Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

A study on daylighting metrics related to the subjective evaluation of

daylight and visual comfort of students in China
Binyan Liu a,b, Yubo Liu a,b,⇑, Qiaoming Deng a,b, Kai Hu a,b
a
School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Uneven daylighting distribution in classrooms is a common issue in many countries, despite meeting the
Received 13 December 2022 standard daylighting factor (DF). The issue has been particularly acute in China. With the development of
Revised 13 March 2023 dynamic daylighting metrics, they have been incorporated into daylighting standards in various coun-
Accepted 16 March 2023
tries. The introduction of dynamic daylighting metrics in China is an opportunity to improve the class-
Available online 21 March 2023
room lighting environment, considering that the Chinese regulations have not been updated for a long
time. However, there is a dearth of research investigating the validity of dynamic daylighting metrics
Keywords:
in Chinese school buildings. Therefore, a correlation analysis of dynamic daylighting metrics and stu-
Daylighting metrics
Subjective evaluation
dents’ subjective evaluation has been carried out. This one-year study included field surveys and illumi-
Daylight simulation nance measurements collected in 18 classrooms in a Chinese school; the dynamic and static daylighting
Correlation metrics of these classrooms were simulated. The spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) at 450 lx for 50% of
annual hours (sDA450/50%; a dynamic metric) and the proportion of area with an illuminance
(Ep) > 300 lx (a static metric) were highly correlated with student evaluations. Additionally, sDA450/50%

50% was preferred by student evaluations. Annual sunlight exposure (ASE) was not correlated with stu-
dent evaluations in north-facing classrooms in the Guangzhou area. However, a correlation was found
between perceived blackboard glare and the percentage of space where disability glare probability
(DGP) exceeded a threshold of 0.35 for>5% of the usage time (sDGPexceed). Consequently,
sDA450/50%
50% is a recommended metric for China’s school-building daylight standards, while
sDA250/50%
75% can be used simultaneously to improve the effective daylighting area of classrooms.
Ó 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction DF of 5% in classrooms. Later, to simplify calculations, the average

Students spend one-third of their time at school. Good daylight
in a classroom not only improves the performance of students [1]
but may also prevent the onset of myopia in children [2,3]. Addi-
tionally, using daylight illumination in a classroom may increase
student satisfaction and save energy [4]. Therefore, the design of
good lighting in schools is an important and complex challenge
for designers. Daylighting metrics play an important role in the
classroom lighting environment. Designers refer to these metrics
to determine the proper size, orientation, and position of classroom
windows.
In recent years, advances in daylighting metrics have led to the
development of static and dynamic metrics. The British Standards
Institute (BSI) issued the first basic building codes in 1945 [5], stip-
ulating a minimum daylight factor (DF) of 2% and recommending a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liuyubo@scut.edu.cn (Y. Liu).
daylight factor (DFavg) was developed by Lynes and subsequently
improved by Crisp and Paul Littlefair. In 1992, the BSI issued
‘‘Lighting for Buildings–Part 2: Code of Practice for Daylighting”.
This code replaced the 1945 version and changed the daylight stan-
dard from the DF to the DFavg [6]. Subsequently, Climate-based
daylight modelling (CBDM) was first proposed by Mardaljevic at
the 2006 CIBSE National Conference [7]. The main principle of
CBDM is to design buildings for specific regional climate character-
istics based on regional weather data. An increasing number of
researchers have also noted the shortcomings of traditional static
daylighting metrics [8–11] and proposed a series of dynamic day-
lighting metrics. Commonly used and representative dynamic day-
lighting metrics include daylight autonomy (DA) [12] and useful
daylight illuminance (UDI) [13]. Spatial daylight autonomy (sDA)
and annual sunlight exposure (ASE) [14] are the most recently
developed indicators. In 2012, the IES published the natural light-
ing standard IES-LM-83-12, in which the recommended daylight-
ing indicators were sDA of 300 lx for 50% of annual hours

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113001
0378-7788/Ó 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al.
(sDA300/50%), corresponding to daylighting quality and ASE of
1,000 lx for 250 h (ASE1,000/250h), corresponding to visual comfort
[14]. This standard was the first human-factor, evidence-based
daylight standard approved by the IES [15]. In 2014, sDA and
ASE1,000/250h were codified by the latest version of Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (v4), which stipulated
that within the total daily use area, 2 points are allotted for
sDA300/55% and 3 points are allotted for sDA300/75%; areas with
ASE1,000/250h should not exceed 10% of the total area [16]. In
2018, the European Union published EN17037:2018, the latest
international standard for natural lighting. The standard included
the following four aspects: daylight provision, sunlight, view, and
glare. Daylight provision is measured with sDA and further divided
into 3 levels based on the illumination threshold, which differs
from the recommendations of the IES. Glare is assessed with the
daylight glare probability (DGP). It is recommended that critical
glare situations exceeding 5% of the reference time (DGPt) should
be limited [17].
In China, students’ seats in the classroom are usually fixed and
do not change for at least several months. Additionally, there is a
high number of students per classroom, usually approximately
45 students, and a high density of students. According to our pre-
vious research, when students are in class, artificial lighting is
always used during working hours due to the closure of curtains,
which is used to control glare issues near windows. The same prob-
lem has arisen in classrooms in Greece [18] and Malaysia [19].
Although the DF in some classrooms is up to standard, the lighting
distribution of classrooms is uneven, and glare [20]. The current
lighting standards in China still rely on static daylighting metrics
(the DF and DGI). The emergence of dynamic daylighting metrics
provides a good opportunity for classrooms to improve daylighting
design and to identify appropriate daylighting indicators for use in
China [21]. Some researchers have attempted to assess the applica-
bility of the newly proposed daylighting standards. For example,
Sepúlveda A et al. evaluated the validity of daylight standards
EN17037:2018 in specific local contexts, namely, cold climates
[22], and the building regulation concerning daylight provision in
Sweden is considered to be updated. Five daylight performance cri-
teria from EN17037:2018 and Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) as well as the
UDI were tested [23]. In addition, many researchers have explored
the correlation between users’ visual comfort and daylighting met-
rics [24–26]. Some studies have also discussed threshold values for
daylighting metrics based on subjective evaluation. Amir Nezam-
doost and Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg performed an eight-year
human-factor daylighting field study and reported that the ASE
threshold should be improved [27]. Nastaran Seyed Shafavi et al.
proposed that UDI300–3,000/50% and ASE better predicted daylight
availability and visual discomfort than previous daylighting met-
rics [28].
Several articles have investigated daylighting metrics and visual
comfort in school buildings. Aimilios Michael et al. assessed the
natural lighting performance and visual comfort of school build-
ings in Cyprus through a questionnaire-based survey and static
and dynamic simulations. The questionnaire results were consis-
tent with the simulation results [29]. Lourenço et al. discussed
the light use patterns in Portuguese school buildings and suggested
that the current standards are not in line with users’ actual behav-
iors and preferences, which are more diverse [30]. Zahra S.
Zomorodian et al., in a one-year subjective survey of four class-
rooms in two LEED buildings, reported high correlations of
dynamic metrics (sDA and ASE) with occupant assessments and
showed that a vertical illuminance-based metric (sDGPexceed) was
more compatible than horizontal illuminance-based metrics
(ASE) in fitting the scope of perceived discomfort glare [31]. Verso
V R M L et al. investigated students’ subjective daylight judgment
2
Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001
in eight classrooms in five Italian universities and calculated a
set of objective metrics (daylight, circadian, and energy-related).
Significant correlations were observed for all daylighting metrics:
among them, the DFavg and ASE had higher correlations than the
DA, sDA, and UDI [32]. In studies of Asian schools, Kong Z et al.
explored instantaneous and long-term lighting metrics based on
subjective evaluations within higher-education buildings in tropi-
cal weather and recommended 150–250 lx horizontal or vertical
illuminance as the lighting thresholds for classroom access to day-
light [33,34]. Literature reviews have revealed a lack of consensus
on what lighting metrics to adopt for specific geographical loca-
tions, climates, building types, and occupants.
In the study of daylighting in Chinese primary and secondary
school classrooms, Bian Yu et al. studied the main variables affect-
ing classroom text legibility through a 10-month test. They noted
that luminance contrast is the dominant factor [35]. In another
study, he used the contrast ratio over 1.3 on the blackboard, which
is expressed by the ‘area ratio with (Probability of C
1.3)
75%’
as the indicator that has applicability in classrooms [21]. They are
daylighting metrics studies aimed explicitly at predicting class-
room blackboard glare. Anxiao Zhang et al. adopted UDIavg for day-
light evaluation purposes to optimize the window design
parameters of school buildings in the cold climate of China [36].
Jin Ma and Qingxin Yang used the sDA and ASE as indicators to
optimize annual daylighting performance for atrium-based class-
rooms of primary and secondary schools in Nanjing, China [37].
Yizhe Xu et al. took UDI as one of the multiple goals to optimize
the performance of primary and secondary school classrooms in
southern China [38]. These studies aimed at exploring the applica-
tion of dynamic daylighting metrics in design. However, there is a
lack of validation on the effectiveness of these dynamic daylighting
metrics in terms of user evaluation about adequacy, glare, and sat-
isfaction in primary and secondary schools in China. Consequently,
it is necessary to revise daylight standards based on users’ expec-
tations in each geographic region. Therefore, given the reasons pre-
viously mentioned, the main objectives of the current study are as
follows:
1. To provide technical details and methods that can be replicated
in subsequent studies to widen the scope of research;
2. To provide suggestions on daylighting metrics that predict the
subjective evaluations of primary and secondary school stu-
dents in Guangzhou, China.
2. Methodology
The research methodology included five steps. First, the reliabil-
ity of the Rhino model was determined by illuminance measure-
ment and simulation validation; second, a subject survey of the
students of the classrooms of interest was conducted; third, the
classrooms in the previous step were simulated to calculate the
daylighting metrics; and fourth, statistical analysis was used to
compare the subjective survey results to objective daylighting
metrics obtained via simulation. Finally, the correlations between
the daylighting metrics and student responses were assessed. A
flowchart of the methods is presented in Fig. 1.
2.1. School description
The school, which was designed and completed in 2017, was
located in Guangzhou, China (Fig. 2). Guangzhou has a humid sub-
tropical climate influenced by the East Asian monsoon; thus, build-
ing designs must provide shading and ventilation. Elementary
school buildings have a maximum of four floors according to Chi-
nese building codes. Most classrooms in Guangzhou are designed
with a north–south orientation and equipped with windows on
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al.
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the research methodology.
Fig. 2. Photograph of LuoGang Middle School.
both sides (i.e., windows on the north and south sides). LuoGang
Middle School also uses windows on each side of the classroom
for lighting except on the fourth floor (top floor), which has extra
roof monitors, as presented in Fig. 3.
2.2. Illuminance measurement and simulation validation
The accurate prediction of illumination requires accurate simu-
lation; thus, the Rhino model must be calibrated using measured
illuminance values. The illuminance data were collected on 25
September 2021 at 09:00–16:00 local time. The test classroom
was on the 4th floor. It had two side windows on the south wall
and one on the north wall as well as a roof monitor facing north.
Twelve measurement points were arranged on the reference plane
at desk level (elevation of 0.75 m, following the regulations of the
Chinese national standard). The distribution of measurement
points in the plane is shown in Fig. 4.
3
Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001
Data were recorded every five minutes for a total of 12  85 =
1,020 data points. In order to obtain the horizontal illumination
value of the desk due to daylight, the measuring procedures
involved the opening of the curtain on the side window and the
deactivation of the classroom lighting system. To include the light
reflectance of all surfaces and the light transmittance of windows
in the simulations, we approximated the reflectance of surfaces
with two LX metres (JTG01) with an accuracy of ± 4% (0.1–
100,000 lx). One metre was directed towards the surface, and the
other was oriented away from it. As a result, the reflectance of
the surface was approximated according to the light absorbed by
the surface and the reflected light [22,34]. The reflectance and
transmittance values are presented in Table 1.
Rhino 7.0 and ver. 0.0.68 with Ladybug and Honeybee tools
were used for point-in-time and annual daylight simulations. To
facilitate comparison with the measured data, the simulation data-
set had the same date and periods as the measured data. Using the
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Fig. 3. Representative classroom on the fourth floor (1). Representative classroom for the first to third floors (2).

Fig. 4. Locations of sensors (placed on desks) (1). Interior view of the classroom (2).

Table 1
Values of light reflectance of surfaces and light transmittance of windows.

Wall Floor Ceiling Window frame Grey wall (outside) White wall (outside) Window Ground Blackboard
0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2

tools mentioned above, a grid of sensors (12  12) was arrayed on dow frame, furniture, and so on. Therefore, we needed to identify
the reference plane, which was then divided into 12 sections cor- important variables for the simulation results and estimate
responding to the 12 measurement points. Each section contained whether including these model details would affect the simulation
12 sensors. The average simulation results of one set of 12 sensors results. The normalized mean bias error (NMBE) and coefficient of
represents the value of points 0–11 (Fig. 5). variation of the root mean square error (CVRMSE) of the simulated
Generally, the more detailed a model is, the more accurate the value and the measured value were compared to determine
simulation. In contrast, simplified models improve the speed of whether a model detail should be included. The following equa-
calculating simulation results. Some model details may greatly tions were used to calculate these values:
influence the simulation results, such as the reference plane, win- PN
i¼1 ðmi  siÞ
NMBEð%Þ ¼  ð1Þ
Nm
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1ffi
u0P
u N ðmisiÞ2
uB C
u@ i¼1 A
t N

Fig. 5. Grid of sensors (12  12) in Grasshopper (1). The reference plane was
divided into 12 equal parts corresponding to 12 measured points (2).
4
CVRMSEð%Þ ¼  ð2Þ
m
where si and mi are the illuminance values obtained from simula-

tions and measurements, respectively; m is the average value of
the measured illuminance; and N is the number of values
compared.
According to Chinese regulations, the distance between the
edge of desks in the front row and the blackboard should be at least
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

2.2 m; additionally, the distance between the edge of desks in the
last row and the opposite wall should be>1.1 m. Therefore, the
actual use area was smaller than the floor area within a classroom.
The scope of the reference plane needs to be adjusted to match the
actual use area (i.e., adjusted considering the desk arrangement
regulations of China). Usually, the reference plane is assumed to
be offset from the wall by 1200 to 2400 (according to IES LM-83-12
[14]). Therefore, both sizes of the reference plane were constructed
and used in the simulation and the calculation of NMBE and
CVRMSE values; both sets of values were used to compare the
results (Table 2). The results showed that the error of the reference
plane offset based on the desk arrangement was smaller than the
error based on the floor plan.
The window frame is an important part of the window details.
According to IES LM-83-12, a window detail>200 in any dimension
should be calculated and summed into an ‘‘occlusion area”. The
occlusion area is then translated into a reduction factor applied
to the visible light transmission (VLT) of the specified glass. This
method may be appropriate for building simulations when win-
dow frame details are not known. However, for buildings previ-
ously constructed, the dimensions of the existing window frames
should be used. Then, the NMBE and CVRMSE values were used
for error comparison. As shown in Table 3, the window frames
greatly influenced the results.
The furniture can be modeled according to IES LM-83-12; how-
ever, it should be noted that this may increase the complexity and,
consequently, reduce the simulation speed. With the test room, we
used NMBE and CVRMSE values to compare the simulations of fur-
nished and unfurnished classrooms.
Overall, comparison of the simulation and measurement results
indicated reduced error in models constrained in size within the
reference plane that included window frames and furniture
(Table 4). However, as furniture exerted only a small influence
on the results and was substantially more labour-intensive, we
decided to include only the first two alterations (i.e., offset based
on desk arrangement and inclusion of window frames) in later
simulations.
2.3. Subjective survey
We referred to [39,40] to devise an appropriate questionnaire.
The present study sought to identify appropriate daylighting met-
rics according to point-in-time simulations, annual illuminance
simulations, and questionnaire responses.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited opportu-
nity to conduct field investigations at schools. Therefore, the ques-
tionnaire was distributed online. Since some students were too
young to understand the questions, the questionnaire was admin-
istered to students in grades 3–5 (i.e., students 8–11 years of age)
from 18 classes. The red numbers in Fig. 6 indicate the classes
included in the present study and their locations in the building.
These students were asked to answer the online questionnaire
(consisting of items rated on a 7-point scale) during one week in
December 2021.
The questionnaires collected two types of information as fol-
lows: items 1–9 collected general information (age, sex, eyesight,
seat number, etc.), and items 10–23 collected information on light-
ing perceptions (daylight sufficiency, glare, and daylight satisfac-
tion). Items 10–23 were answered on a 7-point Likert scale and
focused on the present conditions during the assessments (point-
in-time) or over an entire year (annual) in terms of three major
aspects: daylight sufficiency, glare, and daylight satisfaction. The
question topics are shown in Table 5. A total of 499 valid question-
naires were received.
2.4. Evaluation criteria & simulation
Using the latest guidelines regarding annual climate-based day-
lighting metrics and performance criteria, studies have been car-
ried out in different countries [14,17]. The results indicate that

Table 2
Comparison of NMBE and CVRMSE values for different reference plane offset distances.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Offset based on the floorplan NMBE 0.59 0.04 0.14 0.44 0.43 0.31 0.10 0.00 0.39 0.07 0.24 0.23
CVRMSE 0.63 0.20 0.23 0.48 0.49 0.35 0.21 0.25 0.45 0.17 0.29 0.29
Offset based on desk arrangement NMBE 0.40 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.27 0.32 0.50 0.20 0.08 0.67
CVRMSE 0.45 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.32 0.36 0.56 0.26 0.18 0.69

Table 3
Comparison of NMBE and CVRMSE values with and without window frames.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
With window frames NMBE 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.10 0.29
CVRMSE 0.27 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.35 0.16 0.19 0.32
Without window frames NMBE 0.4 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.27 0.32 0.50 0.20 0.08 0.67
CVRMSE 0.45 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.32 0.36 0.56 0.26 0.18 0.69

Table 4
Comparison of NMBE and CVRMSE values with and without furniture.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Unfurnished NMBE 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.1 0.29
CVRMSE 0.27 0.26 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.35 0.16 0.19 0.32
Furnished NMBE 0.16 0.19 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.11 0.27
CVRMSE 0.25 0.27 0.19 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.33 0.16 0.20 0.31

5
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Fig. 6. Locations of classrooms included in this study.

Table 5
Data collected and question topics included in the questionnaire.

General information Age Class Sex Eyesight Study time Floor Seat
Daylight sufficiency 1. Sufficiency of daylight in the classroom (when the curtains are fully open and the lights are off).
2. The ability to use daylight as the source of illumination.
3. Sufficiency of daylight on the desk (when the curtains are fully open and the lights are off).
Glare 4. Does the daylight ever cause glare strong enough to annoy you?
5. How disturbing is the brightness of your desk when you write?
6. How disturbing is the brightness of the blackboard?
7. Can you read the words on the blackboard?
Daylight 8. How satisfied are you with the daylight in the classroom?
satisfaction 9. How satisfied are you with the daylight on your desk?
10. How satisfied are you with the daylight on the blackboard?

the performance of the same metrics in different studies is dissim- tglare

ilar or even contradictory [28]. This discrepancy may be due to the
influence of regional culture on individual judgement of daylight
provision and glare. To research daylighting metrics in China, we
summarize the dynamic and static metrics of daylight provision
and the dynamic metrics of glare. These metrics were drawn from
the standards of China, the US, the UK, etc., and from the recom-
mendations of experts and researchers.
The whole building model was constructed in Rhino according
to the detailed model verified in Section 2.2. Rhino and Grasshop-
per were used for static and dynamic daylight simulations, and the
metrics in Table 6 were used as outputs. The results of all class-
rooms were automatically saved via Python. Then, the results of
the classrooms corresponding to the survey were selected and
saved in Excel.
EN17037:2018 introduced a new metric for glare, i.e., the per-
centage of occupied hours with a DGP above a threshold value
(fDGPt) should not exceed 5%. This value was based on the concept
proposed by [41]. The DGP was calculated based on a simplified
equation (Eq. (3).
jDGPsjwienold ¼ 6:22  105  Ev þ 0:184
The value of fDGPexceed was calculated based on the equation
below (Eq. (4):
fDGP; exceed ¼ ð4Þ
tref
where tglare represents the time of year when vertical illuminance
(EV) is greater than a certain value (e.g., 2,668 lx), and tref is the
hours of daylight between 08:00 and 18:00 throughout the year.
The maximum acceptable exceeding time in the whole year was
5% (fDGPexceed  5%).
Because the classroom we studied had a wide corridor to the
south, which provided shade, there was almost no direct light in
the classroom. Therefore, in this simulation, we chose a lower
threshold for DGP partitioning in the specification. We set DGP val-
ues to 0.35 or EV over 2,668 lx, which is the high recommendation
for glare protection. In this study, the calculation was based on
hourly DGP values for 72 different perspectives at each position
in the building. The default view height was 1.2 m above the fin-
ished floor (eye height for a seated observer). The frequency of dis-
turbing glare was visualised in Rhino using 72 directional pie
slices, with colour indicating frequency from 0 to 5% (Fig. 7). In this
ð3Þ study, we evaluate the results using sDGPexceed, which is the per-
centage of the space where the vertical illuminance is>2,668 lx
in>5% of the occupation time. A room’s sDGPexceed is the average
sDGPexceed calculated from the sDGPexceed results of all orientations
on the reference plane.
6
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Table 6
Summary of static and dynamic metrics of daylight provision and the dynamic metrics of glare.

Daylighting metric Metric source Thresholds in standards

Daylight Static Daylight factor Overcast conditions LEED v2 75% of the area DF
2%
provision metrics Average daylight factor Outdoor illumination China Architecture & DFavg
3%
of 15,000 lx Building Standard for
daylighting design of
buildings
Illuminance 9 am to 3 pm LEED v3 75% of the area E(250–5,000 lx)
Average Outdoor illumination China Architecture & Eavg
450 lx
illuminance of 15,000 lx Building Standard for
Uniformity Minimum/average daylighting design of When using a skylight for lighting,
buildings uniformity
0.7
Dynamic sDA300/50% LEED v4 sDA300/50%>55%, 2 points;
metrics sDA300/50%>75%, 3 points
IES LM 83–12 sDA300/50%>55% (nominally accepted)
sDA300/50%>75% (preferable)
EN17037:2018 sDA300/50%>50% & sDA100/50% >95% (minimum)
sDA500/50% >50% & sDA300/50% >95% (medium)
sDA750/50% >50% & sDA500/50% >95% (high)
UDI300–3,000 [13] UDI300–3,000/50%
Glare Dynamic ASE1,000/250h LEED v4 ASE1,000/250h  10%
metrics
IES LM 83–12 ASE1,000/250h  10% (minimum)
ASE1,000/250h  7% (medium)
ASE1,000/250h  3% (high)
DGP values Wienold and DGP values < 0.45
Christoffersen, 2006
sDGPexceed EN17037:2018 DGPe< 5%

on the desk) as well as the average values on these three questions

from an individual [(10 + 11 + 19)avg]. Satisfaction was represented
by the values of questions 12 (overall daylighting satisfaction), 18
(blackboard daylighting satisfaction), and 21 (desk daylighting sat-
isfaction). Glare was represented by the values of questions 13
(glare), 16 (blackboard glare), and 17 (legibility of words on the
blackboard).
Second, the classroom average of all valid responses to the
questions mentioned in the first step was calculated. Some ques-
tions had two values, the annual value and the point-in-time value.
Third, the daylighting metrics shown in Table 6 were simulated.
Among them, daylight provision correlated with 29 annual and 16
point-in-time metrics. Glare correlated with two annual metrics,
while satisfaction correlated with all of the above metrics.
Finally, the correlation between the simulation daylighting
metrics of 18 classes and the subjective assessments was calcu-
lated, as shown in Fig. 8. The correlation analysis was completed
in SPSS software (version 26.0, SPSS Inc).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Survey results

3.1.1. Analysis of daylighting adequacy, glare and daylighting

Fig. 7. A sample of the sDGPexceed simulation results for a classroom.
2.5. Correlation analysis
The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to
assess whether there was a correlation between daylighting met-
rics and subjective assessments.
The following steps were included in the analysis.
First, the questionnaire data were divided into three categories:
daylight provision, satisfaction, and glare. Daylight provision was
represented by questions 10 (daylighting adequacy), 11 (ability
to use daylight as illumination), and 19 (sufficiency of daylighting
7
satisfaction survey results
To explore the survey results regarding the annual overall day-
lighting adequacy in further detail, the number of students who
responded with each rating (i.e., 1–7 points) was determined,
and a box plot was created to display the proportion of participants
with each rating score (Fig. 9). Comparison of the means of each
group indicated that most students responded with a rating of 5.
Comparison of the medians of each group indicated that most stu-
dents responded with scores of 4 and 7. Overall, the proportion of
students with ratings of 4–7 was greater than that of students with
ratings of 1–3. Thus, most students considered the daylighting of
classrooms acceptable or more than acceptable. The results of the
one-week assessment showed a similar trend to those of the
annual assessment.
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Fig. 8. Correlation analysis steps.

Fig. 9. Overall daylighting adequacy (annual).

Glare was assessed with question 13 (‘‘Does the daylight ever
cause glare strong enough to annoy you?”) and question 20
(‘‘How disturbing is the brightness of your desk when you write?”);
students provided high scores on these questions, with most
responding with ratings of 6 and 7 points, respectively.
For question 16 (‘‘How disturbing is the brightness of the black-
board?”) and question 17 (‘‘Can you read the words on the black-
board clearly?”), the results were similar; the proportion of
students providing ratings of 4–5 was slightly lower than that of
students providing ratings of 6–7 (Fig. 10). On the whole, students
did not appear to suffer from classroom glare, as there were only a
few complaints.
Regarding satisfaction with daylighting, the results of question
18 (‘‘How satisfied are you with the daylighting on the black-
board?”) and question 21 (‘‘How satisfied are you with the day-
lighting on your desk?”) were relatively consistent with the glare
assessment results on the blackboard and desk.
The box plots show the satisfaction of students in terms of
classroom daylight (question 12: ‘‘How satisfied are you with the
daylighting in the classroom?”) over one week and over one year
(Fig. 11). According to the mean and median, most students pro-
vided ratings of 4 and 7. The proportion of students providing
scores of 4–5 was almost equal to that of students providing scores

8
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Fig. 10. Percentage of students reporting glare on the blackboard on a weekly (left) or annual (right) basis.

Fig. 11. Satisfaction with daylight in the classroom on a weekly (left) and annual (right) basis.

Fig. 12. Daylighting adequacy according to classroom.

of 6–7. Thus, student satisfaction with classroom daylight was
between medium and excellent.
3.1.2. Comparative analysis of daylighting adequacy, glare, and
daylighting satisfaction between classrooms
The box plot of the overall daylighting adequacy evaluation of
18 classrooms is shown in Fig. 12. Comparison of the means indi-
cated that classrooms 401–403 and 505 had better daylighting
adequacy. Comparison of the medians suggested that classrooms
402, 403, 505, and 504 had better daylighting adequacy. However,
the interquartile range of classroom 504 was the largest, which
indicates that its evaluation was highly variable. From the distribu-
9
tion of scores in these classrooms, we concluded that daylighting
adequacy varied according to the floor and presence of surround-
ing shade.
A box plot was generated to compare blackboard glare evalua-
tion across classrooms (Fig. 13). The results showed that being
on a higher floor and having no southern shade caused blackboard
glare, as has been previously established. Notably, the mean and
median values for classrooms 501 and 505 were low, meaning that
classrooms with no northern shade also had some blackboard
glare.
Fig. 14 shows the daylighting satisfaction of different classes.
The daylighting satisfaction of students in classrooms 501 and
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al.
Fig. 13. Glare according to classroom.
Fig. 14. Daylighting satisfaction according to classroom.
301 was relatively high when their glare assessment was low and
their daylighting adequacy was high. Thus, we hypothesized that
adequacy had a stronger influence on daylighting satisfaction than
glare.
3.2. Correlation results
To determine which metrics accurately predicted student
assessments, we performed correlation analyses between student
responses to questions 10–23 and daylighting metrics.
3.2.1. Correlations of students’ assessment of annual daylight provision
with satisfaction and dynamic metrics
The overall daylighting adequacy of classrooms was assessed
with questions 10 (daylighting adequacy), 11 (the ability to use
daylight as illumination), and 19 (sufficiency of daylighting on
the desk). Daylighting satisfaction was assessed with question 21
(desk daylighting satisfaction) and question 12 (overall daylighting
satisfaction).
Most of the variables were moderately correlated (0.4 < r < 0.6)
(Table 7), however, there were no significant correlations of the
spatial average UDI100–2,000 or UDI300–3,000 with daylighting ade-
10
Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001
quacy or satisfaction. UDI300–3000/50% was moderately correlated
with daylighting adequacy (r = 0.482) and overall daylighting ade-
quacy (r = 0.519), as previously reported [28].
More accurate predictions can be obtained when using different
thresholds for DA and sDA (e.g., 100, 200, 300. . ., 900, and 1000 lx).
The correlation of sDA with daylighting adequacy, the ability to use
daylight as illumination, and the sufficiency of daylighting on the
desk were increased by increasing the thresholds above 300 lx.
The strongest correlations were obtained when the sDA threshold
was between 400 and 500 lx, for maximum values of sDA450/50%. In
particular, the overall sufficiency (daylighting adequacy, ability to
use daylight as illumination and sufficiency of daylighting on the
desk) were strongly correlated (0.6 < r < 0.8) with sDA450/50%
(r = 0.631). In other words, sDA450/50% precisely predicted user eval-
uation of daylighting provision. This result is similar to that of an
IES study, which reported a correlation between classroom day-
lighting metrics and subjective surveys [15]. We also found a mod-
erate correlation between sDA700/50% and desk daylighting
satisfaction as well as a moderate correlation (r = 0.599) between
sDA450/50% and overall daylighting satisfaction.
In general, sDA450/50% was the most relevant metric for predict-
ing subjective evaluations.
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Table 7
Correlation coefficient of students’ assessment of annual daylight provision, satisfaction, and dynamic metrics. The largest values among the significant values in each column are
shown in bold.

Dynamic metric Daylighting Ability to use daylight Sufficiency of Adequacy + illumination + desk Desk daylighting Overall daylighting
Daylighting adequacy as illumination daylighting on the sufficiency (annual) satisfaction satisfaction
evaluation (annual) (annual) desk (annual) (annual) (annual)
UDI300-3000 0.429 0.413 0.436 0.439 0.403 0.328
UDI300-3000/50% 0.482* 0.452 0.440 0.519* 0.441 0.444
UDI100-2000 0.288 0.293 0.188 0.287 0.325 0.378
sDA100/50% 0.167 0.126 0.062 0.133 0.259 0.373
DA100 0.314 0.319 0.209 0.314 0.349 0.398
sDA200/50% 0.276 0.317 0.178 0.287 0.327 0.378
DA200 0.375 0.39 0.287 0.394 0.398 0.434
sDA250/50% 0.492* 0.469* 0.430 0.523* 0.501* 0.448
DA250 0.443 0.423 0.334 0.450 0.438 0.461
sDA300/50% 0.499* 0.484* 0.464 0.544* 0.463 0.444
DA300 0.434 0.446 0.367 0.467 0.439 0.468*
sDA400/50% 0.536* 0.542* 0.527* 0.603** 0.429 0.545*
DA400 0.491* 0.477* 0.443 0.530* 0.465 0.501*
sDA450/50% 0.561* 0.573* 0.545* 0.631** 0.513* 0.599**
DA450 0.509* 0.487* 0.473* 0.553* 0.467 0.521*
sDA500/50% 0.543* 0.552* 0.492* 0.596** 0.477* 0.579*
DA500 0.517* 0.491* 0.488* 0.563* 0.465 0.532*
sDA600/50% 0.471* 0.498* 0.406 0.515* 0.468 0.475*
DA600 0.518* 0.500* 0.488* 0.566* 0.46 0.538*
sDA700/50% 0.530* 0.518* 0.423 0.552* 0.538* 0.496*
DA700 0.521* 0.512* 0.472* 0.565* 0.468* 0.534*
sDA750/50% 0.448 0.465 0.289 0.449 0.389 0.419
DA750 0.516* 0.512* 0.458 0.558* 0.472* 0.527*
sDA800/50% 0.526* 0.511* 0.351 0.519* 0.511* 0.437
DA800 0.514* 0.515* 0.444 0.553* 0.475* 0.519*
sDA900/50% 0.439 0.462 0.292 0.446 0.447 0.418
DA900 0.508* 0.516* 0.423 0.542* 0.481* 0.507*
sDA1000/50% 0.403 0.394 0.211 0.376 0.376 0.343
DA1000 0.502* 0.515* 0.404 0.532* 0.486* 0.497*

*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01.

Table 8
Correlation coefficient of student point-in-time assessments of daylight provision, satisfaction, and static metrics. The largest values among the significant values in each column
are shown in bold.

Static metrics Daylighting Daylighting Ability to use Sufficiency of Adequacy + illumination Desk daylighting Overall daylighting
evaluation adequacy daylight to as daylighting on + desk sufficiency satisfaction satisfaction
(weekly) illumination the desk (weekly) (weekly) (weekly)
(weekly) (weekly)
% of area with Ep > n lux 50 0.298 0.168 0.170 0.246 0.269 0.332
100 0.533* 0.466 0.330 0.504* 0.451 0.510*
150 0.656** 0.578* 0.446 0.639** 0.499* 0.690**
200 0.606** 0.557* 0.473* 0.622** 0.575* 0.623**
250 0.588* 0.507* 0.431 0.582* 0.538* 0.589*
300 0.593** 0.578* 0.485* 0.629** 0.637** 0.579*
350 0.504* 0.39 0.356 0.479* 0.483* 0.463
400 0.535* 0.547* 0.456 0.583* 0.606** 0.570*
450 0.544* 0.459 0.421 0.544* 0.549* 0.529*
500 0.615** 0.537* 0.474* 0.620** 0.579* 0.560*
550 0.578 0.560* 0.484* 0.616* 0.612* 0.622*
600 0.535* 0.447 0.478* 0.560* 0.539* 0.567*
DFavg 0.577* 0.502* 0.408 0.566* 0.518* 0.575*
% of area with DF > 2% 0.654** 0.588* 0.455 0.645** 0.487* 0.694**
% of area with EP-LEED > 250 (at 0.406 0.399 0.36 0.443 0.519* 0.468
09:00)
Uniformity 0.464 0.363 0.392 0.468* 0.414 0.236

*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01.

3.2.2. Correlations of student point-in-time assessment of daylight
provision with satisfaction and static metrics
The DFavg is one of the main metrics of daylight standards in
China and was moderately correlated with subjective reports of day-
lighting adequacy and satisfaction (Table 8). However, none of these
variables were strongly correlated with user responses; in other
words, the DFavg was unable to predict student assessments of day-
lighting adequacy and satisfaction. Uniformity, the other major Chi-
nese metric, was not correlated with most of the assessments and
was only moderately correlated with daylighting adequacy. There-
fore, these two metrics (the DFavg and uniformity) were inadequate
for predicting student subjective responses in China.
The correlation between student evaluations and Ep was stron-
gest for Ep values in the range of 150–300 lx. The area with DF > 2%
was most strongly correlated with student-reported daylighting
sufficiency and satisfaction.

11
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

Table 9
Correlation coefficient of students’ assessment of annual glare, satisfaction and dynamic metrics. The largest values among the significant values in each column are shown in
bold.

Dynamic metrics Daylighting Glare Legibility of words on the Blackboard glare Blackboard satisfaction Overall daylighting
evaluation (annual) blackboard (annual) (annual) (annual) satisfaction (annual)
ASE 0 0 0 0 0
Average sDGPexceed 0.128 0.141 0.491* 0.154 0.330

*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01.

3.2.3. Pearson correlations between students’ assessment of annual
glare and dynamic metrics
The results are shown in Table 9. Because the ASE simulation
results of all classrooms were zero, the correlation coefficient
between the analyzed ASE and student evaluations was also zero.
These classrooms had no direct sunlight because the window on
the south side had a 3.5-metre-wide corridor that provided shade.
However, this finding also reflects the inadequacy of ASE as an
indicator of glare: when there is no direct light in classrooms,
ASE does not reflect student evaluations of glare. In addition, the
average sDGPexceed was moderately correlated with blackboard
glare, which was not as well predicted by other variables.
4. Revision of acceptable metric thresholds
4.1. Annual daylighting metrics
To determine the most acceptable illumination threshold of
sDAn lux/50% based on user evaluations, the overall classroom day-
lighting adequacy results were divided into three categories
according to ratings on a 7-point Likert scale: preferable (5–7),
acceptable (3–4), and unacceptable (1–2). The x-axis in Fig. 15 rep-
resents the illumination threshold, which ranges from 100 to
1,000 lx. The y-axis represents the percentage of space with this
illumination level during 50% of the year.
The logarithmic dotted lines represent the relationship between
the percentage of the area exceeding each illuminance threshold
and the corresponding subjective evaluation scores, similar to the
method used in [27,28]. The orange trend line shows the transition
between preferable and acceptable; the logarithmic equation is
shown in Fig. 15 above the line (R2 = 0.89). The blue trend line
shows the transition between acceptable and unacceptable; the
logarithmic equation is shown below the line (R2 = 0.88). In other
words, given a set threshold of illumination, the percentage of the
area (i.e., classroom) with values above the orange trend line
reflects preferred values (i.e., higher subjective evaluations), while
the percentage of the area with values between the orange trend
line and the blue trend line reflects acceptable to preferable results.
Conversely, the percentage of the area with values below the blue
trend line reflects unacceptable results.
According to the LEED v4 and IES LM83-12 standards, sDA300/50%
should be at least 55% (although above 75% is preferable). As
shown in Fig. 15, an illuminance of at least 53.9% is acceptable,

Fig. 15. Percentage of the area exceeding certain illuminance thresholds, plotted by student-reported daylighting adequacy.

12
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al. Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001

similar to the metrics in the two standards. However, the preferred metrics is suggested to ensure the uniformity of lighting conditions
illuminance in this study was at least 68.9%, which is slightly lower throughout the classroom.
than the previous two criteria.
The EN17037:2018 standard states that the medium level of
4.2. Point-in-time daylighting metrics
daylight provision is sDA500/50%>50% and sDA300/50%>95%, and the
minimum level is sDA300/50%>50% and sDA100/50%>95%. Using the
Similarly, to determine the acceptable minimum illuminance
logarithmic formula displayed in Fig. 15, we calculated that the
threshold for Ep > n lux according to user evaluations, we simu-
acceptable level is sDA500/50%>32.3%, sDA300/50%>53.9%, and
lated the point-in-time results as depicted in Fig. 16. The x-axis
sDA100/50%>100%, and the preferred level is sDA500/50%>45.34%,
represents the illuminance threshold (50–600 lx), and the y-axis
sDA300/50%>68.9%, and sDA100/50%>100%. The results fall between
represents the percentage of space with a certain illuminance
the medium and minimum levels according to the EN17037:2018
value.
standard.
The orange trend line shows the transition between preferable
In the present study, the metric that most strongly correlated
and acceptable; the logarithmic equation is shown in Fig. 16 above
with student evaluations was sDA450/50%. Based on the logarithmic
the line (R2 = 0.93). The grey trend line shows the transition
lines in Fig. 15, for an illumination threshold of 450 lx, the accept-
between acceptable and unacceptable; the logarithmic equation
able area percentage is at least 37.6%, and the preferred area per-
is below the line (R2 = 0.80).
centage is at least 50.2%. Considering the importance of natural
According to the orange trend line shown in Fig. 16, the pre-
light to children, we suggest that substantial consideration regard-
ferred percentage of space is at least 26.3% when the illuminance
ing methods to increase daylighting metrics to promote better
is 300 lx, much lower than the 75% in the LEED v3 guidelines. There
school-building design is merited. Therefore, we choose
are several reasons for this phenomenon. First, the high density of
sDA450/50%
50% as the annual daylighting metric. In addition,
school buildings in China may lead to a relatively uneven daylight
50% of the area encompassed more effective space than 37.6%.
environment. Second, the sample size in this study was limited,
When a larger area threshold, e.g. 75%, is needed to make the room
and many of the values (percentage of space of Ep > n lux) were
look more efficient or to distribute daylighting more evenly, the
small. Third, Chinese children are generally well-behaved; thus,
illuminance threshold is approximately 250 lx, calculated accord-
they may hesitate to provide a negative evaluation in surveys.
ing to the equation of the orange trend line in Fig. 15. However,
as shown in Table 7, sDA250/50% appears only moderately correlated
with subjective preference because the data were clustered. That 4.3. Comparisons with previous research
is, the median was close to the maximum value, indicating that
the sample was not normally distributed [27]. Therefore, it con- Two previous articles have used the same research methodol-
cluded that sDA450/50%
50% can be used as the metric that best ogy for threshold analysis. One study was a survey of 22 spaces
predicts subjective evaluation, while sDA250/50%
75% can be used (12 offices, 5 classrooms, and 5 other spaces) by Amir Nezamdoost
to control 3/4 of the classroom area. The combined use of these two et al. [27]. The other study was an examination of 20 architectural
office spaces by Nastaran Seyed Shafavi et al. [28]. Results are

Fig. 16. Percentage of area exceeding certain illuminance thresholds, plotted by student-reported daylighting adequacy.

13
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al.
Fig. 17. Comparison of acceptable and preferred daylight levels in current study and the previous studies, annual (1), point-in-time (2).
shown in Fig. 17. In terms of the results of the annual simulations,
the trend lines for the preferred space in this study and in Nastaran
Seyed Shafavi et al. are relatively similar, with most of the differ-
ences falling within 5 percent. The difference between our results
and those of Amir Nezamdoost et al. is approximately 10 percent.
However, comparison of the point-in-time simulation results
revealed the lower limits of the acceptable and preferred ranges
differ significantly among the three studies. Specifically, the
threshold results of this paper are much lower than those of the
other two studies. In this study, the students were satisfied with
low illumination levels, possibly driven by student reluctance to
say that they were dissatisfied. In addition, these three papers var-
ied in terms of research objects and geographical locations; thus,
user evaluations of daylight may have varied. It is necessary to
revise daylight standards based on users’ expectations in each geo-
graphic region.
4.4. Metric application prospect
We further compared annual (Fig. 15) and point-in-time met-
rics (Fig. 16). The point-in-time findings are quite different from
previous studies, possibly due to the uneven daylight distribution
and the use of the DFavg [20]. On the other hand, the DFavg and
the percentage of area with Ep > n lux are both static metrics that
are unable to represent the annual daylight environment. In addi-
tion, given that school buildings have long-term use, dynamic day-
lighting metrics are more appropriate.
The use of dynamic daylighting metrics has also increased in
other countries. Researchers have conducted similar studies and
even attempted to apply daylighting metrics in actual building
design. Moreover, with the development of machine-learning
(ML) algorithms, dynamic daylighting metrics are relatively easy
to obtain in the early stage of design and also reduce simulation
time. The designers do not need to know how to use daylighting
simulation software. Thus, the annual daylight performance can
be evaluated at the conceptual stage of design to support decisions
regarding the fenestration design of buildings [42].
5. Conclusion and future work
In the present study, we simulated daylighting conditions in 18
classrooms in a Guangzhou middle school and administered ques-
tionnaires to students to determine the correlation between day-
lighting metrics (daylighting adequacy, satisfaction, and glare)
and student subjective evaluations. Subsequently, according to
the questionnaire results, metrics were ranked and appropriate
thresholds were determined. The conclusions of this study are:
14
Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001
 In terms of daylight provision metrics, sDA450/50% was strongly
correlated with daylighting adequacy; according to the illumi-
nance threshold chart, individuals preferred sDA450/50% of at
least 50%. The illuminance threshold was in accordance with
the current national standard in China. Thus, sDA450/50%
50%
is a recommended metric for China’s school-building daylight
standards, while sDA250/50%
75% can be used to improve the
effective daylighting area of classrooms. The two metrics can
be used in combination to maintain the uniformity of the
classroom.
 Regarding glare, there was a moderate relationship between the
average value of sDGPexceed and blackboard glare. No evidence
showed that ASE had a relationship with students’ glare assess-
ment. Further investigation of different types of classrooms,
such as those with windows on opposing walls, is needed. As
for glare metrics, more detailed studies are required.
The limitations of this study include the number and age of stu-
dents involved, the classroom design (i.e., window placement), and
the geographic location (research took place in only the Guangz-
hou area). Therefore, similar studies with a larger sample size
and age range and with more classroom types may obtain more
accurate results.
Future studies should expand the sample size, age range, and
classroom types included by replicating the methods of this study
and developing truly human-centric daylight standards for China.
With the rapid development of ML algorithms, building lighting
simulation results can be applied during the early stage of design.
Thus, designers can fully understand the natural lighting in a class-
room when making decisions regarding window design (e.g., the
inclusion of roof monitors, clerestories, or skylights).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Binyan Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Inves-
tigation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation.
Yubo Liu: Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
Qiaoming Deng: Resources, Project administration. Kai Hu: Soft-
ware, Data curation.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
B. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Deng et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grant No. 51978269 & No. 51978268.
References
[1] L. Heschong, Daylighting and human performance, ASHRAE J. 44 (6) (2002) 65–
67.
[2] M. He, F. Xiang, Y. Zeng, J. Mai, Q. Chen, J. Zhang, W. Smith, K. Rose, I.G. Morgan,
Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among
children in China: a randomized clinical trial, JAMA 314 (11) (2015) 1142–
1148.
[3] Z. Zhou, T. Chen, M. Wang, L. Jin, Y. Zhao, S. Chen, C. Wang, G. Zhang, Q. Wang,
Q. Deng, Y. Liu, I.G. Morgan, M. He, Y. Liu, N. Congdon, C.-W. Pan, Pilot study of
a novel classroom designed to prevent myopia by increasing children’s
exposure to outdoor light, PLoS One 12 (7) (2017) e0181772.
[4] D. Guyon, Daylight Dividends Case Study: Smith Middle School, Chapel Hill,
NC, J. Green Build., 1 (1) (2006) 33-38.
[5] W. Wu, E. Ng, A review of the development of daylighting in schools, Light. Res.
Technol. 35 (2) (2003) 111–124.
[6] British Standards Institution, BS-8206-2: 1992 – Lighting for Buildings – Part
2: Code of practice for daylighting, BSI, London, 1992.
[7] J. Mardaljevic, Examples of Climate-Based Daylight Modelling, CIBSE National
Conference: Engineering the Future, 2006.
[8] D. Bourgeois, C.F. Reinhart, G. Ward, Standard daylight coefficient model for
dynamic daylighting simulations, Build. Res. Inf. 36 (1) (2008) 68–82.
[9] M. Jamnický, Building information modeling with static and dynamic daylight
analysis, in: Advanced Materials Research, Trans Tech Publ, 2014, pp. 255-258.
[10] J. Mardaljevic, L. Heschong, E. Lee, Daylight metrics and energy savings, Light.
Res. Technol. 41 (3) (2009) 261–283.
[11] S. Kleindienst, M. Bodart, M. Andersen, Graphical representation of climate-
based daylight performance to support architectural design, Leukos 5 (1)
(2008) 39–61.
[12] C.F. Reinhart, J. Mardaljevic, Z. Rogers, Dynamic daylight performance metrics
for sustainable building design, Leukos 3 (1) (2006) 7–31.
[13] A. Nabil, J. Mardaljevic, Useful daylight illuminances: A replacement for
daylight factors, Energ. Build. 38 (7) (2006) 905–913.
[14] IESNA, IES LM- 83-12, Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA)
and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE). New York, NY, USA, (2012).
[15] L. Heschong, Heschong Mahone Group, Daylight Metrics PIER Daylighting Plus
Research Program, Technical Report, California Energy Commission, 2011.
[16] US Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED Reference Guide for Building Design
and Construction, LEED V4, Technical Report, USGBC, Washington DC, USA,
2013.
[17] European Comission, BS EN 17037:2018: Daylight in Buildings, 2018. https://
www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-17037-2018-daylight-in-buildings/.
[18] T. Theodosiou, K. Ordoumpozanis, Energy, comfort and indoor air quality in
nursery and elementary school buildings in the cold climatic zone of Greece,
Energ. Build. 40 (12) (2008) 2207–2214.
[19] N.L.N. Ibrahim, A.D. Mathalamuthu, V. Ponniah, M.W.M. Shafiei, R. Ismail,
Illuminance uniformity using Public Works Department (PWD) standard
design for public schools classroom design in Malaysia, J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech.
Thermal Sci. 52 (2) (2018) 205–214.
[20] P. Tsikra, E. Andreou, Investigation of the energy saving potential in existing
school buildings in Greece. The role of shading and daylight strategies in visual
comfort and energy saving, Procedia Environ. Sci. 38 (2017) 204–211.
[21] Y. Bian, Y. Chen, J. Luo, Y. Sun, Contrast-based evaluation of the reflected
daylight glare on the blackboard in a classroom with complex fenestration
systems, J. Build. Eng. 64 (2023).
15
Energy & Buildings 287 (2023) 113001
[22] A. Sepúlveda, F. De Luca, T. Varjas, J. Kurnitski, Assessing the applicability of
the European standard EN 17037: 2018 for office spaces in a cold climate,
Build. Environ. 225 (2022).
[23] I. Bournas, Daylight compliance of residential spaces: Comparison of different
performance criteria and association with room geometry and urban density,
Build. Environ. 185 (2020).
[24] N.S. Shafavi, Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, M. Javadi, Occupants visual
comfort assessments: A review of field studies and lab experiments, Sol.
Energy 208 (2020) 249–274.
[25] M. Fakhari, V. Vahabi, R. Fayaz, A study on the factors simultaneously affecting
visual comfort in classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach, Energ.
Build. 249 (2021).
[26] R. Viula, T. Hordijk, in: Testing the predictive power of visual discomfort from
glare metrics in the near-window and near-wall zones of the daylit classroom
environment, International Commission on Illumination, CIE, 2019, pp. 282–
294.
[27] A. Nezamdoost, K. Van Den Wymelenberg, A daylighting field study using
human feedback and simulations to test and improve recently adopted annual
daylight performance metrics, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 10 (5–6) (2017) 471–
483.
[28] N.S. Shafavi, M. Tahsildoost, Z.S. Zomorodian, Investigation of illuminance-
based metrics in predicting occupants’ visual comfort (case study:
Architecture design studios), Sol. Energy 197 (2020) 111–125.
[29] A. Michael, C. Heracleous, Assessment of natural lighting performance and
visual comfort of educational architecture in Southern Europe: The case of
typical educational school premises in Cyprus, Energ. Build. 140 (2017) 443–
457.
[30] P. Lourenço, M.D. Pinheiro, T. Heitor, Light use patterns in Portuguese school
buildings: User comfort perception, behaviour and impacts on energy
consumption, J. Clean. Prod. 228 (2019) 990–1010.
[31] Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, Assessing the effectiveness of dynamic
metrics in predicting daylight availability and visual comfort in classrooms,
Renew. Energy 134 (2019) 669–680.
[32] V.L. Verso, F. Giuliani, F. Caffaro, F. Basile, F. Peron, T. Dalla Mora, L. Bellia, F.
Fragliasso, M. Beccali, M. Bonomolo, Questionnaires and simulations to assess
daylighting in Italian university classrooms for IEQ and energy issues, Energ.
Build. 252 (2021).
[33] Z. Kong, J.A. Jakubiec, Instantaneous and long-term lighting design metrics for
higher education buildings in a tropical climate, East & West 48 (58.6) (2019)
83.87.
[34] Z. Kong, J.A. Jakubiec, Instantaneous lighting quality within higher educational
classrooms in Singapore, Front. Arch. Res. 10 (4) (2021) 787–802.
[35] Y. Bian, J. Luo, T. Luo, T. Leng, Contrast demand on the blackboard in typical
secondary school classrooms of China: Effects of daylight reflections on text
legibility, Energ. Build. 261 (2022).
[36] A. Zhang, Q. Huang, Y. Sun, Q. Zhang, Multi-objective window optimization of
school buildings for thermal and daylight performance in the cold climate of
China, in, in: Proceedings of 33rd PLEA International Conference: Design to
Thrive, 2017, pp. 4461–4468.
[37] J. Ma, Q. Yang, Optimizing Annual Daylighting Performance for Atrium-Based
Classrooms of Primary and Secondary Schools in Nanjing, China, Buildings 13
(1) (2022) 11.
[38] Y. Xu, C. Yan, H. Qian, L. Sun, G. Wang, Y. Jiang, A novel optimization method
for conventional primary and secondary school classrooms in southern China
considering energy Demand, Thermal Comfort and Daylighting, Sustainability
13 (23) (2021) 13119.
[39] S.S. Korsavi, Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, Visual comfort assessment of
daylit and sunlit areas: A longitudinal field survey in classrooms in Kashan,
Iran, Energ. Build. 128 (2016) 305–318.
[40] W. Wei, An investigation into the relationship between daylighting quality and
quantity for school buildings in Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong (Hong Kong), 2003.
[41] J. Wienold, Dynamic daylight glare evaluation, in: Proceedings of Building
Simulation, Citeseer, 2009, pp. 944-951.
[42] Y. Han, L. Shen, C. Sun, Developing a parametric morphable annual daylight
prediction model with improved generalization capability for the early stages
of office building design, Build. Environ. 200 (2021).