LEUKOS

The journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

ISSN: 1550-2724 (Print) 1550-2716 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ulks20

Revisiting the Daylit Area: Examining Daylighting

Performance Using Subjective Human Evaluations
and Simulated Compliance with the LEED Version 4
Daylight Credit

Amir Nezamdoost & Kevin G. Van Den Wymelenberg

To cite this article: Amir Nezamdoost & Kevin G. Van Den Wymelenberg (2017) Revisiting the
Daylit Area: Examining Daylighting Performance Using Subjective Human Evaluations and
Simulated Compliance with the LEED Version 4 Daylight Credit, LEUKOS, 13:2, 107-123, DOI:
10.1080/15502724.2016.1250011

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2016.1250011

Published online: 18 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 649

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulks20
LEUKOS, 13:107–123, 2017
Copyright © Illuminating Engineering Society
ISSN: 1550-2724 print / 1550-2716 online
DOI: 10.1080/15502724.2016.1250011
Revisiting the Daylit Area: Examining
Daylighting Performance Using Subjective
Human Evaluations and Simulated Compliance
with the LEED Version 4 Daylight Credit
Amir Nezamdoost1 and
Kevin G. Van Den
Wymelenberg2
1
Integrated Design Lab, University
of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, USA
2 and application of the metrics and criteria are not fully substantiated. This article
Energy Studies in Buildings
Laboratory, University of Oregon,
Eugene, Oregon, USA
Received 26 March 2016; revised 8
October 2016; accepted 14 October 2016
Address correspondence to Amir
Nezamdoost, Integrated Design Lab,
University of Idaho, 306 S. 6th St., Boise, ID
83702, USA. E-mail: amirn@uidaho.edu
Color versions of one or more of the
figures in the article can be found
online at www.tandfonline.com/ulks.
ABSTRACT The IES Lighting Measurement 83-12 Approved Method: IES Spatial
Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) (LM-83) codifies
annual climate–based daylighting metrics and performance criteria, yet interpretation
reports “daylit area” drawings prepared in the field by architecture students and
compares these drawings to corresponding point-in-time and annual daylighting
simulations. The point-in-time simulations without blinds showed less discrepancy
between student daylit area evaluations than did annual simulations with blinds
operated per LM-83. The daylit area drawings and point-in-time simulations together
suggest a horizontal illuminance of 100 lx differentiating between non-daylit and
partially daylit areas and 250 lx differentiating between partially and fully daylit areas.
For 18 annual simulations that employed the LM-83 protocol, half were characterized
similar to the field assessments. The other half consistently underpredicted daylight
ratings; students found the spaces to be fully or partially daylit when the annual
simulation predicted the spaces to be non-daylit. This study suggests that the spatial
daylight autonomy (sDA) and ASE criteria in LM-83 may warrant refinement.
KEYWORDS annual daylight metrics, annual sunlight exposure, LM-83, spatial daylight
autonomy
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of occupant satisfaction in spaces with daylight is undeniable [Borisuit
and others 2014; Konis 2013; Van Den Wymelenberg and others 2010; Veitch and
others 2007]. Benefits related to occupant comfort, satisfaction, and well-being in daylit
spaces such as offices and classrooms can be substantial [Heschong Mahone Group
2003; Leslie 2003], and several codes and standard organizations have begun to promote
annual daylight simulation to support improved design (IESNA Daylight Metrics
Committee 2012; U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED V4 2013).
However, the interpretation of metrics from annual daylight simulation results is in its
infancy. Daylight simulation results need to be correlated to how occupants perceive the
107
world [Reinhart and Weissman 2012]. A few studies have
been conducted to that end. Referencing an extensive field
study of 61 real spaces with daylight and corresponding
annual simulations and human factors results from experts
and occupants, the IES Daylighting Metrics Committee pub-
lished LM-83. Following this, serving as a preliminary valida-
tion for aspects of LM-83, Reinhart and others [2014]
published a field study of 13 real spaces where a team of
invited researchers from multiple universities compared grad-
uate architecture students’ evaluations of a space’s “daylit
area” to annual simulation results. However, this paper did
not address patterns of blind use as required by LM-83. There
is a need to understand the relationship between point-in-
time and annual simulation results relative to human evalua-
tions. Though this article does not definitively address all of
these gaps, it makes substantial contributions to several areas
of inquiry to improve the science and usefulness of both
point-in-time and annual daylight simulation.
2. METHODS
The research plan was designed to address one primary
objective and several secondary objectives. The article’s pri-
mary objective is to compare simulated daylight results with
daylit area boundary drawings conducted by students of
architecture to determine what simulated parameters most
closely correspond with student qualitative assessments of
non-daylit, partially daylit, and fully daylit areas within
study spaces. This follows up and builds upon two recent
papers in this area [Reinhart and others 2014; Reinhart and
Weissman 2012]. The secondary objectives are to determine
whether point-in-time or annual simulations more closely
matched students’ perceptions of daylight sufficiency and
which illuminance thresholds provide the greatest predictive
ability for fully and partially daylit spaces. Additionally,
an examination of whether each study space met the require-
ments of LEED V4 Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ)
Daylight Credit was conducted. These secondary objectives
were not explicitly explored in previous publications.
A substantial human factors field study was organized in
22 real spaces where graduate architecture students evaluated
the spaces and documented the daylit area and non-daylit area
using plan drawings (Fig. 1). Studies were conducted over a
period of 3 years from 2012 to 2015 in Boise, Idaho, and
Seattle, Washington, in three space types (classroom, office,
other) including 260 individual daylit area occupant evalua-
tions. Daylight simulations were conducted using both annual
and closely equivalent point-in-time simulation settings for
comparative purposes. Annual simulations were run with a
108
manual blind operation setting based upon LM-83 and point-
in-time simulations were conducted with both blinds open
and closed. Sensitivity studies for point-in-time simulations
were conducted to see which illuminance indicator thresholds
ranging from 50 to 450 lx produced the smallest difference
when comparing students’ assessments of fully daylit, partially
daylit, and non-daylit areas within the spaces.
2.1. Field Study
The field study included three common study space types
following Heschong and Van Den Wymelenberg [2012]. A
detailed classification of space types (office n = 11, classroom
n = 5, and other n = 6) is documented previously [Heschong
Mahone Group 2012]. Several characteristics for each study
space is documented elsewhere [Nezamdoost 2015].
2.2. Experimental Setup
From January 2012 to May 2015 field studies were
conducted by architectural graduate students in a seminar
course titled Daylighting Design and Simulation at the
University of Idaho in Boise [Van Den Wymelenberg 2012–
2015]. Following Reinhart and others [2014] and Reinhart
and Weissman [2012], at the beginning of each field study,
students spent about 30–60 minutes in the room experiencing
it from multiple points of view and understanding the func-
tional purpose of the space before being given the following
instruction:
In this exercise you are asked to follow your own intuition and
divide the designated study area into a daylit and a non-daylit area.
Within the daylit area indoor illuminances levels due to natural
light should be adequate, useful and balanced for most of the year.
Please conduct your assessment individually without consulting
with other students.
Then, students conducted illuminance measurements and
completed a three-page questionnaire. Whenever possible,
evaluations were conducted with all electric lights off and
any movable shading systems fully retracted (opened). In the
spaces that had automated shading systems (#20 and #21),
the blinds remained in the automatically controlled position.
The research protocol (project 15-724) was reviewed by the
university’s Institutional Review Board and was certified as
exempt.
2.3. Daylit Drawings Evaluation
All paper-based daylit area evaluations completed during
the study period were gathered, digitally scanned, and
translated to vector line drawings in AutoCAD (Fig. 2,
left As expected, the boundary areas drawn by each
A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

Fig. 1 Students’ field study.
student varied substantially; therefore, we employed an
area-based averaging function following Reinhart and
others [2014]: “The daylit and partially daylit areas within
a space respectively correspond to areas for which either
the majority (>75%) or a sizable portion (>25%) of occu-
pants voted (drew) that the area within the space was
daylit, while the remaining area is non daylit” (p. 197).
An area in a space was coded as fully daylit whenever 75%
or more of the evaluations designated it as a daylit area.
The areas that were designated by 25%–74% of the
evaluations to be daylit were coded as partially daylit
areas. If fewer than 25% of the evaluations designated an
area as daylit, that area was coded as a non-daylit area.
Figure 2 (right) shows the results for space #008.
Fig. 2 Area-based averaging function, classroom space #008. Left: Overlaid daylight boundary drawings of all students. Right: Resulting
fully daylit areas (white), partially daylit areas (grey), and non-daylit areas (dark grey).
Revisiting the Daylit Area
2.4. Simulation Parameters
In order to make comparisons between results from simu-
lation and those from the student daylit area evaluations,
we generated accurate geometric models including interior
furnishing and exterior site features in SketchUp [Trimble
2016]. We adhered to the simulation protocol outlined in
LM-83 [IESNA Daylight Metrics Committee 2012]. The
reflectances of interior surfaces were measured photogra-
phically using the X-rite color checker with the macbethcal
Radiance function [Ward 2016].
For point-in-time simulations, we began with 150 and
300 lx horizontal illuminance thresholds for annual ana-
lyses as proposed by Reinhart and others [2014] to define
boundaries of fully daylit areas (above 300 lx), partially
daylit areas (150–299 lx), and non-daylit areas (below 150
lx). Additionally, we examined sensitivity analysis on alter-
nate point-in-time illuminance thresholds to find the most
accurate match with students’ daylit area drawings. For the
point-in-time comparisons between simulations and daylit
area drawings, a simulation data set was selected with the
same clock time, from the same week, and with a match-
ing sky condition from within the annual simulation
results (discussed below) to provide a basis of comparison
very similar to when the students conducted the evalua-
tions in the field. The sky condition was selected by
matching the students’ sky condition descriptions during
evaluation with the sky cloud cover data from the nearest
typical meteorological year weather file. Alternate methods
for identifying the most accurate simulated sky condition
109
TABLE 1 RADIANCE simulation parameters
Ambient bounces Ambient division Ambient sampling
6 4096 1024
for comparison, such as continuous on-site irradiance data
collection and historical weather data retrieval, were
considered. We crosschecked the student sky condition
descriptions with historical data and found reasonable
agreement. However, we acknowledge that any of these
methods, including ours, have various limits to absolute
accuracy.
Similar to the students’ paper-based evaluations, we
determined a need to define a partially daylit area based
upon the annual simulation results. Therefore, two levels
of annual daylight sufficiency performance criteria based
upon the metric spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) [IESNA
Daylight Metrics Committee 2012] were used. Similar to
the point-in-time analyses, fully daylit areas were desig-
nated as those having 300 lx for at least 50% of the
DA plot with 300 lx at 50% of time
DA plot with 150 lx at 50% of time
Fig. 3 Simulation-based analysis. Left: Standard daylight autonomy plots with 150 and 300 lx at 50% of time basis with windows always
retracted. Right: Resulting fully daylit areas (white), partially daylit area (grey) and non-daylit areas (dark grey).
110
Ambient accuracy Ambient resolution Direct threshold
0.1 256 0
occupied hours (8 AM–6 PM) and partially daylit areas
had between 150 and 299 lx for at least 50% of the time.
Figure 3 demonstrates the simulation-based analysis in one
example study space showing the fully, partially, and non-
daylit areas.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Comparing Daylight Availability Plots
Table 2 illustrates and compares the fully daylit (white),
partially daylit (gray), and non-daylit (dark gray) areas in all
22 study spaces based on (1) students’ daylit evaluations
during field studies, (2) simulated daylight availability at the
exact time of student’s evaluation, (3) simulated annual
daylight based on LM-83, (4) simulated annual daylight if
Resulting partially daylit area
Resulting non-daylit area
A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg
 TABLE 2 Comparing fully , partially , and non-daylight areas in all space types

# 001 # 008 # 009

ASE = 10.33 ASE =2 .59 ASE = 2.08

Type of blind Louver blind Louver blind Louver blind + Roller shade

Students’ evaluation

Point-in-time
simulation

IES LM-83

Always open

Always closed

blinds were always open, and (5) simulated annual daylight
if blinds were always closed. Table 2 is organized with
spaces having blinds of some type appearing first and spaces
without blinds appearing last. A few spaces did not get
student daylit area evaluations but are included for compar-
ison of annual and point-in-time analyses.
Table 2 routinely reveals noticeable differences in the
size and shape of the fully, partially, and non-daylit areas
between the students’ daylit area drawings relative to
simulated annual daylight results. Table 2 also shows
reasonable similarity between the students’ daylit area
drawings and the point-in-time simulation results for 12
out of 18 study spaces with students’ evaluations.
It is interesting to note some features of the six spaces
where the students’ drawings noticeably do not align with
the point-in-time simulation results. Spaces #010 and
#012 are located in the core of a building with a couple
of interior relite windows and no direct daylight available.
The simulations suggest that the spaces are non-daylit, but
the students found substantial fully daylit areas across the
whole length of space with some partial and non-daylit
areas adjacent to the relight windows. In spaces #011 and

Revisiting the Daylit Area 111

 TABLE 2 (Continued)

# 014 # 015 # 016

ASE = 10.6 ASE = 32.48 ASE = 18.89

Type of
Roller fabric shade Roller blind Curtain accent
blind

Students’
evaluation

Point-in-time
simulation

IES LM-83

Always open

Always
closed

#013, the students’ evaluations suggest that the spaces are
fully daylit with some partially daylit areas adjacent to the
window openings, whereas the simulations predict that the
first two thirds of the space (next to the windows) is daylit
and the last third (far from window) is partially daylit. The
results for spaces #011 and #013 suggest a compelling
example of how the nature of human visual perception
for daylight is complicated. Students found substantial
daylit areas in a relatively dark space, which could be
due to visual adaptation. The human eye has different
responses as a function of wavelength when it is adapted
to light conditions (photopic vision) and dark conditions
(scotopic vision) [Bass 1995].
The two remaining unique spaces, #004 and #005,
have clerestory openings facing to the south and north,
respectively, that bring more natural light into the space.
South-facing clerestory windows provide top lighting to
the space. Light is directed onto an interior wall facing the
clerestory openings. The bright wall may indicate to the
students that the space is “brighter” than it is when

112 A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

 TABLE 2 (Continued)
# 018
ASE = 36.89
Type of blind Roller fabric shade
Students’ evaluation
Point-in-time
simulation
IES LM-83
Always open
Always closed
considering only horizontal illuminance and consequently
caused students to evaluate the entire area as daylit. These
two spaces, in conjunction with #010–#014, begin to
support a hypothesis about the perception of vertical sur-
face brightness as a moderating variable, which is elabo-
rated in the Discussion section.
The spaces without installed blinds did not examine
blind use in simulation, per LM-83, and therefore no
calculation of sDA by manual operated blinds (LM-83)
was conducted in eight spaces: #002, #003, #004, #005,
#006, #007, #017, and #022. In several study spaces
without blinds, other strategies were used to control the
amount of sunlight, such as exterior shading devices in
Revisiting the Daylit Area
# 019 # 020
ASE = 0 ASE = 6.28
Roller blind Curtain accent
spaces #002, #004, #005, and #006. Accordingly, the
annual sunlight exposure (ASE) metric [IESNA Daylight
Metrics Committee 2012] was calculated for each space
separately and shown in Table 2. ASE reported zero for a
few spaces, #003, #010, and #012, which is not surpris-
ing given that they are located in the core zone of the
buildings without direct sunlight. Furthermore, spaces
#002, #011, and #013 face north and also have low–
visual light transmission windows, resulting in zero
annual sunlight exposure during the occupied period, 8
AM–6 PM. For spaces #019 and #022, all of the open-
ings are translucent and direct sunlight did not hit the
simulated sensors.
113
 TABLE 2 (Continued)

# 021 # 010 # 011

AS E = 12.96 ASE = 0 ASE = 0

Type of blind Roller blind Louver blind Louver blind

Students’ evaluation

Point-in-time
simulation

IES LM-83

Always open

Always closed

Table 3 indicates that 9 of 18 (50%) spaces are cor-
rectly predicted as either fully (preferred) or partially
(nominal) daylit by the LM-83 blind control pattern
relative to students’ evaluations. The other nine spaces
were consistently underpredicted by LM-83, suggesting
that students found them to be either partially or fully
daylit but the simulation predicted the spaces to be non-
daylit 50% of the time.
Table 3 also shows sDA values for always open, always
closed, LM-83, and ASE in all study spaces. In this table,
study spaces were also evaluated based on LEED V4
[USGBC LEED V4 2013]. According to LEED V4, accep-
table spaces are those with at least 55% sDA300/50% and no
more than 10% ASE1000,250. It is noteworthy that LM-83
does not propose formal absolute performance criteria for
ASE1000,250 as it does for sDA300/50%; rather, it suggests
that ASE should be reported, compared in a relative man-
ner, and higher ASE values are more worrisome. A similar
point has been made in other recent articles [Nezamdoost
and Van Den Wymelenberg 2015; Reinhart 2015]. The
absolute criteria of a 10% limit on ASE1000,250 was a LEED
V4 committee determination, and at the time of this

114 A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

 TABLE 2 (Continued)

# 012 # 013
ASE = 0 ASE = 0

Type of blind Louver blind Louver blind

Students’ evaluation

Point-in-time simulation

IES LM-83

Always open

Always closed

publication, it is under committee consideration for amend-
ment to moderately relax the limit.
Figure 4 shows the sDA values of blinds operated
[IESNA Daylight Metrics Committee 2012] plotted next
to the always open and always closed blind conditions for
study spaces with blinds installed.
3.2. Point-in-Time vs. Annual Simulation
As noted above and detailed in Table 2, the general shapes
and sizes of the fully, partially, and non-daylit areas of
students’ daylight evaluations and the simulated point-in-
time daylight illuminances show notable similarities. In
contrast, greater discrepancy can be seen between the
annual illuminance plots relative to students’ evaluations.
In order to test this visually identified trend, Fig. 5 was
plotted, comparing the percentage difference of fully daylit
areas for point-in-time simulation and annual simulation
(using 300 lx based on IES LM-83 documentation) versus
students’ evaluations.
3.2.1. Point-in-time illuminance threshold
Given the increased accuracy of point-in-time simulations
with regard to student evaluations outlined in Section 3.1,
a varied range of illuminance thresholds was chosen and
examined in order to discover the most accurate threshold
based on students’ evaluations for the delineation of fully,
partially, and non-daylit areas. The sensitivity analysis
went through illuminance levels from 50 to 450 lx (50,
75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450)
for fully, partially, and non-daylit conditions in all study

Revisiting the Daylit Area 115

 TABLE 2 (Continued)

# 002 # 003 # 004

ASE = 0 ASE = 0 ASE = 1.18

Type of blind No blinds No blinds No blinds

Students’
evaluation

Point-in-time
simulation

Always open

# 005 # 006 # 007

ASE = 12.02 ASE = 19.2 ASE = 15

Type of blind No blinds No blinds No blinds

Students’
evaluation

Point-in-time
simulation

Always open

116 A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

 TABLE 2 (Continued)
Type of blind
Students’ evaluation
Point-in-time
simulation
Always open
spaces separately and then compared with students’ per-
ceptions (daylit boundary drawings) and the percentage
total difference, percentage correct prediction, false nega-
tive errors, and false positive errors were analyzed.
Figure 6 shows an example of this procedure in the non-
daylit category in space #001. In each plot, the black color
shows the similarity between students’ evaluations and point-
in-time simulation with specific thresholds. The dark grey
color illustrates false negative error, meaning that simulations
disagree that the area is fully daylit, partially daylit, and non-
daylit (the result is negative). Nevertheless, it is present in
students’ daylit evaluations. This scenario is reversed for the
light grey zone, meaning that simulations determined a fully
daylit, partially daylit, and non-daylit area in point-in-time
simulations (the result is positive) though it is not present in
students’ drawings (the result is false).
Figure 7 graphically displays the sensitivity study to
determine which illuminance indicator thresholds (ranging
from 50 to 450 lx) produced the smallest difference with
students’ assessments of fully daylit, partially daylit, and
non-daylit areas within the study spaces. Additional ana-
lysis is revealed for sky condition and fenestration type.
3.2.2. Occupant visual perception
As mentioned in Section 3.1, in a few spaces—#004, #011,
and #013—students’ evaluations show a possible impact of
human vertical surface brightness perception increasing
Revisiting the Daylit Area
# 017 # 022
ASE = 3.76 ASE = 0
No blinds No blinds
error in simulated horizontal illuminance plots relative to
students’ evaluations. This error generally occurs when
vertical glazing or clerestory openings provide high levels
of daylight washing vertical surfaces and/or the ceiling of
the study space. Consequently, this surface brightness can
impact students’ perceptions of daylit/non-daylit areas in a
room and the horizontal task illuminance (simulation grid)
does not necessarily exceed the required threshold to desig-
nate that area as daylit. To test this concept, two categories
of study spaces were compared. The first group includes all
study spaces and the second group consists of only spaces
that do not meet the characteristics described above as
contributing to the human brightness perception phenom-
enon (thus excluding #004, #011, and #013). Figure 8
illustrates this comparison using the average difference of
each group for specific illuminance thresholds. It is inter-
esting to see that at higher illuminance levels (more than
200 lx), the spaces without conditions likely to produce the
occupant brightness perception phenomena (group 2) pro-
duce lower discrepancy. The groups are statistically differ-
ent above 200 lx (P < 0.00075).
4. DISCUSSION
The research plan was conducted in order to compare
simulated daylight results with student daylit area bound-
ary drawings.
117
118
TABLE 3 Comparing sDA values for always open, always closed, LM-83, and ASE in all study spaces with students’ drawings fully daylit, partially daylit, and non-daylit. (Spaces with
no blinds installed do not have any value of sDA for blinds operated [IESNA Daylight Metrics Committee 2012])

(b) (i) LEED V4

sDA (c) (d) (f) (g) (h) Students’
(a) Space always sDA always sDA (e) Students’ evaluation % Students’ evaluation % Students’ evaluation % prediction status (j) (k)
number open closed LM-83 ASE area fully daylit area partially daylit area non-daylit (columns d:f) sDA ASE

#001 50.63 0.25 41.6 10.33 57.16 11.10 32.29 Incorrect Fail Fail
(Underpredict)
#002 15.05 0.49 NB 0 53.82 23.11 23.15 Incorrect Fail Pass
#003 1.20 1.20 NB 0 0.00 41.15 58.85 Correct Fail Pass
#004 33.20 0.78 NB 1.18 92.18 5.67 2.21 Incorrect Fail Pass
(Underpredict)
#005 18.08 0.38 NB 12.02 47.37 47.69 4.94 Incorrect Fail Fail
#006 97.62 87.3 NB 5.2 90.10 10.08 0.00 Correct Pass Pass
#007 97.22 2.38 NB 15.0 83.91 16.35 0.00 Correct Pass Fail
#008 98.97 93.85 97.95 2.59 86.50 11.67 1.83 Correct Pass Pass
#009 85.50 51.48 83.73 2.08 88.53 8.00 3.47 Correct Pass Pass
#010 0.37 0.37 0.37 0 95.45 3.93 0.63 Incorrect Fail Pass
(Underpredict)
#011 62.5 0.74 62.5 0 79.33 17.05 3.62 Near correct Pass Pass
(Underpredict)
#012 0.64 0.64 0.64 0 65.89 24.36 9.75 Incorrect Fail Pass
#013 86.32 0.85 86.32 0 94.80 3.99 1.21 Correct Pass Pass
#014 73.33 10.88 64.91 10.6 No evaluations No evaluations No evaluations — Pass Fail
#015 98.19 13.32 87.58 32.48 92.41 5.88 1.71 Correct Pass Fail
#016 67.05 3.88 57.53 18.89 No evaluations No evaluations No evaluations — Pass Fail
#017 6.51 0.47 NB 3.76 25.94 15.80 58.26 Incorrect Fail Pass
#018 93.55 93.55 93.55 36.89 No evaluations No evaluations No evaluations — Pass Fail
#019 93.24 90.54 93.24 0 No evaluations No evaluations No evaluations — Pass Pass
#020 81.28 1.02 79.87 6.28 60.93 39.07 0.00 Incorrect Pass Pass
#021 93.16 85.02 92.88 12.96 100.00 0.00 0.00 Correct Pass Fail
#022 98.22 54.38 NB 0 85.55 14.73 0.00 Correct Pass Pass

NB: Spaces with no blinds installed (No Blinds). Underlying values show two sides of comparisons between simulation results and students’ evaluations to find students’ prediction
status. Bolded “Pass” words indicate to those spaces which pass LEED V4 daylight credit (Both sDA and ASE are passed).

A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

 100

90

80

spatial Daylight Autonomy (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
#001

#020

#016

#011

#014

#009

#013

#015

#021

#019

#018

#008
Study space
Always Open Always Closed LM83

Fig. 4 sDA plot by blinds always open, closed, and operated [IESNA Daylight Metrics Committee 2012] sorted by LM-83 values.

# 022
# 021
# 020
# 017
# 015
# 013
Study space

# 011
# 009
# 008
# 007
# 006
# 005
# 004
# 002
# 001

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent of difference between annual and point-in-time simulation results
versus students’ evaluations (%)
Annual Point in time

Fig. 5 Comparing percentage difference of fully daylit areas in point-in-time and annual simulation results versus students’ evaluations.

In addition, manually operated blinds [IESNA Daylight operated condition required by LM-83 is. A few other
Metrics Committee 2012] plus always open and always findings include the following:
closed blind conditions were compared and analyzed
according to sDA (in Fig. 4). At first glance it is interesting High values of sDA for the always closed blind condition in
those spaces with skylights show the importance of top lighting
to see how close to the always open condition the manual
strategies to provide robust daylight performance even while all of

Revisiting the Daylit Area 119

 Students’ evaluation plot

Error plot—25 lx Error plot—50 lx Error plot—75 lx Error plot—100 lx

Error plot—125 lx Error plot—150 lx Error plot—175 lx Error plot—200 lx

Winner with the lowest percent of difference

Fig. 6 Non-daylit area discrepancy plots in range of 25–200 lx illuminance level thresholds in open office study spaces. Black, correct; dark
grey, false negative error; light grey, false positive error).

the windows are covered with closed blinds. At the same time,
spaces with only vertical fenestration with blinds always closed
show very low sDA values, indicating how critical blind use is in
annual daylight performance evaluation in these spaces.
Blind operation is most forgiving (or least sensitive) to spaces
with north-facing fenestration and top lighting. Spaces that used
both top lighting and side lighting strategies are robust against blind
closure (spaces #008, #009, #018, #019, and #021). Spaces facing
north (spaces #011 and #013) show no considerable difference for
blind operation, whereas sidelit spaces with south, east, and west
orientations show greater difference by blind pattern.
In all study spaces (except space #015), point-in-time
simulation results had less difference between student day-
lit area evaluations than did annual simulation results.
Considering all study spaces, the average percentage dif-
ference in point-in-time simulation was 21.6%, whereas
annual simulation produced a 27% difference (with blinds
always open). Using modified indicator values of 100 and
250 lx (partially and fully daylit, respectively) and consid-
ering both point-in-time and annual simulation increased
predictive ability and less discrepancy was recorded regard-
ing students’ drawings. Using these indicator values the
difference decreased by 18.39%, from 21.6% to 17.6%
for point-in-time, and by 21.47%, from 27% to 21.2%,
for annual simulation.
It is interesting that space #015 shows lower discre-
pancy in annual simulation than for point-in-time simula-
tion results, and this is the students’ studio space where
they spent a great deal of time on an annual basis. The
reduced error for point-in-time results, with this excep-
tion, suggests that students cannot accurately integrate
evaluations across imagined annual sky conditions. The
foundational research behind LM-83 relied on feedback
from both daylighting experts and naïve, but long-term,
building inhabitants. It is difficult to assess how well
experts and building inhabitants can integrate evaluations
across annual sky conditions, but this finding suggests the
importance of permanent space occupants in human fac-
tors research regarding annual daylight performance.

120 A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg

 45

Percent of difference between point-in-time simulation results and students' evaluations

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Non daylit Partially daylit Fully daylit

0
25-150
25-200
25-250
25-300
50-150
50-200
50-250
50-300
75-150
75-200
75-250
75-300
100-150
100-200
100-250
100-300
100
125
150
175
200

100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
25
50
75

Illuminance threshold (lx)

Toplight Spaces Sidelight Spaces Overall Clear Sky Overcast Sky

Fig. 7 Sensitivity study on illuminance indicator thresholds (ranging from 50 to 450 lx) for point-in-time data.

Simulation sensitivity studies were conducted to see with the geographic areas studied. As the sample of build-
which annual illuminance indicator thresholds (ranging ings published in the literature increases in number and
from 50 to 450 lx) produced the smallest difference when diversity (geographic location, building use type, sky con-
comparing students’ assessments of a daylit area. The fol- dition, aperture type, et cetera), it is likely that these
lowing horizontal illuminance thresholds emerged from the indicator values will become accordingly more nuanced.
sensitivity analysis as representing consistently low discre- Further space-by-space results interpretation is available
pancy between student evaluations and point-in-time simu- elsewhere [Nezamdoost 2015].
lation results; the threshold between non-daylit and partially Finally, only 8 of 22 spaces studied meet both the sDA
daylit produced 100 lx and the threshold between partially and ASE requirements of the LEED V4 criteria for the
daylit and fully daylit produced 250 lx. These are slightly EQ daylight credit [LEED V4 2013]. However, 14 of the
lower than previously published indicator values (150 and 22 spaces met the sDA criteria portion of the LEED V4
300 lx). This is possibly due to the relatively young sample EQ daylight credit. Therefore, 6 of the 14 spaces that
of human participants in this study or may be connected failed the LEED daylight credit is due to the limit of the

Revisiting the Daylit Area 121

 450
400
Illuminance thresholds (lx)
350
300
250
200
0 5
Percent of difference of fully daylit areas for point-in-time simulation results
All spaces
Fig. 8 Point-in-time simulation comparison of spaces designated with and without characteristics contributing to the occupant brightness
perception issue.
ASE 10% required by LEED V4. Interestingly, of the 18
spaces with student daylit area drawings (a subset of the 22
total spaces), students designated that 11 spaces had more
than 75% of the floor area as “fully daylit,” suggesting that
they felt that these spaces had sufficient daylight available.
Nine of these 11 spaces also met the sDA component of
LEED V4. The two that students said were daylit but did
not achieve a high sDA are possibly explained by the
vertical surface brightness phenomenon. It is our opinion
that this ASE threshold, as it is currently defined by LEED
V4 and calculated via simulation, is too restrictive and
warrants further research before these criteria are imple-
mented in additional reach standards or codes. However,
the recommendations within LM-83 for its establishment
as a metric and that it can be used at present as a relative
performance metric (as opposed to an absolute metric) in
lighting design applications.
5. CONCLUSION
In recent daylighting field research [Heschong Mahone
Group 2012; Reinhart and others 2014; Reinhart and
Weissman 2012] it has become an increasingly common
method to collect subjective point-in-time comfort data
and correlate these data with annual simulation results.
122
10 15 20 25 30 35
and students’ evaluations (%)
Spaces without conditions likely to produce the occupant brightness perception phenomena
Our research suggests that student evaluations correlate
better with point-in-time data and that they have a more
difficult time integrating their evaluations across year-
long daylighting phenomena. The inverse was true,
however, in the space that served as their design studio.
Furthermore, for point-in-time analyses, student evalua-
tions conducted under clear skies and in study spaces
with only vertical fenestration showed greater discre-
pancy with simulated results for the non-daylit and
partially daylit designations than those conducted
under overcast skies and those in study spaces with top
lighting. On the other hand, student evaluations con-
ducted under overcast skies and in study spaces with
only vertical fenestration showed greater discrepancy
with simulated results for the fully daylit designation.
This reinforces the difficulty that students had integrat-
ing several factors in their assessments of a daylit area,
and these findings suggest the value of the opinions
gathered from long-term occupants in this type of field
research.
This article identifies and explains inconsistencies in
manual blind operation with regard to the determination
of spaces as “nominally daylit” or having “preferred day-
light” according to LM-83 terminology. Additional
human factors blinds operation behavior research is
A. Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg
needed to improve the manual blind control algorithm
presently within LM-83.
Nine of 18 spaces were correctly characterized by
annual simulation following the LM-83 protocol (and
blind use pattern). LM-83 consistently underpredicted
the illumination from daylight ratings for the other nine
spaces, suggesting that students found them to be either
partially or fully daylit but the simulation predicted the
spaces to be non-daylit. This, combined with the results of
the sensitivity study yielding lower annual illuminance
indicators (100 lx for partially and 250 lx for fully daylit),
suggests that the sDA criteria documented in LM-83 may
warrant modest reductions in either percentage area or one
of the indicator values (illuminance or percentage time).
There were statistically significant differences regarding
the most representative horizontal illuminance indicator
value for discerning between non-daylit, partially daylit,
and fully daylit areas. Interestingly, for fully daylit areas,
the illuminance indicator value, 250 lx, consistently
emerged across sky conditions and daylight aperture types
as having the least discrepancy with daylit area drawings.
We found that a moderating variable we defined as “occu-
pant brightness perception” had a statistically significant (P <
0.00075) impact on student evaluations of daylit areas in
rooms with generally higher illuminance levels whereby stu-
dents considered spaces to be better daylit in cases where walls
opposite perimeter vertical fenestration were washed with
daylight. Though the t-test suggests statistical significance,
the sample of spaces with this condition is small and therefore
this should be considered a preliminary finding.
FUNDING
No special funding was received in preparation of this
manuscript.
ORCID
Amir Nezamdoost http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1473-
1579
REFERENCES
Bass M. 1995. Handbook of optics volume II—devices, measurements
and properties. 2nd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill. 1568 p.
Revisiting the Daylit Area
Borisuit A, Linhart F, Scartezzini JL, Münch M. 2014. Effects of
realistic office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on
visual comfort, alertness and mood. Lighting Res Technol.
47:192–209.
Heschong L, Van Den Wymelenberg KG. 2012. Annual daylight perfor-
mance metrics. In IES Annual Conference: Building Synapses:
Connections in Lighting; Proceedings of Illuminating Engineering
Society Annual Conference 2012; 2012 Nov 11-13; Minneapolis, MN.
Heschong Mahone Group. 2003. Windows and classrooms: a study of
student performance and the indoor environment. <http://www.h-m-g.
com/downloads/Daylighting/order_daylighting.htm>. Accessed 2016
March 6.
Heschong Mahone Group. 2012. Daylight metrics—PIER Daylighting Plus
Research Program. <http://www.h-m-g.com/DaylightPlus/Daylight_
Metrics.htm>. Accessed 2016 March 6.
IESNA Daylight Metrics Committee. 2012. Lighting measurement #83,
spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and annual sunlight exposure (ASE).
New York (NY): Illuminating Engineering Society.
Konis K. 2013. Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual
comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco,
California. Build Environ. 59:662–677.
Leslie RP. 2003. Capturing the daylight dividend in buildings: why
and how? Build Environ. 38(2):381–385.
McNeil A, Lee ES. 2013. A validation of the radiance three-phase
simulation method for modelling annual daylight performance of
optically complex fenestration systems. J Build Perform Simul. 6
(1):24–37.
Nezamdoost A. 2015. Development of annual daylight performance
metrics: sensitivity analyses of illuminance thresholds and blind use,
and examinations of energy use implications [master’s thesis].
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 239 p. <http://search.proquest.
com/docview/1751057612>. Accessed 2016 March 6.
Nezamdoost A, Van Den Wymelenberg KG. 2015. Daylit area revisited: a
comparative sensitivity study of daylit area drawings with daylight
results from point-in-time and annual simulations. In: 2015 IES
Annual Conference Proceedings; Proceedings of Illuminating
Engineering Society Annual Conference 2015; 2015 Nov 8–10,
Indianapolis, IN.
Reinhart CF. 2015. Opinion: climate-based daylighting metrics in LEED v4
—a fragile progress. Lighting Res Technol. 47:388.
Reinhart CF, Rakha T, Weissman D. 2014. Predicting the daylit area—a
comparison of students assessments and simulations at eleven schools
of architecture. LEUKOS. 10(4):193–206.
Reinhart CF, Weissman D. 2012. The daylit area—correlating architectural
student assessments with current and emerging daylight availability
metrics. Build Environ. 50: 155–162.
Trimble Navigation. 2016. SketchUp Version 2016. <http://www.
sketchup.com> Accessed 2016 March 6.
U.S. Green Building Council. 2013. Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design Version 4. <http://www.usgbc.org/leed> Accessed 2016
March 6.
Van Den Wymelenberg KG. 2012 Jan - 2015, May. Daylighting Design
and Simulation. University of Idaho. Boise, ID.
Van Den Wymelenberg KG, Inanici M, Johnson P. 2010. The effect of
luminance distribution patterns on occupant preference in a daylit
office environment. LEUKOS. 7(2):103–122.
Veitch JA, Charles KE, Farley KMJ, Newsham GR. 2007. A model of
satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings.
J Environ Psychol. 27(3):177–189.
Ward G. Radiance script to compute color compensation based on mea-
sured Macbeth chart. <http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/man_html/mac
bethcal.1.html> Accessed 2016 March 6.
123