Research Context

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Computer Science book series (BRIEFSCOMPUTER)


Through a comparison of existing interior spaces, this chapter will introduce a range of daylight design strategies found in global contemporary architecture. Each strategy varies in its approach to sunlight penetration and daylight distribution, yet reinforces a specific spatial experience that is central to the architectural goals of the project. It is through these architectural spaces that we will introduce the role of contrast and temporal diversity as an indicator of visual design performance and discuss the need for new perceptually driven metrics to complement existing task-driven and comfort-based performance metrics. Within the field of architecture, it is essential that we couple daylight performance criteria with design intent and provide metrics that address dynamic perceptual as well as task-related criteria.


Daylight performance metrics Task-based illumination Visual comfort for task performance Contrast Luminous diversity 


  1. Andersen, M., Kleindienst, S., Yi, L., Lee, J., Bodart, M., Cutler, B. (2008). An intuitive daylighting performance analysis and optimization approach. Building Research and Information, vol. 36 (6), pp. 593–607Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, M., Gagne, J.M.L., Kleindienst, S. (2013). Inter active expert support for early stage full-year daylighting design: a user's perspective on Lightsolve. Automation in Construction, in press.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, M., Guillemin, A., Amundadottie, M., & Rockcastle, S. (2013). Beyond illumination: An interactive simulation framework for non-visual and perceptual aspects of daylight performance. Chambery: IBPSA.Google Scholar
  4. Cetegen, D., Veitch, J., & Newsham, G. (2008). View Size and Office Illuminance Effects on Employee Satisfaction. Proceedings of Balkan Light, (pp. 243–252). Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  5. CIE. (1926). Commision Internationale de l’Eclairage Proceedings, 1924. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cuttle, C. (2010). Towards the third stage of the lighting profession. Lighting Research & Technology, 42, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demers, C. (2007). A classification of daylighting qualities based on contrast and brightness analysis. Conference Proceedings of the American Solar Energy Society, (pp. 243–252). Cleveland, Ohio.Google Scholar
  8. Gagne, J.M.L., Andersen, M., Norford, L. (2011). An Interactive Expert System for Daylighting Design Exploration, Building and Environment, vol. 46 (11): pp. 2351–2364.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, D., & Hearst, M. (1999). Space series: Simultaneous display of spatial and temporal data. In Conference Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  10. Holl, S. (1999). The chapel of St. Ignatius. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  11. (2009). Retrieved from DIVA-for-Rhino.
  12. (2007). Retrieved 2010, from Rhinoceros.
  13. IESNA. (2000). IESNA lighting handbook: Reference and application. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.Google Scholar
  14. Jakubiec, J., & Reinhart, C. (2012). The ‘adaptive zone’—A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Research and Technology, 44, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleindienst, S., & Andersen, M. (2012). Comprehensive annual daylight design through a goal-based approach. Building Research & Information, 40(2), 154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleindienst, S., Bodart, M., & Andersen, M. (2008). Graphical representation of climate based daylight performance to support architectural design. LEUKOS, 5(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
  17. Lam, W. (1977). Perception and lighting as formgivers for architecture. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, E., Clear, R., Ward, G., & Fernandez, L. (2007). Commissioning and verification procedures for the automated roller shade system at the New York Times Headquarters. New York.
  19. Lee, J., Andersen, M., Sheng, Y., & Cutler, B. (2009). Goal-based daylighting design using an interactive simulation method. Glasgow: Building Simulation.Google Scholar
  20. Loe, D., Mansfield, K., & Rowlands, E. (1994). Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: Experimental study. Lighting Research and Technology, 26, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mardaljevic, J. (2000). Simulation of annual daylighting profiles for internal illuminance. Lighting Research and Technology, 32(3), 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moon, P., & Spencer, D. (1942). Illumination for a nonuniform sky. Illuminating Engineering, 37(10), 707–726.Google Scholar
  23. Nabil, A., & Mardaljevic, J. (2006). The useful daylight illuminance paradigm: A replacement for daylight factors. Energy and Buildings, 38(7), 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parpairi, K., Baker, N., Steemers, K., & Compagnon, R. (2002). The luminance differences index: A new indicator of user preferences in daylit spaces. Lighting Research and Technology, 34(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinhart, C., & Voss, C. (2003). Monitoring manual control of electric lighting and blinds. Lighting Research and Technology, 35(3), 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reinhart, C., & Walkenhorst, O. (2001). Validation of dynamic radiance-based daylight simulations for a test office with external blinds. Energy and Buildings, 33(7), 683–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reinhart, C., Mardaljevic, J., & Rogers, Z. (2006). Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos, 3(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, Z. (2006). Daylighting metric development using daylight autonomy calculations in the sensor placement optimization tool. Boulder, Colorado: Architectural Energy Corporation,
  29. Steane, M. A., & Steemers, K. (2004). Environmental diversity in architecture. New York: Spoon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tiller, D., & Veitch, J. (1995). Perceived room brightness: Pilot study on the effect of luminance distribution. Lighting Research and Technology, 27(2), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ursprung, P. (2002). Herzog & De Meuron: Natural history. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture.Google Scholar
  32. Veitch, J., & Newsham, G. (2000). Preferred luminous conditions in open plan offices: Research and practice recommendations. Lighting Research and Technology, 32, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waldram, P. (1950). A measuring diagram for daylight illumination for the measurement, predetermination and representation of natural lighting. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  34. Ward, G. (1994). The RADIANCE Lighting Simulation and Rendering System. In Proceedings of ‘94 SIGGRAPH Conference, (pp. 459–472).Google Scholar
  35. Wienold, J. (2009). Dynamic daylight glare evaluation. In Proceedings of International IBPSA Conference. Google Scholar
  36. Wienold, J., & Christoffersen, J. (2006). Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model. Energy and Buildings, 38(7), 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wymelenberg, K., & Inanici, M. (2009). A study of luminance distribution patterns and occupant preference in daylit offices. PLEA2009—26th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Quebec City.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ENAC-IA-LIPIDEPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations