Daylighting Performance Assessment: A Review of Methodologies
Abstract
This review assesses various methodologies in evaluating daylighting performance, highlighting their strengths and limitations. Key methods include computer-aided simulations, field measurements, physical scaled modelling, and mathematical calculations. Computer-aided simulations offer detailed and accurate predictions but require specialised skills, resources, and validation for accuracy. Field measurements provide empirical real-time data, though they are resource-intensive and need more time. Physical scaled models offer tangible insights but may lack precision, while mathematical calculations are quick and accessible yet often simplified and applicable to small tasks. However, designers can enhance the efficacy of daylighting assessments by integrating multiple methods, investing in training and tools, prioritising real-world testing, and adapting strategies to local contexts. Continuous monitoring and holistic design approaches are essential for optimising natural light use, improving energy efficiency, and ensuring occupant comfort in sustainable building environments. The review provides a valuable guide for researchers, architects, and engineers in selecting and combining appropriate methodologies for practical daylighting performance assessment.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Ayoub, M. (2019). 100 Years of daylighting: A chronological review of daylight prediction and calculation methods. Solar Energy, 194, 360–390. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.10.072
2. Kamaruzzaman, S. N., Edwards, R., Zawawi, E. M. A., & Che-Ani, A. I. (2015). Achieving energy and cost savings through simple daylighting control in tropical historic buildings. Energy and Buildings, 90, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.045
3. Tzempelikos, A. (2016). Advances in daylighting and visual comfort research. Building and Environment, 113, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.002
4. Lim, Y., Kandar, M. Z., Ahmad, M. H., Ossen, D. R., & Abdullah, A. M. (2012). Building façade design for daylighting quality in a typical government office building. Building and Environment, 57, 194–204. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.04.015
5. Ayoosu, M. I., Lim, Y. W., & Leng, P. C. (2020). Daylighting performance assessment of Side-Lit University lecture theatres in the Hot-Humid climate of Makurdi in Nigeria. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8(5), 4584–4589. doi: 10.35940/ijrte.e6793.018520
6. Ayoosu, M. I., Lim, Y., Leng, P. C., Aule, T. T., Abdurrahman, A. B., & Aminu, S. (2022). Tropical Daylight Availability and Sky Typologies for Daylighting Evaluation and Design. Journal of Tourism Hospitality and Environment Management, 7(27), 157–170. doi: 10.35631/jthem.727013
7. Kalaimathy, K., Priya, R. S., Rajagopal, P., & Pradeepa, C. (2023). A review of daylighting calculation metrics, variables and methods in evaluating the daylight performance of a residential building. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2813, 020016. doi: 10.1063/5.0156987
8. Ayoosu, M. I. (2022). Integrated Side-Lit Fenestration for Daylight Optimisation of Lecture Theatre in Nigeria (Thesis; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
9. Lim, Y.-W., Ahmad, M. H., & Ossen, D. R. (2012). Internal Shading for Efficient Tropical Daylighting in Malaysian Contemporary High-Rise Open Plan Office. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(6), 932–951. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x12463024
10. Li, D. H., Li, S., Chen, W., & Lou, S. (2022). Simple correlations between point daylight factor, average daylight factor and vertical daylight factor under all sky conditions and building design implications. Indoor and Built Environment, 31(6), 1700–1714. doi: 10.1177/1420326x211061111
11. Brzezicki, M., Regucki, P., & Kasperski, J. (2021). Optimisation of useful daylight illuminance for vertical shading fins covered by photovoltaic panels For a case study of an office room in the city of Wroclaw, Poland. Buildings, 11(12), 637. doi: 10.3390/buildings11120637
12. Brembilla, E., Drosou, N., & Mardaljevic, J. (2022). Assessing daylight performance in use: A comparison between long-term daylight measurements and simulations. Energy and Buildings, 262, 111989. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111989
13. Tarun Verma, T., & Valdaris, B. (2019). Evaluating the Daylighting Performance of Lecture Halls: A Simulation-Based Approach. 53rd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association.
14. Abdurrahmana, A. B., Aminua, S., Iyaa, A. M., Marafab, A. A., Yahayad, S. I., & Ayoosu, M. I. (2024). Window Glazing for Efficient Daylighting and Energy Saving in Tropical Climate. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(5), 2704-2711.
15. Ahmad, A., Kumar, A., Prakash, O., & Aman, A. (2020). Daylight availability assessment and the application of energy simulation software – A literature review. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 3, 679–689. doi: 10.1016/j.mset.2020.07.002
16. Iversen, A., Roy, N., Hvass, M., Jørgensen, M., Christoffersen, J., Osterhaus, W., & Johnsen, K. (2013). Daylight calculations in practice: An investigation of the ability of nine daylight simulation programs to calculate the daylight factor in five typical rooms. SBI forlag, 26.
17. Heng, C. Y. S. (2017). Performance of Horizontal Light Pipe for Daylighting In High-Rise Office Buildings in Tropical Region (Thesis; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
18. Mangkuto, R. A. (2015). Validation ofDIALux4.12 andDIALux evo4.1 against the Analytical Test Cases of CIE 171:2006. LEUKOS, 12(3), 139–150. doi: 10.1080/15502724.2015.1061438
19. Davoodi, A. (2016). Lighting Simulation for a More Value-Driven Building Design Process (Thesis; Lunds Tekniska Högskola).
20. Solvang, H., Kristiansen, T., Bottheim, R. M., & Kampel, W. (2020). Comparison and development of daylight simulation software – A case study. E3S Web of Conferences, 172, 19001. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202017219001
21. Ayoosu, M. I., Lim, Y., Leng, P. C., & Idowu, O. M. (2021). Daylighting evaluation and optimisation of window-to-wall ratio for lecture theatre in the tropical climate. Journal of Daylighting, 8(1), 20–35. doi: 10.15627/jd.2021.2
22. Montiel-Santiago, F. J., Hermoso-Orzáez, M. J., & Terrados-Cepeda, J. (2020). Sustainability and Energy Efficiency: BIM 6D. Study of the BIM methodology applied to hospital buildings. Value of interior lighting and daylight in energy simulation. Sustainability, 12(14), 5731. doi: 10.3390/su12145731
23. Da Silva Garcia, M., De Souza, R. V. G., De Freitas, M. L. M., & De Oliveira Veloso, A. C. (2020). Integrating daylight simulation in the design process: comparative analysis between two computational platforms. Gestão & Tecnologia De Projetos, 15(2), 69–83. doi: 10.11606/gtp.v15i2.161997
24. Jakica, N. (2017). State-of-the-art review of solar design tools and methods for assessing daylighting and solar potential for building-integrated photovoltaics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1296–1328. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.080
25. Carletti, C., Sciurpi, F., Pierangioli, L., Asdrubali, F., Pisello, A. L., Bianchi, F., Sambuco, S., & Guattari, C. (2016). Thermal and lighting effects of an external Venetian blind: Experimental analysis in a full-scale test room. Building and Environment, 106, 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.017
26. Kunwar, N., Cetin, K. S., Passe, U., Zhou, X., & Li, Y. (2020). Energy savings and daylighting evaluation of dynamic Venetian blinds and lighting through full-scale experimental testing. Energy, 197, 117190. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117190
27. Zheng, D., Chen, Y., & Peng, J. (2023). Daylighting performance and discomfort glare assessment of granular aerogel glazing system: A full-scale comparative experiment. Building and Environment, 236, 110297. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110297
28. Lim, W. Y., (2019). Tropical Daylighting for Working Environment. Bahru Johor: Penerbit UTM Press.
29. Freewan, A., Shao, L., & Riffat, S. (2007). Optimising performance of the light shelf by modifying ceiling geometry in highly luminous climates. Solar Energy, 82(4), 343–353. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2007.08.003
30. Cannon-Brookes, S. W. A. (1997). Simple scale models for daylighting design: Analysis of sources of error in illuminance predictions. Lighting Research & Technology, 29(3), 135–142. doi: 10.1177/14771535970290030901
31. Thanachareonkit, A. (2008). Comparing physical and virtual methods for daylight performance modelling, including complex fenestration systems (Thesis; EPFL).
32. Robbins, C. L. (1986). Daylighting: Design and analysis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
33. He, Y., & Schnabel, M. A. (2018). An approach for daylight calculation of a building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) Façade. Architectural Science Review, 61(4), 226–233. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1470964
34. Gentile, N., Lee, E. S., Osterhaus, W., Altomonte, S., Amorim, C. N. D., Ciampi, G., Garcia-Hansen, V., Maskarenj, M., Scorpio, M., & Sibilio, S. (2022). Evaluating integrated daylighting and electric lighting design projects: Lessons from international case studies. Energy and Buildings, 268, 112191. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112191
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Moses Iorakaa Ayoosu, Aondover Lawrence Utsaha, Kole Emmanuel Gabriel, Aker Mark Manasseh Vishigh, Memshima Evelyn Tuleun, Iwua Gabriel Sen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Email the author