment, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne, Batiment LE, CH-1015 Lausanne,
Switzerland)
The quest for reliable and ‘easy-to-use’ day-
lighting design methods has been a concern for
academics and practitioners in the building
domain for several decades. Their application
at a very early stage of the building design
process is crucial and should lead to appropri-
ate decisions regarding daylighting strategies
and energy saving measures. Rules-of-thumb
as well as nomograms and protractors such as
those that were set-up in the early 1960s by the
former Building Research Station (BRS) in the
UK, were certainly among the first available
design methods of that kind. Through their
detailed and rigorous analysis of the Lynes’
daylighting design sequence, the authors have
identified the capabilities and limits of such an
‘easy-to-use’ daylighting design method.
However, some concerns must be raised
about the pertinence of such a rules-of-thumb
method with respect to what simplified com-
puter design methods can offer today. This is
particularly true if one considers some of the
existing daylighting design and decision tools –
such as the one developed by Paule in
Switzerland for instance (DIAL-Europe soft-
ware, www.estia.ch) – which can provide
almost instant access to daylight factor and
daylighting autonomy calculations for con-
ventional room spaces together with an
‘‘expert system’’ based appraisal (achieved
through fuzzy logic rules) of the daylighting
design. Rules-of-thumb cannot take all aspects
of the imprecise nature of the daylighting
design process into account (wall colours and
reflectances are probably unknown by the
lighting designer at the early stage). Being able
to use linguistic variables (such as ‘clear’ or
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
28 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
‘dark’ to express wall surface reflectance for
instance) instead of fixed numbers (such as the
area-weighted mean surface reflectance of
interior surfaces in the Lyne’s formula for
instance) is one of the main advantage of such
modern daylighting design and decision tools.
It must be emphasised, moreover, that other
important aspects of building design (such as
visual and thermal comfort, as well as sun-
lighting and solar gains for instance) cannot
easily be accounted for by the suggested rules-
of-thumb-based design sequence: a more
holistic design approach of buildings, which
was not possible at the time most of these
‘easy-to-use’ daylighting design methods were
created, is recommended today.
Comment 2:
C Cuttle (16, McHardy Street, Havelock
North 4130, New Zealand)
It has been pleasantly reassuring to read that
‘the Lynes formula is a surprisingly reliable
calculation method to estimate the mean
daylight factor in sidelit spaces’. During the
three decades since Lynes published his
‘sequence’, I have taught it, albeit with some
spins of my own, to well over a thousand
students.
It is a distinct pedagogical strength of the
‘sequence’ that, by following Lynes’ deriva-
tion of his expressions, a teacher can give
students insight into the process of daylight-
ing and the factors, which affect its perfor-
mance and suitability for a given situation.
The components of the expressions emerge in
logical order and take their respective posi-
tions on the right-hand side of each formula,
and for teaching architecture students, the
benefit of this introduction to an aspect of
architectural science can hardly be overstated.
At least, that is the procedure until we reach
the Crisp and Littlefair ‘derivative’ formula,
which substitutes (1Rmean2) for 2(1Rmean).
This has to be explained as an empirical
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
finding that gives a better fit to experimental
data, but while I have been giving this
explanation it has always sounded to me like
an apology. I am, therefore, well pleased to
note that the authors do not recommend this
substitution, and I will enjoy expunging it
from my teaching material.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I look
at the new validated sequence proposed by
the authors. Of course, any design method or
calculation procedure that we promote should
be reliable, but if it is to further the design
process it must do more than predict numer-
ical quantities. The components of the expres-
sions need to have meaning, so that designers
are not only alerted to problems, but also to
the likely causes. For the daylight feasibility
test, the formula for required window to wall
ratio is outstandingly simple, but where does
the 0.088 constant come from? Once again,
there is the need to explain an empirical/best-
fit intrusion, but actually, I prefer the derived
procedure given in the text. It gives a value of
0.097, which is considered close enough to be
accepted as confirmation of the 0.088 value,
but if that is so, cannot the value be rounded
off to 0.1? Or instead, a multiplier of 10 be
inserted in the bottom line?
As the depth from window wall of all of the
spaces examined in the Radiance simulations
had been determined by Lynes’ limiting depth
formula, it was expected that in all cases the
front half/back half ratio would not exceed a
value of 3, but it was found that ‘this is
actually not the case’. That might be seen as a
failure of the formula, but it should be noted
that Lynes’ procedure included checking the
‘no-sky line’, and the uniformity criterion
requires that both of these limits are satisfied.
The authors acknowledge this in their propo-
sals, and proceed to add a third check: the
window-head-height rule. My examination of
Figure 9 does not convince me that this is a
useful addition, and I prefer Lynes’ Step 4 of
his ‘sequence’ in which he discusses how a
designer who has determined the total

window area in the previous step might
proceed to determine the shapes and positions
of the windows. I think this is an aspect of the
design process where architects are more
likely to accept advice than rules.
I need more time to work with these
proposals and to think through their implica-
tions before I am willing to move on from the
familiar Lynes’ sequence. Nonetheless, I
applaud the authors for bringing this key
component of daylighting design into such
sharp focus. I am sure that they have noted
that Lynes claimed that application of his
average daylight factor and window area
formulae ‘are not restricted to side windows’.
Can we hope that they will apply similar
scrutiny to clerestories and skylights?
Reply to comments:
CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
We thank Kit Cuttle and Jean-Louis
Scartezzini for their thoughtful comments,
which reveal how dramatically attitudes
towards rules-of-thumb vary among daylight-
ing experts. Dr Scartezzini doubts their
remaining pertinence for today’s design prac-
tice and instead recommends the use of
computer-based design decision tools such
as Dial-Europe. His main criticism of the
proposed design sequence is that it does not
consider visual and thermal comfort as well as
solar gain control. Mr Cuttle on the other
hand has already been an avid promoter and
user of Lynes’ original design sequence for
architectural education and suggests that a
rules-of-thumb should alert designers ‘not
only of [design] problems but also of likely
[physical] causes [for these problems]’. He
further proposes a simplification of the day-
light feasibility study replacing the empirically
derived 0.088 with a factor of one tenth.
We agree with Mr Cuttle’s observation
regarding the usefulness of rules-of-thumb for
daylighting design. At the same time we are
also promoting the use of computer-based
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 29
design tools such as Dial-Europe. In fact, the
corresponding author lead the development
of an integrated daylighting/energy design
tool called Daylight1-2-3 at the same time as
we developed this design sequence.1
In our opinion the use of rules-of-thumb
and computer-based design tools perfectly
complement each other: Given the way build-
ing design is taught (and practiced) design
practitioners tend to initially follow an ‘out-
side in’ approach not only towards day-
lighting but towards all building design
aspects. Building form is developed in
response to aesthetics, urban considerations,
programmatic requirements and, increasingly,
environmental concerns. Once a basic build-
ing form has been conceived different façade
variants can be explored. At this point within
the design process, tools such as Dial-Europe
and Daylight1-2-3 can in fact support better
building design. But – since both tools only
examine a single room at a time – they make
the designer take on an occupancy-centred,
‘inside out’ approach towards daylighting.
One could argue that design advice provided
by these tools, although useful, is already ‘too
late’ since the tools can help make a West
facing façade better for daylighting but – at
this point in the design process – they cannot
easily lead the designer towards avoiding this
façade orientation in the first place. Rules-of-
thumb on the other hand can act as form-
givers for buildings from the earliest design
phases onwards. Figure 1 shows an example
of two partly shaded façades whose window
design has been fully derived from the
daylight feasibility study: The window-to-
wall-ratio falls for higher levels with less
obstruction by neighbouring buildings. As
the required window-to-wall ratio reaches the
upper feasibility limit for the lower levels the
windows disappear since these levels ‘cannot
be daylit anyhow’. The example is ‘radical’ in
that it leads to a design that is most likely not
acceptable to the building occupants. But, it
carries a powerful educational message and
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
30 CF Reinhart and VRM LoVerso
Figure 1 Visualisation of a window design for a partly shaded façade derived by the daylight feasibility study
(visualisation and design by Jeff Niemasz)
highlights how effectively rules-of-thumb may
act as formgivers for design. The example
further shows that – as already mentioned in
the paper – the proposed design sequence
does not take overall energy use and/or glare
into account and has been derived for facades
that are mostly receiving diffuse daylight.
There is certainly a need to further expand the
sequence and the authors invite others to join
in this effort.
Since we wrote the paper the first author
has taught the design sequence to over one
hundred architectural students and practi-
tioners and, based on this experience, we
follow Cuttle’s recommendation to simplify
the daylight feasibility formula since (a) many
students were confused as to where the 0.088
comes from, (b) the number suggests a
precision that is not there and (c) many
students simply mistyped the formula repla-
cing 0.088 e.g. with 0.88. We are therefore
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
changing the daylight feasibility test to
Equation (1):
DF 90
WWR4 ð1Þ
10  vis y
Teaching the design sequence, the first
author also found many students taking
exception to the no-sky-line limiting rule
depth since it frequently leads to seriously
limited daylit areas. In this sprit we now stress
the fact that the decision of what constitutes a
‘well daylit’ space rests with the designer
including the ‘decision’ whether a space
without visible access to the sky can be
called ‘daylit’.
As Dr Scartezzini suggests, interior room
reflectances are typically unknown at the
early stages of design and qualitative terms

such as dark, medium or bright are therefore
more adequate than absolute levels. For the
2304 investigated spaces the mean interior
room reflectance varied between 37% and
49%. In reference to the CIBSE ‘Lighting
Guide 10: Daylighting and Window Design’2
we are therefore suggesting values of 40%,
50% and 60% for spaces with light, medium
and dark surface reflectances.
We agree with Mr Cuttle that the Lynes
formula still needs to be systematically tested
for non-sidelit spaces and we are currently
working on a study to this effect.
In closing, we are leaving the reader with a
final thought. Even if the reader decides not to
use a design sequence that is based on the
daylight factor, the fact that the Lynes
formula leads to such highly correlated results
compared to Radiance simulations makes it a
powerful quality control test for computer
models. If a computer model of a typical
sidelit space predicts a dramatically different
mean daylight factor than the Lynes formula,
it is probably corrupt, e.g. wall thicknesses are
not taken into account, material properties
are not set properly and/or an unreliable
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on April 4, 2015
A design sequence for diffuse daylight 31
simulation program is being used.3 At this
point the modeler should carefully review the
model before proceeding to more advanced
simulations of e.g. climate-based metrics and/
or glare. This use of the Lynes formula as a
simulation ‘crosscheck’ was successfully used
during two practitioner workshops that the
first author gave during the summer of 2009.
References
1 Reinhart C, Bourgeois D, Dubrous F, Laouadi
A, Lopez P, Stelescu O. Daylight 1-2-3 – A state-
of-the-art daylighting design software for initial
design investigations: Proceedings of the
Buildings Simulation 2007. Beijing, China:
International Building Performance Simulation
Association, 2007.
2 Chartered Institution of Building Services
Engineers. Lighting Guide 10: Daylighting and
Window Design. London, UK: CIBSE, 1999.
3 Ibarra D, Reinhart CF. Daylight factor
simulations – How close do simulation beginners
‘really’ get? in Building Simulation 2009.
Glasgow, Scotland: International Building
Performance Simulation Association, 2009.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 7–31