Acknowledgement - kth.diva-portal.org1242964/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Acknowledgement The author of this...

Inneryardbuildingoccupant’sperceptionversusthecomputersimulatedmetricsofdaylight,KTH

1

AcknowledgementThe author of this studywould like to thank Paul Rogers (ArkitektM.Arch,

BREEAM andMiljöbyggnad certified assessor at BAU architects, SAR/MSA) for histutorship, encouragements, guidanceandhelp through theentireworkprocessaswell as Anton Hendrix (Environmental Engineer, Daylight specialist, BAU) whoprovided all the necessary computer simulations and basic introduction toRhinocerossoftware.

ACC – glass and façade consulting company for providing the model of

examinedfieldcasebuilding.Väktaren 16 building board for their interest in participating in this

investigation,permittingaccesstobuildinganddistributingnecessaryinformation.

Väktaren 16 building residents for participation and contribution to thisresearchproject.

TheauthorwouldliketothankacademictutorFedericoFavero(Lecturerand

courseresponsible,KTH)andacademictutor,examinerIsabelDominguez(Lecturer,course responsibleand master´s theses coordinator of the Architectural LightingDesign Master at KTH) for providing with necessary materials (standards) andguidancebothontopicandresearchwriting.


2

Abstract

ThisMaster thesis was aimed at investigating common daylight evaluationmethodsrelatedtoSwedishbuildingcodesversushumanperceptionofdaylight inresidential spaces. Field (interview)and simulation-based studywere conducted inoneofthetypical20thcenturyresidential,closedcourtyardbuildingsinStockholm.

12 residents of Kv. Väktaren 16 were interviewed and simulation models

werepreparedfortheapartmentsoccupiedbytheparticipants.

Residentperceptionoflightwasmostlycontrarytodaylightassessingvaluesandmethods of daylight factor – DF in a point (CIE overcast sky) and alternativemethod of window to floor area ratio – AF that are stated in Swedish standard(BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6).

Attractiveand interestingview,access todirect sunlightandvisual comfort

played important role in overall occupant satisfaction level, this suggests thatdaylight metrics should include perception-based factors, which positively impactourhealthandwell-being.Keywords: Inner yard buildings, Stockholm, daylight factor, window to floor arearatio,humanperception,view,directsunlight,overcastsky,lightandhealth,humanwell-being, quantitative and qualitative study, computer simulations, visual andphysicaltheory.


3

TableofContentsAcknowledgement............................................................................................................1

Abstract................................................................................................................................21. Introduction................................................................................................................4

2. Background/Literaturereview..........................................................................52.1. Shorthistoryofinneryardbuildings.......................................................................52.2. DefinitionandshorthistoryofmetricsusedinSweden...................................52.3. Perception/Lightandhealth..................................................................................10

3. Methodology.............................................................................................................123.1. Qualitativeapproach:Interviews...........................................................................123.2. Quantitativeapproach:Simulations.....................................................................14

4. Results.........................................................................................................................154.1. Sunanalysis...................................................................................................................154.2. Interviewsandsimulations......................................................................................16

5. Discussion..................................................................................................................29

6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................32Bibliography.....................................................................................................................33

AppendixA........................................................................................................................36Daylightdemandsandstandards......................................................................................36

AppendixB........................................................................................................................46Väktaren16drawingsofplansandsections.................................................................46PhotosofVäktaren16site....................................................................................................523DvisualizationsofVäktaren16andsurroundingbuildings.................................54

AppendixC.........................................................................................................................55Väktaren16sunanalysis......................................................................................................55Interviewquestionsandanswers......................................................................................57

AppendixD........................................................................................................................62Tableofsimulationresultsandbackgroundinformationonintervieweeapartments................................................................................................................................62PlansandtableswithsimulationresultsfromBAUarchitects................................64

AppendixE.........................................................................................................................72ExplanationofRadiancesoftwarevaluesandparameters.......................................72

AppendixF.........................................................................................................................73Terminology..............................................................................................................................73


4

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare human perception of lightingconditionswithnumericalvaluesfromdaylightcomputersimulationsinaresidentialbuilding. The author of this report aimed to contribute to the overall research ondaylight metrics and raise the awareness of daylight evaluation methods used toestablish acceptancewithbuilding codes and certifications in Sweden. In addition,contribute to the further investigation and set parameters formetrics thatwoulddescribeandevaluatedaylightinresidentialbuildingsbetter.

ThescopeofthisworkwaslimitedtotwodaylightmetricsrecommendedinBBR’s (Swedish building regulations - Boverkets byggregler BFS 2016:6) “generaladvice”forDF–daylightfactorandAF–windowtofloorarearatio.ThefieldstudywaslimitedtoanexaminationofonecasestudybuildinginKungsholmen,StockholmwithinterviewscarriedoutfromMarch19tillMay25of2018.

Thismaster thesiswas a part ofArchitectural LightingDesignprogramandconsisted of field study, theoretical research and computer simulations. It wascarriedoutincollaborationwithBAUarchitects,tutorPaulRogers(ArkitektM.Arch,BREEAMandMiljöbyggnadcertifiedassessoratBAUarchitects)andAntonHendrix(Environmental Engineer, Daylight specialist, BAU) who provided with all thenecessarycomputersimulations.


5

2. Background/Literaturereview

2.1. Shorthistoryofinneryardbuildings

Courtyard/inner yard building design has already been practiced for manyyears indifferentregions.Courtyarddesigntypicallyprovidedsafety,privacyandagatheringplaceorusedaclimatecontroller(sun,cold,ventilation)bothinwarmandcold climatesandpaidamajor role inhealthand townplanning legislation in19thcentury shaping Europe’s perimeter blocks as we know them today (Edwards B.,HakmiM.LandP.andSibleyM.,2006).

CourtyardbuildingsareamajorpartofStockholm’ssceneryandconstructionof themgrew rapidlyat thebeginningof19th centurybecauseof industrialization.Subsequently, the population in urban areas grew at a fast pace, requiring quickextension,wherecityplanningandeconomicalaspectswereprioritizedoverhumanneeds(GejvallB.,1988).

Swedish architects did not have any local tradition to match such a largeneedfordwellings,thustheylookedforsolutionsinothercountriesandfoundtheirinspiration in Paris and so multi-apartment block buildings began to develop inStockholm and other major Swedish cities. These new types of apartment blockbuildingswithinnercourtyardscouldfulfilldemandsofthetime-insulationagainstcold, closed private yard that was used for different purposes and accommodatemanyfamilies(GejvallB.,1988).

Later, in 20th century theseblockswere slightly reorganized, followingnewarchitecture style (functionalism) and demands for health, which also slightlyimproved lighting conditions in these buildings. Nevertheless, because of urbanexpansion,developmentoftrafficandeconomicfactorsweremajorconcernatthetime,itwasdecidedtofocusonurbaninsteadofbuildingdesign;streetlayoutstillplayeda significant roleandouter layoutsofbuildingsweremainlykept thesameenhancingurbandesign(AsplundG.etal.,2008)and(CaldenbyC.etal.,1998).

2.2. DefinitionandshorthistoryofmetricsusedinSweden

Daylight,althoughan importantpartofdesignandarchitecture inSweden,didnothavespecificlegislatedrequirementsuntil1975whenSvenskByggnormwaspublishedanddaylightfactorof1%inapoint0.8mabovethefloor,1mfromthewall on the darkest side and at the half of the room depth was introduced, seeAppendixA.SwedishresearcherswereinspiredbytheworkofJamesLongmoreandotherdaylightassessmentmethodsestablishedinUK.In1970,FritzellB.andLöfbergH. A. published “Dagsljus inomhus” thatwas based on English version adapted toSwedish conditions. According to them, DF was hand calculated with help of adaylightprotractor(Figure1to3),butsince itwasperceivedasacomplicatedandtime-consumingmethoditwasrarelyused(RogersP.etal.,2015).


6

Figure1to3:Daylightfactorprotractorandcalculationexampleswithprotractormethod(FritzellB.andLöfbergH.A.,1970).

DaylightfactorwasfirstproposedinUKin1895byAlexanderPelhamTrotter,

although Percy J. Waldram was the one who helped to incorporate it in Britishstandard in1949.Ahandcalculatedprotractormethodwasused inUKuntil 1975whenJamesLongmoresuggestedthataveragedaylightfactorwouldbeabetterandmore comprehensive assessment of internal daylight levels. In 1992, BritishstandardswereaccordinglyrevisedandaverageDFisthemethodusedfordaylightevaluationalsotoday(LewisA.,2017).

AlthoughSwedishbuilding regulation foundationwasbasedonUKdaylightanalysismethod,itsdevelopmentdidnotfollowtheirnewlydiscoveredaverageDFmethod,butcontinuedtoimprovetheiroldmethodofDFinapoint(SeeChart1).


7

Chart 1: History of daylight metrics in Sweden. For more detailed information on some of thestandardsanddemandsseeAppendixA.

Since the first establishment of daylight metrics in Sweden, there has notbeenasignificantchange indaylightassessmentmethodsandthresholdvaluesforacceptabledaylight.Toidentifylightingconditioninresidentialbuildings,DFof1%inapointandalternativemethod,firstintroducedinNybyggnadsreglerBFS1988:18,offloortowindowratioofatleast10%offloorarea,includingbalcony,andangleofobstruction greater than 20 0, are the recommended methods as described inBoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6andearlier regulations (BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2011:6, Boverkets byggregler BFS 2014:3) and consequently interpreted byMiljöbyggnadManual2.1120101–fornewbuildings(DescribedinAppendixA)andSvenskStandardSS914291.

DFisastaticmetricthatmeasurestheamountofdiffuseddaylightdelivered

toapoint inaspaceunderCIES003(1996)definedovercastdaylitconditionsanddonot take intoconsiderationclimate,date, timeororientation. Itneglectsvisualdiscomfort risks and intensity of light, distribution and perception ofenclosure/openness(RogersP.etal.,2015).CalculationprincipleisshowninFigure4to5,explanationofCIEstandardseeinAppendixAandassessmentofDFvaluesinTable1.

BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2011:6,BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2014:3,BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6,stillusesDFinapointandAFmethods

NybyggnadsreglerBFS1988:18introducesdemandofalternativemethodofAF(windowglassareatofloorarea(includingbalcony)ratio).WasusedwithSvenskStandardSS914201

In1987,“Räknameddagsljus”bookbyLöfbergH.A.IntroducedImprovedmethodofDaylightfactorcalculationwithdaylightprotractor

1975-SvenskByggnormintroducesademandofDFinapointforthefirsttimeinSweden

In1970,“Dagsljusinomhus”bookbyFritzellB.andLöfbergH.A.basedonUKMethodofDFcalculationwithdaylightprotractorintroducedinSweden

In1895,DFproposedforthefirsttimebyTrotterA.PinUK

In1949thankstoP.J.WaldramDFwasincorporatedinBritishstandard

In1975,averageDFwassuggestedbyJamesLongmoreinUK

HistoryofdaylightmetricsinSweden

In1992,averageDFincorporatedinBritishstandardandareusedalsotoday


8

Table1:AssessmentofDFvalues(TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011).DFof5% Translates intowell-lit spacewithalmostnouseofartificial lighting,butglareand

overheatingareofconcernDFof2%-5 IsregardedasadequatelylitspacewithoccasionaluseofartificiallightingDFof1-2% IsconsideredasatisfactorylitspacewithanadditionaluseofartificiallightingDF of lessthan1%

Translatesintodarkspacewithaconstantuseofartificiallighting

Figure4and5:DFmethod:Planandsectionviews(BAUarchitectsandRitningsarkiv).DF=(Ei/Eo)x100%(Ei–illuminanceatapoint1meterfromthewallondarkestsideandatthehalfofthedepthoftheroomontheindoorplaneat0.8mheightabovethefloor,Eo–simultaneousoutdoorilluminanceonahorizontalplanefromaCIEovercastsky(BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6)).

AF is a prescriptive method that is very dependent on specific room sizes

(roomdepth2-6m,width2.5-6m),depthrelationtowidth,windowglasspropertiesandnumberof layers,windowdimensions(h(height)=0.6-1.4m,w(width)=0.9-1.5 m), placement and obstruction angles as stated in the Svensk standard SS914291.Asaresult,inpractice,itcannotbeappliedinmostcases,becauseofmorecomplicatedroomgeometriesthatarecommonintoday’sarchitecture(RogersP.etal.,2015).ThebasicprincipleispresentedinFigure6to8.


9

Figure6and7:AFmethod:Planandsectionviews(Ritningsarkiv).AF=(Awindow/Afloor)x100%(Awindow–glassareaofwindow,m2,Afloor–floorareaofroom,m2(MiljöbyggnadManual2.1120101)).

Figure8:AFmethod:Angleofobstruction(MiljöbyggnadManual2.1120101).

ThestaticmethodsofhandcalculatedDF inapointandAFarestillused inSweden as recommended by Boverkets byggregler BFS 2016:6, despite othercountriesusingmoreadvancedmethodofaverageDF, increased thresholdvalues,major development of digital devices and simulation tools that allow to calculatedaylightrelatedmeasures(RogersP.etal.,2015) inadditiontonewresearchesondynamic daylight metrics that prove to be a better assessment for human needs(Mardaljevic J., et al., 2012), (MandanaS.K., et al., 2017)and (European standarddraftprEN17230,2016).


10

2.3. Perception/Lightandhealth

Tounderstandhowweperceiveenvironmentitisimportanttocomprehendour vision (howwe see), the phenomena of visual perception (what we see) andwhatwedesiretosee(thenatureofluminousenvironment),(LamW.M.C.,1986).

Humanvisionisacomplexprocessthatinvolvessimultaneousinteractionof

brainandeyes,andconnectingreceptors,neuronsandcells,seeninFigure9.

Figure9:Structureoftheeye(HesmanSaeyT.,2015).

Humaneyecanprocessawiderangeofbrightness(12ordersofmagnitude:

starlight - 0.000001 cdm-2, sunlit day – 100.000 cdm-2), whichwas a fundamentalneedtoourancestorstoorienttheminnaturalenvironment(ReinhartC.,2014).

Wearebiologicallyprogrammed thatdaylightprovidesuswith information

onorientationandsecurity; it isdynamicandchangesinregardtotime,spaceandweather(TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011).

Today,when living in buildings,we are exposed to significantly lower light

levelscomparingtooutsideenvironmentourancestorswereaccustomed,however,thelightconditionsthatweareexperiencingarechangingmorerapidly(ReinhartC.,2014).

Nevertheless,healthyadulthumaneyecanadapttolightlevelchangeinless

thanasecondifexposedtotwoordersofmagnitudeatanygiventime.Wheneyeisexposed to greater changes it can take longer time to adapt which can result inexperiencing visual discomfort due to glare. Adaption for elderly persons usuallytakes more time and lesser difference in brightness levels to experience visualdiscomfortsincetheyaremoresensitivetolight(ReinhartC.,2014).

Human’sperceptionofbrightness isvery flatand logarithmic innature.Wedonotnoticelargevariationoftheluminousfluxlevels(quantityoflight)inaspace


11

oroveratime.Weperceivebrightnessandcolorcontrastsandbecauseofthatwehaveaverypositiveattitudetowardsclearskies(perceivedasnonuniform),wefindovercast,partlycloudyskiesasinterestingandhaveaverynegativeattitudetowardssolidovercastskies(perceivedas“dull”).Asaresultwewantcontrastsinourinteriorspacesandaslongastheyarenotsharp(smallopeninginthemiddleofadarkwall)weprefersuchspacesincomparisontouniformlylit(LamW.M.C.,1986).

Ourvisionisexpectation(biologicalaspect,overallexperience,preferences),context and activity dependent andwe perceive space around us based on theseaspects(LamW.M.C.,1986)and(TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011).

Human perception of the surroundings is an active information-seeking

action that detects signals of interest and refines distracting phenomena calledvisualnoise(EganM.D.andOlgyayV.,2002).

Ourperceptionofviewisavisionsystemresponsetodaylightthathappensatthemomentwhenlightreachestheeye.Fromoutside,weperceivedifferentlighttypes (directed, reflected) different intensities, directions and colors that createpictureoftheworld.Itisanimportantaspectforhumansbecauseofourbiologicalneed;weratherchoosetohaveanunsatisfyingviewfromwindowthannoneatall,aswecanreceive,forus,thesonecessaryinformationonchangesinweather,time,orientation,etc.(TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011).

However,itispreferabletohaveanattractiveandinterestingviewasithasatherapeuticeffect; it canenhanceworkingandwell-being (TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011).

Forsometime,daylight,especiallydirectsunlight,inmoderateamountshave

beenknown forhavingapositive influenceonhumanhealth (vitaminDsynthesis)andour24-hourcycle,alsoknownascircadianrhythmwhichresponsibleforsleep,hunger, alertness, hormone production and body temperature (Tregenza P. andWilsonM.,2011). There is a steadygrowth in thenumberof researcherswhoareconvincedonpositiveeffectsofdaylightonhumanhealthandwell-being.Theyhaveinvestigatedhowtousedaylighttoimprovetheseaspects;especiallyduringwintermonths inNortherncountrieswhereseasonalaffectivedisorder isaverycommonillness (Figueiro M. G. et al., 2008 and 2017). The health effects of daylight inSwedish context are summarized in Swedish Health Authorities recently releasedreport(Folkhälsomyndigheten,21.12.2017).

Currentmetricsthatareusedtoassessdaylightinresidentialspacestodaydonot fully account for the benefit of aspects of direct sunlight, view and visualdiscomfort thatare required to contribute to thehealthandgeneralwell-beingofoccupants.


12

3. Methodology

Inordertofulfilltheaimandgoalofthisstudy,qualitativeandquantitativeapproachwasused,asseeninChart2.

Chart2:Theapproachofthestudy.

3.1. Qualitativeapproach:InterviewsA set of numerous questions was developed with a assistance from Paul

Rogers, incorporating the fundamentals of Anders Liljefors “Lighting Visually andPhysically”theoryandfindingsofChalmersresearch“DaylightinExistingBuildings–A Comparative Study of Calculated Indicators for Daylight” and literature study of“Bostad och sol” (Lennart Holm et al., 1964) and interviews conducted withoccupantsofthefieldcasebuilding.

TheinterviewswereconductedinoneofVäktarenblockbuildings–BRF(TheBuildingBoard)Väktaren16,buildingwaslocatedonKungsholmen(59.3333320N,18.03333320E),Sweden,SanktEriksgatan31.Thebuildingwaserectedin1937andcontained38apartments,presentedinFigures10and11.Moredetailedgeometry,pictures and 3D visualizations of the building are shown in Appendix B. Balconieswerenotapartoftheoriginalconstruction,butwereaddedlaterandalsoincludedinsimulations.

Inneryardbuildingoccupant’sperceptionsversusthecomputersimulatedmetricsof

daylight

Qualitativeapproach

Quantitativeapproach

Literatureandresearcheson

perception/lightandhealth

Survey(SBUFbuilding)

Literatureandresearchesondaylightmetrics

Computersimulations(BAU

architects)


13

Figure10and11:SiteplanofVäktarenblockwithmarkedlocationoffieldstudybuilding–Väktaren16(Ritningsarkiv)andphotoofstreetfaçadefacingSE.

The case study consisted of two apartmentwings (“A” and “B”).Windowswerefacing3differentareasoftheneighborhood,presentedinFigure12and13.

Figure12and13:ApartmentwingsandwindowlocationofVäktaren16apartments(Ritningsarkiv).Buildinggeometrywasmadeasfivelevelsat“B”wingandsixlevelsat“A”,bottomfloorof“A”wingbeingoccupiedbystores.WindowswerelocatedbothonSEandNWsideof“A”and“B”wingandNEsidefaçadeofsmall,localinneryard,whicharelocatedbetween“A”and“B”wings.

Interviews were conducted from 12.04.2018 and continued up until27.04.2018.

Survey was organized in a way, that participants had three different

possibilitiestoengage,byfillinginanonlinesurvey:https://s.surveyplanet.com,byanswering previously distributed questionnaire beforehand and by on spotinterviews,personallyengagingwithinterviewer,theauthorofthiswork.

Questions of survey adressed daylight (direct sunlight and diffused sky),

visual discomfort and view aspects. They were focused on both, preferences ofparticipants(amountoflight,distribution,presenceofdaylight,view)andevaluation(spatialdistributionof light,accessibilityofdaylight,usageofshadingdevices,etc.)oftheirapartments;seeinterviewquestionsandanswersindetailinAppendixC.

06.04.2018


14

3.2. Quantitativeapproach:Simulations

Simulations were executed in order to obtain information of DF and AFquantitativevaluesinintervieweeapartmentsandprovidetheauthorofthisthesiswithcomparativeaspectforfurtherdaylightanalysis.

Themodel for thesimulationsofexaminedfieldcasebuildingwasreceived

from ACC glass consulting company. Setting of input parameters and simulationsrunning were carried out with assistance from BAU architects. Simulations wereconducted using Diva4 daylight software for Rhinoceros platform with high-valuesettingsofradiancethatare indetailexplained inAppendixE.Defaultreflectanceswereused inmost instances; however, in some instances reflectanceswere thosecurrentlyexistingintheapartments,atthetimeofvisit(Table2).Table2:Reflectancevaluesfordifferentsurfaces(BAU).Layer Reflectance

Facade 0.30 Default

Innerwallswhite 0.80 DefaultInnerwallsdark 0.40

Innerwallsyellow 0.55 Floor 0.30 Default

Floorlightparquet 0.50 Floordark 0.20

Ground 0.20 Default

Surroundingbuildings 0.30 DefaultCeiling 0.85 Default

Windowframe 0.30 DefaultBalconyfloor 0.30 Default

Balconyunderside 0.70 Default

Roof 0.10 DefaultGlassLT 0.70 Default

Simulations were run with generic settings for illuminance (Lux) levels,

outside (Eo-10 000 Lux) and inside (Ei-point measured inside, Lux). They werecalculated for 1st floor, the worst-case scenario, and applying individual surfacereflectance settings in each interviewee’s apartment, to simulate the illuminancelevelsinapartments,drawingsandtablesofDFandAFmadebyBAUarchitectsareseeninAppendixD.


15

4. Results

4.1. Sunanalysis

To assess factors that influenced tenants perception of daylight in theirapartmentsmorequalitatively,analysisofsunpathwasmade,seeFigures14to16andvisualizationsofaffectingfacadesinAppendixC.

Figure14:Siteplanandsunpathdiagram(SunEarthTools.com,2013)ofSummersolsticeat12AM,includingcorrectionfordaylightsavingstime,forVäktaren16siteandneighbourhood.EntirelysunlitSEfaçadeof“A”wingandlargerpartofSEfaçadeof“B”wing,shadedNWsideof“A”and“B”wingsandNEside facadeofsmall inneryardofVäktaren16.The large innercourtyardofVäktarenblockandSanktEriksgatanwassunlit.

Figure15:Siteplanandsunpathdiagram(SunEarthTools.com,2013)ofEquinoxat12AMfor fieldstudy site and surrounding buildings, less intensively sunlit SE façade of “A” wing, partially lit SEfaçadeof“B”wingandshadedNWfacadesofboth“A”and“B”wingsandNEfacadesofsmall,localinnercourtyard.SanktEriksgatanwassunlit,butlargeinnercourtyardofVäktarenblock–partiallylit.


16

Figure 16: Site plan and sun path diagram (SunEarthTools.com, 2013) ofWinter solstice at 12 AMshowedthatSEsidefaçadeof“A”wingswaslitinlowintensity.Allfacadesofsmall,localinneryardof Väktaren 16 and NW façade of “B” wing was entirely shaded. Both large inner courtyard ofVäktarenblockandSanktEriksgatanwasshaded.

4.2. InterviewsandsimulationsInterviews were carried out during weeks 15, 16 and 17 (12.04 – 27.04).

Survey responseswere collected from12participants and intervieweeapartmentswereaccordinglysimulatedinaweek17(23.04–27.04).

There were eight male and four female interviewees, majority in two age

groups between 25-35 and 55-65 years. All residents had experienced all seasonswhile living in their apartments, 42 % (five participants) of interviewed werespendingmorethan12hperdayintheirapartment,presentedinTable3.

Threeof intervieweeshad twobedroom,seven–onebedroomandtwoof

tenantshadstudioapartmentswithmajorityofdwellingwindowsfacinglocalinneryardofVäktaren16(SEsideof“B”windandNWsideof“A”wing),seeTable3.Table3:Backgroundinformationoninterviewedparticipantsandtheirapartments.Occupants

Gender Age Floor Yearsinapartment

Averagetimeperdayinapartment

Windowposition

Colors Surfaces

P1 Female 25-35 1 2-5yrs 0-6hrs SEfaçadeof“B”wing

Light Mostlymatt

P2 Female 15-25 2 2-5yrs 6-8hrs SEfaçadeof“B”wing

Verylight-kitchen,light-livingroom

Mattinkitchenandmostlymatt-livingroom


17

P3 Female 25-35 3 2-5yrs 12-morehrs

SEandNWfacadeof“A”wing

Verylight-livingroomandkitchen,Lightinbedroom

Mostlymatt

P4 Female 65-more

5 20-moreyrs

8-10hrs NWfacadeof“A”wing

Verylight-kitchenandbedroom,mix(lightanddark)-livingroom

Mixed(mattandglossy)

P5 Male 35-45 2 2-5yrs 12-morehrs

NWfaçadeof“B”wing

Mixed(lightanddark)

Mixed(mattandglossy)

P6 Male 45-55 2 20-moreyrs

12-morehrs

SEandNWfacadeof“B”wing

Light-livingroomandkitchen,darkinbedroom

Mostlymatt

P7 Male 55-65 2 1-2yrs 12-morehrs

SEfacadeof“A”wing

Verylight Matt

P8 Male 25-35 3 2-5yrs 10-12hrs NWfacadeof“A”wing

Verylight Matt

P9 Male 35-45 3 2-5yrs 0-6hrs SEfacadeof“B”wing

Light Mattinlivingroom,mostlymattinkitchenandglossyinbedroom

P10 Male 55-65 3 20-moreyrs

12-morehrs

SEandNWfacadeof“B”wing

Light-livingroomandkitchen,darkinbedroom

Matt

P11 Male 55-65 4 2-5yrs 0-6hrs NWfaçadeof“A”wing

Verylight Mostlymatt,butglossyinkitchen

P12 Male 65-more

4 20-moreyrs

8-10hrs SEandNWfacadeof“B”wing

Mostlylight

Mostlymatt


18

More detailed description of apartment characteristics (size of rooms,window sizes, viewquality, furniture, surface reflectance, aswell as results forDFandAF)arereportedinAppendixD,Table4.

As observed during interviews and stated by participants, most of theapartments had light colors (white, light yellow and light grey) andmatt (plaster,parquet,wood)materials,with few exceptions for bedrooms and kitchens,wheredifferent colors or surface finishes were used, exemplary visualizations of fourapartment interiorsaredescribedandpresented inFigures17to20.Visualizationsrepresentsurfacefinishes,colorsandlightdistributioninintervieweeapartmentsatthemomentofvisit.However,theydonotrepresentexactmaterials,elementsandfurniture used in apartments, but has a close resemblance of shapes, colors androomlayout.

Figure17:Visualizationoflivingroominresident–P6apartmentthatwasvisitedon12thofAprilataround1PM.Apartmentwaslocatedon2ndfloorof“B”wingandapartmentwindowswerelocatedonbothSEandNWsideofwing.Livingroomof17.9m2andattachedbalcony(3.9m2)werelocatedonSEside,whilebedroom(19.1m2)andkitchenof13m2wereaccomodatedonNWside.

Oneofcasestudyrooms(livingroom),presentedinFigure17,hadawindowandbalconydoorsof2.3m2combined.TheyrevealedaviewofthebuildingsontheoppositesideoflargeyardofVäktarenblock(around40mdistance)andpartialskyviewwhenmovingclosertothewindow,butithadaclearskyviewfrombalcony.Itwas fully furnished with light, matt furniture (light wood and textile). Finishes ofroomsurfaceswerewhitepaintedplasterceilingwithassignedreflectanceof(0.85),whitepaintedplasterwalls (0.80)and lightparquet floor (0.50). SimulatedDF inapointwas1.4%andAF–10%.Atthemomentofthevisitlivingroomhadauniformlightdistribution.


19

Figure18:Visualizationof livingroomintenant–P8apartment,visitedon12thofAprilataround5PM.Apartmentwas locatedon3nd floorof “A”wingandapartmentwindowswere locatedonNWsideofwing.Livingroomof17.4m2hadattachedbalcony(2.2m2),apartmentincludedbedroomof15m2andkitchen–9.3m2.

Living room,which is shown inFigure18,hadawindowandbalconydoorswith total area of 2.2m2 that revealed a viewof building on the opposite side oflocalyard(around12mdistance)andskyviewonlyfrombalcony.Livingroomwassparsely furnished with dark, matt furniture (wood and textile). Room surfacefinishes were white painted plaster ceiling with given reflectance of (0.85), whitepaintedplasterwalls (0.80) anddarkparquet floor (0.20). SimulatedDF in apointwas1.1%andAFof10%.Atthemomentofvisit,livingroomhadbeamsoflightthatreachedhalfoftheroomdepth.

Figure19:Visualizationoflivingroominresident–P9apartment,whichwasvisitedon17thofAprilataround6PM.Apartmentwaslocatedon3ndfloorof“B”wingandapartmentwindowswerelocatedonSEsideofwing.Apartmenthadalivingroomof20.1m2,abedroomof10.7m2andakitchenof4.7m2.


20

The room illustrated in Figure 19 had a window of 2.2m2 with a view ofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard(around12mdistance)andnoskyview.Itwasfullyfurnishedwithlight,mattfurniture(lightwood-plasticandtextile).Finishesof room surfaces were white painted plaster ceiling with assigned reflectance of(0.85),whitepaintedplasterwalls(0.80)andlightparquetfloor(0.50).SimulatedDFinapointwas0.5%andAFwasnotapplicable.Atthemomentofvisit,livingroomhadaveryuniformlightdistribution.

Figure20:Visualizationoflivingroominoccupant–P3apartmentthatwasvisitedon12thofAprilataround11AM.Apartmentwaslocatedon3ndfloorof“A”wingandapartmentwindowswerelocatedonbothSEandNWsideofwing.Livingroomof29.9m2waslocatedonSEside,meanwhilebedroomof(11.7m2)withattachedbalconyof2.2m2andkitchenof11.6m2werelocatedonNWside.

Visited living room,seeFigure20,hadawindowof2.7m2 that revelaleda

view of buildings on the opposite side of the street (around 40m distance) andpartialskyviewclosetothewindow.Theroomwasfullyfurnishedwithmostlylight,matt furniture (wood-plastic and textile). Finishes of room surfaces were whitepaintedplaster ceilingwithgiven reflectanceof (0.85),whitepaintedplasterwalls(0.80)andparquet floor (0.30).SimulatedDF inapointwas0.5%andAFwasnotapplicableduetoroomgeometry.Atthemomentofthevisitlivingroomhadbeamsoflightthataffectedareaclosetothewindow.

Data of received interview answers that described daylight (direct sunlightand overcast sky), view and usage of shadings and artificial light can be seen ingraphs1to14andinAppendixC.

The following graphs show that collected and aggregated answers, of

residents who participated in interviews, generally resulted in satisfactoryperceptionofdaylightquality intermsofamountof light,distribution,accessibilityofdirectsunlight,usageofartificiallight,usageofshadingdevicesandattractivenessofexistingviewinlivingroomsandallaspectsfailinginkitchens.


21

Graph1:Evaluationofavailabilityofdaylightinintervieweeapartments.

(Graph1)Majorityoftenantsstatedthattheoverallaccessibilityofdaylightintheir apartments range from sufficient to very good which follows the trend ofdaylight accessibility in living rooms. For the kitchen responseswere splitwith anequalnumberofoccupantsperceivingdaylightlevelsasbadorgood.

Graph2:Preferableamountofdaylight.

The graph above shows that generallymore lightwas desired in all roomsandespeciallyinkitchen,whereeightrespondentsfeltneedforincreasedamountof

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Verygood

1

2

3

4

5

Verybad

Amountofresponses

Ratin

g

Wholeapartment

Bedroom2

Bedroom1

Livingroom

Kitchen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Morelight

1

2

3

4

5

Lesslight

Amountofresponses

Ratin

g Bedroom2

Bedroom1

Livingroom

Kitchen


22

daylight, while bedroom, although perceived as dark, was considered to havesatisfactoryconditions.

Graph3:Evaluationofspatialdistributionofbrightnessaccordingtooccupants.

In graph 3 presented overall spatial distribution of brightness in theapartments was considered adequate or good with only two tenants feelingdramaticandcontrastingbrightness.

Graph4:Preferencefordaylightimportanceindifferentrooms.

Graph4allows to identify thatdaylightwasperceivedasvery important inlivingroomby11outof12residents,andlessimportantinbedroomby9outof12occupants.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Uniform

1

2

3

4

5

Verydramatic,contrasts

Amountofresponses

Ratin

g Bedroom2

Bedroom1

Livingroom

Kitchen

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Mostimportant

1

2

3

Leastimportant

Amountofresponses

Rank

ing

Bedroom(s)

Livingroom

Kitchen


23

Graph5:Evaluationforneedtouseartificiallightduringdaytimeaccordingtotenants.

Thegraphaboveshowsthateightofintervieweesdidnotfeelaneedtouseartificial lighting in living room, but equal amount (six and six) had an oppositeopinionaboutusageofartificiallightinkitchen.

Graph6:Evaluationofaccessibilityofdirectsunlightinresidentapartments.

Graphs6presentthatpredominancefelttherewasanaccessibilitytodirectsunlightfromatleastoneoftheapartmentrooms.

Graph7:Evaluationofsunlightappearancetimeaccordingtorespondents.

In graph abovemost of interview answers state that sunlight in all roomsappearedat the right time.Only fewof the respondentsexperiencedearlyor latesunlight.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Kitchen

Livingroom

Bedroom1

Bedroom2

Amountofresponses

Areaso

fcon

cerne

No

Yes

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Kitchen

Livingroom

Bedroom1

Bedroom2

Amountofresponses

Areaso

fcon

cerne

No

Yes

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Kitchen

Livingroom

Bedroom1

Bedroom2

Amountofresponses

Areaso

fcon

cerne

Toolate

Tooearly

Righttime


24

Graph8:Typesofshadingsystemsinapartments.

(Graph 8) All apartments had mid-pane blinds incorporated in windows.Apartments of the “A” wing had exterior shading devices on the upper floors.Additionally, some of tenants used curtains and two of tenants did not have awindowintheirkitchensandthereforedidnotuseanyshadingdevices.

Graph9:Evaluationforusageofshadingsystemsinintervieweeapartmentsduringdaytime. Manyofresidentsfeltaneedtouseshadingsystemsin livingroomsduringdaytime,whileonlyfewusedshadesinkitchen,ascanbeseeninGraph9.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Curtains

Blinds

Exteriorshading

None

Amountofresponses

Type

ofsha

dingsy

stem

s

Bedroom2

Bedroom1

Livingroom

Kitchen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Kitchen

Livingroom

Bedroom1

Bedroom2

Amountofresponses

Areaso

fcon

cerne

No

Yes


25

Graph10:Evaluationforreasonforusingshadingsystemsaccordingtotenants.

It is visible in this graph that themain reason for using shading systems inliving roomsandduringdaytimewasdue to lackofprivacy (50%),but22% usedthemtoreduceoverheating.

Graph11:Preferencebyroomsofhavingattractiveandinterestingview.

(Graph11)10oftenantsconsideredthatitwasmostimportantforthemtohaveattractiveandinterestingviewfromlivingroom,whiletheviewfrombedroomhadsignificantlylesserimportance.

Privacy50%

Overheating22%

Glare14%

Other14%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Yes

1

2

3

4

5

No

Amountofresponses

Ratin

g

Bedroom(s)

Livingroom

Kitchen


26

Graph12:Preferenceofview.

Most preferable view according to residentswas one that revealed nature(greenery), water and skies, while street and buildings were least preferred, aspresentedinGraph12.

Graph13:Evaluationofattractivenessandinterestinexistingviewintenant’sapartments. When occupantswere askedwhether they considered the view from theirapartments to be attractive and interesting, it was convincing majority thatconsideredthattheexistingviewfromlivingroomisattractiveandinteresting,seeGraph13.

Nature21%

Street4%

Water21%Sky

33%

Buildings8%

Activity13%

Doesn’tmatter0%

Other0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Kitchen

Livingroom

Bedroom1

Bedroom2

Amountofresponses

Areaso

fcon

cerne

No

Yes


27

Graph14:Evaluationofcontributingfeelingsofexistingview.

(Graph 14) Most compelling majority (69 %) of all interviewees felt thatexistingviewscontributed topositive feelings.28% hadnegativeassociationsandoneof participant (3%) felt that, although the viewoutsidewas not attractive orinteresting, theneighborbuildingwasdistant enough to create feelingof airiness,whichwasthedecidingfactortohaveoverallsatisfactionwiththeview.

Overall, residentswhohave lived in theirapartment fromtwoto fiveyearsandonesthatspent6hperdayorlessintheirapartmentsconsidereddaylighttobegood,withfewexceptionsforkitchenandbedroom.

Generally, more daylight was desired, even though it was considered that

existingconditionsweresatisfying.

Privacy14%

Lackofprivacy20%

Safety,security7%

Exposure8%

Relaxation14%

Stress0%

Openness20%

Enclosure0%

Well-being14%

Other3%


28

Thosewhohavelivedintheirapartmentformorethan20yearsweremorespecific in their observations andwishes. Theywere either satisfied or unsatisfiedwithconditionsinkitchenandthereforedesiredmoredaylightinthisspace.

Occupants who resided in 2nd and 3rd floor were content with daylight

conditions,althoughtheyweregenerallylesssatisfiedthanothers.Tenants thatwere 65 and olderwere generally very satisfiedwith daylight

conditionsanddidnotwantanychanges.Despite respondents being content with daylight in their apartments, two

thirdsofdwellingsentirelyorpartly (oneor two rooms ineveryapartment) failedBoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6numericaldemandof1% forDFand10% forAFmetrics.


29

5. Discussion

Thedaylightfactor(DF)inapointandwindowtofloorarearatio(AF)metricshavebeenusedastherecommendedmeansofprovingcomplianceofbuildingcodesandcertificationsinSwedenformanyyears.Nevertheless,authorofthisworkwouldliketoagreewithastatementofthoseresearchers,whodescribeDFasaone-sided,staticmetric that focuseson theamountof lightonly inCIEovercast sky situationanddoesnot take intoconsiderationdynamic factorsofdaylight. It canbearguedthatdaylight ismorethan justafulfillmentofnumericalvalues;humanperceptionand visual needs (intensity of light, distribution, view, a perception ofenclosure/openness) had a significant effect on the overall satisfaction withambienceofthespace,aspresentedinChapter4.

Chapter2describedthatAFisaprescriptivemethodthatisverydependenton specific room sizes, window glass properties, dimensions, placement, shieldingangles and etc. It was observed that although AF fulfilled demand for passingdaylightrequirementtheoretically,insomecases,wasnotapplicableinpracticedueto complex space geometries, window sizes and large obstruction angle values ofVäktaren16building.Therefore,numberofroomsthatfailedthestandard(SvenskstandardSS914291)exceededthenumbershowninsimulationsperformedbyBAUarchitects, making AF an unreliable parameter and such it was not furtherconsideredtobeapartofcomparativefactor.

CommonlyusedassessmentofDF values fromChapter2, table1 in reality

showeddifferentresults.RoomsthathadDFof lessthan1%, inmanycases,werestillperceivedassatisfactory lit spaces,andoccupantsrarelyusedartificial lightingto increasethe light intensity.Occupantsatisfactioncouldbeexplainedwitha factthat theyused light colors in interior,werepleasedwith theview; residents couldseealotofdaylightoutsideandoccasionallyreceivesunlight.

ItwascommonandexpectedthatresidentswhoseapartmentsorroomshadDFoflessthan1%wereveryunsatisfiedwiththeirlightingconditions,mostlythosewhohadalloftheirapartmentwindowsfacinglocalinneryardofVäktaren16.Theseresidentsoftenhadafeelingthattheuseofartificiallightisalmostneededoneverydaybasis, fromuseof shadingdevices for increasedprivacy feelingdue to lackofdistance(12m)toneighborwindows.

Less pronounced was the case when occupants were unsatisfied with thelightingconditions ifDFwas1-2%.However,therewerestillafewoccupantswhofelt there was not enough daylight in the space, which could be a result of darkinteriorcolorsandthefactthattheyspentmoretimeintheirapartmentsthanthosewho felt satisfied. Positive aspect was that, although tenants perceived space asquitedark,theydidnotfeeltheneedtouseartificiallightingveryoften.

Others who were unsatisfied with lighting condition despite having, bySwedish standard defined, DF of minimum 1% felt they are receiving too muchdirect sunlight due to high altitude of sun position, during spring, autumn and


30

summer seasons. Subsequently, they felt a need to use shading devices to avoidoverheatingandwhich inturn leadtooccasionaluseofartificial light forsufficientlightingconditionsinspace.Nevertheless,predominancefelttherewassatisfactoryaccessibilitytodirectsunlightfromatleastoneoftheapartmentrooms,asthesunappearedattherighttime.

Theperceptionofoveralldaylightaccessibilityintheapartmentswasmainlyneutral or positive which follows the trend of living room. Even though tenantsgenerallyfeltthatdaylightingconditionsinlivingroomaregood,theydesiredevenmorelight.Thiscanbeexplainedbyafactthatoccupantstendtospendmoretimeinlivingroomthaninanyotherroom.Asaresult,itcanbearguedthatlivingroomisthebiggest contributor to theoverall feelof light inapartment,whichalso falls inlinewithtenantresponsesthatdaylightismoreimportantinlivingroomthaninanyotherspace.Althoughbedroomswereperceivedasdark, itwasconsideredtobeasatisfactoryaspect,becauseofbetternightsleep.

Itwasfoundthatalmostallrespondentswouldliketohavemoredaylightinkitchen, although the opinionondaylight accessibility in the respective spacewasequal split. Inaddition,artificial lightingwasusedoften.Onemight speculate thatthiswasduetodesireforlargerwindowsindescribedspace.

Tenants, who had short daily occupancy times or have not stayed in the

apartment formany years,weremore general in their observations comparing tothose tenants who have lived in an apartment for more than 20 years. Longoccupancy residentshada tendency tobemore specific in their observations andwishes. They were either satisfied or dissatisfied with conditions in only specificspaces where they wantedmore daylight. Onemight speculate that the wish formorelightinthewholespace,forshortoccupancytimetenants,couldberelatedtohumanexpectationandadaptationaspects,aswellasphenomenaofperceptionasthe active information-seeking action that detects signals of interest and refinesdistractingphenomenacalledvisualnoise.Thosewhohavenotlivedinthebuildingalong time or did not spend as much time in their apartments could still have areference to space theyhave lived inpreviouslyorother spaces, likework,wherethey spent most of their day. Respectively those that spend a lot of time in theapartmentshaveadaptedtooveralldaylightqualityoftheapartmentandthereforewereabletodistinguishspecificspacesofdistractionbetter.

Theresponsesobtainedshowedgeneralsatisfactionandnowishtochange

thingsfromelderlyoccupants,whichismostlikelyduetothefactthatolderpeoplearemoresensitivetolightexposure.

Theprivacywasaveryimportantfactorforhalfoftheinterviewedresidents,

therefore, some of them were ready to compromise their daylight availability byusing shading devices and artificial light, which could be explained by the humanneedforsecurityandsafetyinasenseofsolitude.


31

Closerelationwasobservedbetweenexposuretodirectsunlightandusageofartificiallight;artificiallightingwasnotusedsoofteninroomsthathadaccesstodirectsunlightincomparisontothosethatlackedsunlight.ThisshowsthattheuseofDFforbuildingcodesisfaulty.DFmeasuresamountofdiffuseddaylightdeliveredto apoint in a spaceunderCIEovercastday lit conditions.However, even thoughsimulated DF values weremostly below 1%, which is considered as bad daylightconditions, some of resident were content with their conditions of daylightavailability. Itcouldbeexplainedwithavailabilityofdirectsunlightandlittleuseofartificiallighting.

Swedishstandard(BoverketsbyggreglerBFS2016:6)statestheremustbea

viewandaccesstodaylight,butdoesnothaveparametricrequirementsforsunlightandcategorizationforviews.Itwasveryimportantforalltheparticipantstohaveanattractiveand interestingviewoutsidetheirapartments,mostly in livingroomandkitchen,whichcanbeexplainedbyresidentstypicallyspendingmoretimeinthesespaces. In fact, majority considered that the existing view was satisfactory, eventhoughmanyofapartmentsdidnothaveaviewofskies,however,itcanbearguedthatthegainedinformationaboutchangesinweather,time,orientation,etc.whereenoughtofulfilltheirbiologicalneeds,whichinreturnaccountedforlackofview.

Thisstudyshowedthat therewasaconnectionbetweensunlight,viewandoverall satisfactionwithdaylightingconditions (availability,amountof light, spatialdistribution,usageofartificial light,etc.).Also,itwasfoundthattenantswereveryconcernednotonlywith accessibility to sunlight andhavinga view,butwerealsointerestedinitsquality(sunlightappearanceatrighttime,usageofshadingdevices,attractivenessand layersofview,etc.).ThisobservationcomplieswiththenewEUstandarddraftprEN17230,2016,whichsuggeststhathabitableroomsindwellings,mostlyduringwinterseason,shouldfulfillaminimumofspecifichours(dependentonlocation)duringwhicharoomshouldreceivesolarradiationforareferencedayinayearandagoodviewthatcontainsat least two layers (sky,cityor landscape)and provides with information about the conditions outside - location, time,weather,natureandthepresenceofpeople.

In order to objectively evaluate the perception of all 12 tenant residentialareaslesserquestionswouldhaveallowedtoperformamoredetailedexaminationduetofewerimpactfactorsandvariations.Inaddition,studyofmorebuildingsandtenants would allow drawing more objective conclusions on general dwellersimpressionontheirlivingspaces.


32

6. Conclusion

TheDFandalternativeAFmetricshavebeenused for showing compliancewith building codes and certifications in Sweden for many years. It is stated inresearchworksofother countries andwasalso foundby theauthorof this thesisthat despite of them being easily applicable, DF and AF do not take intoconsideration location, position, region, etc. that was a major contributor to theresidentsatisfactionlevel.Thisstudywasfocusingonhumanperceptionfactorthatareneglectedbythiscommonlyusedmethodofdaylightassessment.

Occupant perception of daylighting rarely reflected the results from

calculateddaylightmetrics.Forexample,aDFof1-2% iscommonlyconsideredtorepresentasatisfactorylitspace.However,someartificiallightmayoccasionallybeneededatthesedaylightlevels.DFbelow1%isgenerallyconsideredtorepresentadark space with a constant need of artificial light. Both positive and negativeopinions were expressed despite, in some cases, meeting the required numericalvalues in Swedish standard (Boverkets byggregler BFS 2016:6). It should be notedthatattractiveandinterestingviewandaccesstodirectsunlightpaidamajorroleinoveralloccupantsatisfaction.

Thismasterthesisgaveanunderstandingthatnewdaylightmetricsused inSweden should include perception-based factors, such as direct sunlight, inmoderate amount, that contributes to our visual need of contrasts and view thatpositivelyimpactsourwell-being.


33

BibliographyAsplund G., GahnW., Key E, Markelius S., Paulsson G., Sundahl E. and Åhrén U.(2008) Modern Swedish design: three founding texts, New York: MuseumofModernArt,p.180-204,273-296,305-312,325-336Boverkets byggregler BFS 2011:6 (2011), Boverket’s building regulations, Sweden:Boverkets,chapter6.3Boverkets byggregler BFS 2014:3 (2014), Boverket’s building regulations, Sweden:Boverkets,chapter6.3Boverkets byggregler BFS 2016:6 (2016), Boverket’s building regulations, Sweden:Boverkets,chapter6.3Caldenby C., Lindvall J. and Wang W. (1998) Sweden: 20th-century architecture,Munich:Prestel,p.7-8,15-17,32-35,42,60-65,75,81-84,97-98,203-211.CIES003(1996)Spatialdistributionofdaylight-CIEstandardovercastskyandclearsky,Austria:InternationalCommissiononilluminationEdwardsB.,HakmiM.LandP.andSibleyM.(2006)Courtyardhousing:Past,present,future,Oxfordshire:Taylor&Francis,p.Foreword,2-5,23,80-82,102,109-110,127-143,176-189,190-206EganM. D. and Olgyay V. (2002) Architectural lighting, New York:McGraw – HillCompanies,p.2-3,386-400.Eriksson S. and Waldenström L. (2016) “Daylight in Existing Buildings” – AComparative Study of Calculated Indicators for Daylight, Chalmers University oftechnology. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/245180/245180.pdf,(retrieved:11.04.2018)EuropeanstandarddraftprEN17230(2016),Daylightofbuildings(Englishversion),EuropeanCommitteeforStandardization,p.13-57FigueiroM.G.,SaldoE.,ReaM.S.,KubarekK.,CunninghamJ.andReaM.S.(2008)Developing Architectural Lighting Designs to Improve Sleep in Older Adults,USA:TheOpenSleepJournal,Volume1,p.40-51Figueiro M. G. and Rea M. S. (2017) Quantifying Circadian Light and Its Impact,http://www.archlighting.com/technology/quantifying-circadian-light-and-its-impact_o,(retrieved:04.12.2017)Folkhälsomyndigheten (21.12.2017) Ljus och hälsa,https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/6787e3675a6046ba9d6fc38234c016b2/ljus-och-halsa.pdf,(retrieved:24.05.2018)


34

FritzellB.andLöfbergH.A.(1970)Dagljus inomhus,Stockholm:Statensinstitutförbyggnadsforskning,p.42-62Gejvall B. (1988) 1800-talets stockholmsbostad: en studie över den borgerligabostadensplanlösningihyreshusen,Stockholm:Komm.förStockholmsforskning,p.249-262HesmanSaeyT.(2015)Howtorewiretheeye,https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-rewire-eye,(retrieved:14.05.2018)Holm L., Pleijel G. and Ronge H. (1964) “Bostad och sol”, Sweden: The nationalSwedishCouncilforBuildingResearch,p.68-74LamW.M.C(1986)SunlightasformgiverforArchitecture,NewYork:VanNostrandReinholdcompany,p.3-24LewisA.(2017)Themathematisationofdaylighting:ahistoryofBritisharchitects'useofthedaylightfactor,https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602365.2017.1376342?journalCode=rjar20,(retrieved:09.05.2018)LiljeforsA.(June1999).LightingVisuallyandPhysically.Preliminaryedition,rev05,KTHStockholm,LightingDepartmentSchoolofarchitecture,p.11-16,26-35Löfberg H. A. (1987) Räkna med dagsljus, Stockholm: Statens institut förbyggnadsforskning,p.13-14and18-31Mandana S. K., AndersenM., Christoffersen, J., Kuhn, T. E. andWienold, J. (2017)Comparison of luminance based metrics in different lighting conditions.http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=123040&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery,(retrieved:15.03.2018)MandanaS.K.,lipek,M.,KolarikJ.,TokeRammerN.andZukowska-TejsenD(2017)Visual Comfort Evaluation in Residential Buildings: a Simulation-Based Study.http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=123040&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery,(retrieved:15.03.2018)MardaljevicJ.,AndersenM.,RoyN.,andChristoffersenJ.(2012)Daylightmetrics:Istherearelationbetweenusefuldaylightilluminanceanddaylightglareprobability?Longhborough, UK, First Building Simulation and Optimization Conference,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267556994_Daylighting_metrics_is_there_a_relation_between_useful_daylight_illuminance_and_daylight_glare_probability,(retrieved:20.03.2018)Miljöbyggnad(Certifierad/Sverige)Manual2.1120101,Assessmentcriteriafornewlyproducedbuildings,Sweden:SwedenGreenBuildingCouncil,chapter12.


35

NybyggnadsreglerBFS1988:18(1988),NewBuildingRules(RegulationsandGeneralAdvice),Sveden:Boverket's,chapter2:12radsite.lbl.gov (2005) Setting Rendering Options(http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/Notes/rpict_options.html) (retrieved:17.05.2018)Reinhart C. F. (2014) Daylight handbook I, Fundamentals designing with the sun,USA:YoshikiWarehouse,p.63-64,Reinhart C. F., Mardaljevic J., Rogers Z. (2006) Dynamic Daylight PerformanceMetrics for Sustainable Building Design, Canada: Leukos https://nparc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/view/accepted/?id=f4b45bc0-978a-40d1-a6db-bcdff9752929,(retrieved:26.03.2018)Ritningsarkiv (2018) Plans and sections of field study building,http://insynsbk.stockholm.se/Byggochplantjansten/Arenden/ (retrieved:16.04.2018)RogersP.,TillbergM.,ColinE.,MarsP.andÖsterbringM.(2015)Engenomgångavsvenskadagljuskrav.SBUF.http://www.acc-glas.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SBUF-12996-Slutrapport-Förstudie-Dagsljusstandard.pdf,(retrieved:09.04.2018)SunEarthTools.com(2013)Sunpathchart,https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php(retrieved:10.04.2018)Svensk Byggnorm SBN1975 (1975), Swedish building demands, Sweden: LiberPublishing,section3andchapter38Svensk Standard SS 914201 (1988), Swedish standard, Sweden: SIS –StandardiseringskommissioneniSverigeTregenza P. and Wilson M. (2011) Daylihting: Architecture and Lighting design,LondonandNewYork:Routledge,p.3-18,138,211and270


36

AppendixA

DaylightdemandsandstandardsDaylightdemandsaccordingtoNybyggnadsreglerBFS1988:18

Figure21:LightingdemandsaccordingtoSvenskByggnormSBN1975(1975).


37

DaylightdemandsaccordingtoSvenskstandardSS914201,1988


38


39

DaylightdemandsaccordingtoBFS2011:6


40



41


42



43

DaylightdemandsaccordingtoMiljöbyggnad(Certifierad/Sverige)Manual2.1120101–fornewbuildings


44


45

CIEstandardforgeneralsky(TregenzaP.andWilsonM.,2011)


46

AppendixB

Väktaren16drawingsofplansandsections

Figure22:1stfloorplanofVäktaren16(Ritningsarkiv).Numbersonplanrepresentphotostakenonsiteinperspective;forbetterunderstandingofbuildingseethisplantogetherwithphotosinAppendixA–PhotosofVäktaren16site.

1.

2.

4.3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.


47

Figure23:2ndand3rdfloorplanofVäktaren16building(Ritningsarkiv).


48

Figure24:4thfloorplanoffieldstudybuilding(Ritningsarkiv).


49

Figure25:4thfloormansardplanofVäktaren16(Ritningsarkiv).


50

Figure26:5thfloorplanoffieldstudybuilding–Väktaren16(Ritningsarkiv).


51

Figure27and28:LongitudinalandcrosssectionsofVäktaren16(Ritningsarkiv).


52

PhotosofVäktaren16site

06.04.2018

12.04.2018

22.04.2018

06.04.2018 06.04.2018

06.04.2018

12.04.2018

22.04.2018

22.04.2018

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.


53

Figure29to43:InteriorandexteriorphotosofVäktaren16building.

06.04.2018 06.04.2018

22.04.201822.04.2018 22.04.2018

06.04.201810. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15.


54

3DvisualizationsofVäktaren16andsurroundingbuildings

Figure44, 45 and46: 3D visualizationsofVäktaren16 sitemade inRhinoceros computer software(BAU).


55

AppendixC

Väktaren16sunanalysis

Figure47to50:VisualizationsreflectinglightingconditionsofVäktaren16duringSummersolstice(12AM)fromthreedifferentperspectives.

Figure51 to54:Visualizations reflecting lighting conditionsofVäktaren16duringEquinox (12AM)fromthreedifferentperspectives.

1

2 3

1

2 3


56

Figure55to58:Visualizationsreflecting lightingconditionsofVäktaren16duringWintersolsticeat12AMfromthreedifferentperspectives.

1

2 3


57

InterviewquestionsandanswersMaster thesis project “Inner yard building occupant’s perceptions versus thecomputersimulatedmetricsofdaylight” (Rateaccordingly toscale, choose frompossibleexamplesoraddcomments)1.Apartmentandoccupants(backgroundinformation):1.1Time/Date/Weatherwhensurveywastaken:(Writeacomment)SeeanswersinChapter4,table31.2Genderofparticipant:(Choosefromexamples)SeeanswersinChapter4,table3Female Male Other1.3Ageofparticipant:(Choosefromexamples)SeeanswersinChapter4,table30-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-more1.4Yearslivinginapartment:(Choosefromexamples)SeeanswersinChapter4,table30-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-more1.5 Average time per day spent in apartment: (Choose from examples) See answers inChapter4,table30-6hrs 6-8hrs 8-10hrs 10-12hrs 12-morehrs1.6Seasonsexperiencedwhilelivinginapartment:(Choosefromexamples)SeeanswersinChapter4,table3Winter Spring Summer Autumn All1.7.1Orientationofwindows:(Choosefromexamples-Multipleanswersarepossible)SeeanswersinChapter4,table3SmallInneryardfacade

Inneryardfacade

Streetfacade

1.7.2Floorofapartment:(Writeacomment)SeeanswersinChapter4,table31.8Colorsusedinthefollowingrooms:(Chooseanumber)SeeanswersinChapter4,table3Kitchen Verylight 1 2 3 4 5 VerydarkLivingroom Verylight 1 2 3 4 5 VerydarkBedroom1 Verylight 1 2 3 4 5 VerydarkBedroom2 Verylight 1 2 3 4 5 Verydark1.9Materialsused in the following rooms: (Chooseanumber)See answers in Chapter 4,table3Kitchen Matt 1 2 3 4 5 GlossyLivingroom Matt 1 2 3 4 5 GlossyBedroom1 Matt 1 2 3 4 5 GlossyBedroom2 Matt 1 2 3 4 5 Glossy


58

2.Occupant’sperceptionofdaylight:2.1Availabilityofdaylight:(Chooseanumber)Rating: Verygood 1 2 3 4 5 Verybad

Answers:Kitchen 4 1 2 4 1

Livingroom 5 4 2 1

Bedroom1 2 4 1 2 1

Bedroom2 2 1

Wholeapartment 2 2 7 1

2.2Would it be preferable to havemore or less daylight in any of the following rooms?(Chooseanumber)Rating: Morelight 1 2 3 4 5 Lesslight

Answers:Kitchen 6 2 4

Livingroom 6 6 Bedroom1 5 5

Bedroom2 1 2

2.3 Spatial distribution of brightness - theway daylight spreads over and area: (Choose anumber)Rating: Uniform 1 2 3 4 5 Verydramatic,contrastsAnswers:

Kitchen 3 4 3 1 1

Livingroom 5 3 4 Bedroom1 3 2 4 1

Bedroom2 2 1

2.4Importanceofthedaylightinthefollowingrooms:(Rankroomsbyimportance,where1isthemostimportantand3theleastimportant)Ranking: Mostimportant 1 2 3 LeastimportantAnswers:

Kitchen 2 8 2 Livingroom 11 1

Bedroom(s) 3 9

2.5Doyouoftenneedtouseartificiallightingduringthedaytime?(Choosefromexamples)Examples: Yes NoAnswers:

Kitchen 6 6Livingroom 4 8Bedroom1 4 6Bedroom2 3


59

3.Directsunlight:3.1Isthereanaccesstodirectsunlightinthefollowingrooms?(Choosefromexamples)Examples: Yes No

Answers:Kitchen 9 3Livingroom 9 3Bedroom1 7 3Bedroom2 2 1

3.2Shadows:Rating: Verysoft 1 2 3 4 5 VerynoticeableAnswers:

Kitchen 4 2 6

Livingroom 1 3 6 2

Bedroom1 2 2 5 1

Bedroom2

2 1

3.3Reflections:Rating: None 1 2 3 4 5 Verymarked,noticeable

Answers:Kitchen 4 1 7

Livingroom 2 3 5 1 1 Bedroom1 3 1 5 1

Bedroom2 1 1 1

3.4 Consideration for sunlight to appear at right time, too early or too late (Choose fromexamples)Examples: Righttime Tooearly ToolateAnswers:

Kitchen 7 3 2Livingroom 8 2 2Bedroom1 6 2 2Bedroom2 2 1

3.5Whatkindofshadingsystemisavailableinthefollowingrooms?(Choosefromexamples-Multipleanswersarepossible)Examples: Curtains Blinds Exteriorshading None

Answers:Kitchen 10 1 2Livingroom 12 1 Bedroom1 3 10 Bedroom2 3


60

3.6Doyouoftenneedtousecurtains,blindsorothersunshadingdevicesinthefollowingroomsduringthedaytime?(Choosefromexamples)Examples: Yes No


3.7 Reason for using shading systems: (Choose from examples - Multiple answers arepossible)Examples: Privacy Overheating Glare Other

Answers:

7 3 2 24.View:4.1 Is it important foryou tohaveanattractiveand interestingview fromwindows in thefollowingrooms?(Chooseanumber)Rating: Yes 1 2 3 4 5 No

Answers:Kitchen 7 1 2 1 1

Livingroom 10 2

Bedroom(s) 4 1 2 1 4

4.2Doyouconsidertheviewfromyourapartmenttobeattractiveandinterestingandenjoylookingoutsidethewindow?(Choosefromexamples)Examples: Yes No


4.3 Does the view outside contribute to the below mentioned feelings? (Choose fromexamples-Multipleanswersarepossible)Examples: Privacy Lackof

privacySafety,security

Exposure Relaxation

Answers: 4 6 2 2 4

Examples: Stress Openness Enclosure Well-being OtherAnswers: 6 4 1


61

4.4Viewpreference(Choosefromexamples-Multipleanswersarepossible)Examples: Nature Street Water SkyAnswers: 5 1 5 8

Buildings Activity Doesn’t

matterOther

Answers: 2 3


62

AppendixD

TableofsimulationresultsandbackgroundinformationonintervieweeapartmentsTable4:BackgroundinformationoninterviewedtenantsapartmentsandresultsofDFandAFvalues.

Participan

ts

Visittime

Floo

r

Areaofroo

ms

Windo

wsize

Windo

w

positionan

dview

Furnitu

re

Surfacesand

refle

ctan

ce

DFinapoint

(%)

AF(%

)

P1 Notvisitedinside26.04.2018,20:00

1 Studio-14.7m2Kitchen-5.8m2

1.4x1.4m0.7x1.4m

WindowsonSEsideof“B”wing.Viewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard.Noskyview.

Fullyfurnished Defaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)Defaultfloor(0.30)Defaultceiling(0.85)

0.2%0.2%

Notapplicableduetoobstructionangleandwindowsize

P2 Visitedinside17.04.2018,19:20

2 Studio-14.7m2Kitchen-3.1m2

1.4x1.4m0.7x1.4m


Fullyfurnished–mostlylightcolors

Lightyellowinnerwalls(0.55)-studioLightparquetfloor(0.50)-studioDefaultceiling(0.85)-studioandkitchenDefaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)-kitchenDefaultfloor(0.30)-kitchen

0.2%0.3%

Notapplicableduetoobstructionangleandwindowsize


3 Livingroom-29.9m2Kitchen-11.6m2Bedroom-11.7m2

Balcony-2.2m2

2.6x1.4m1.4x1.4m0.4x1.4m1.4x1.4m0.7x2.1m

WindowsonSEandNWsideof“A”wing.Fromlivingroomviewofbuildingontheoppositesideofstreetandpartialskyviewclosertothewindow.Frombedroomandkitchenviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard,skyviewfrombalcony.

Fullyfurnished–mostlylightcolors

Mediumlightparquetfloor(0.30)-livingroomDefaultceiling(0.85)-wholeapartmentDefaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)-wholeapartmentDefaultfloor(0.30)-kitchenandbedroom

0.5%0.9%1.7%

10%inbedroom,butnotapplicableinkitchenandlivingroomduetoroomgeometry

P4 Online12.04.2018,11:00

5 Livingroom-22.3m2Kitchen-3.9m2Bedroom-9.3m2Balcony-5.2m2

2x(1.4x1.4m)0.4x1.4m0.7x2.1m0.7x1.4m1.4x1.4m

WindowsonNWsideof“A”wing.Viewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyardandtoskies.


1.5%1.4%1.4%

10%inkitchen,butnotapplicableinlivingroomandbedroomduetoroomgeometry

P5 Online12.04.2018,10:00


2.1x1.4m0.7x1.4m1.4x1.4m

WindowsonNWsideof“B”wing.ViewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflargeyardofVäktarenblock,partialskyviewclosertowindow,butclearskyviewfrombalcony.


1.5%1.0%2.9%

10%



1.4x1.4m0.7x2.1m2.1x1.4m2.1x1.4m

WindowsonSEandNWsideof“B”wing.FromlivingroomviewofbuildingsontheoppositesideoflargeyardofVäktarenblockandpartialskyviewclosertowindow,butclearskyviewfrombalcony.Frombedroomandkitchenviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard,noskyview.

Fullyfurnished Lightparquetfloor(0.50)-LivingroomDefaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)-wholeapartmentDefaultceiling(0.85)-wholeapartmentDefaultfloor(0.30)-kitchenandbedroom

1.4%0.5%0.4%

10%inlivingroom,butnotapplicableinkitchenandbedroomduetoangleofobstruction

P7 Online12.04.2018,10:30

2 Livingroom-23.2m2Kitchen-5.2m2Bedroom1-4.4m2

2.6x1.4mNone1.8x1.4m

WindowsonSEsideof“A”wing.Viewofbuildingsontheoppositesideofstreetandpartialskyviewcloser


0.7%0.4%4.3%

11.8%inlivingroomandbedroom


63

Bedroom2-14.3m2

1.8x1.4m tothewindow. 1.0% duetoobstructionanglelargerthan200.AFnotapplicableinkitchen–noexteriorwindow



1.4x1.4m0.7x2.1m1.4x1.4m0.4x1.4m1.4x1.4m

WindowsonNWsideof“A”wing.Viewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard,skyviewfrombalcony.

Sparselyfurnished

Darkparquetfloor(0.20)-livingroomDefaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)-wholeapartmentDefaultceiling(0.85)-wholeapartmentDefaultfloor(0.30)-kitchenandbedroom

1.1%1.2%1.2%

10%inlivingroom,butnotapplicableinkitchenandbedroomduetoroomgeometry


3 Livingroom-20.1m2Kitchen-4.7m2Bedroom-10.7m2

2.1x1.4mNone2.1x1.4m


Fullyfurnished Lightparquetfloor(0.50)-LivingroomDefaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)-wholeapartmentDefaultceiling(0.85)-wholeapartmentDefaultfloor(0.30)-kitchenandbedroom

0.5%0.1%1.9%

13.5%inbedroomduetoobstructionanglelargerthan200.AFnotapplicableinkitchen(noexteriorwindow)andlivingroomduetoangleofobstruction


3 Livingroom-17.9m2Kitchen-6.0m2Bedroom1-7.0m2Balcony-3.9m2

1.4x1.4m0.7x2.10.7x1.4m1.2x1.4m

WindowsonSEandNWsideof“B”wing.FromlivingroomviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflargeyardofVäktarenblockandpartialskyviewclosertowindow,butclearskyviewfrombalcony.Frombedroomandkitchenviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard,noskyview.

Fullyfurnished Defaultinnerwallswhite(0.80)Darkfloor(0.20)Defaultceiling(0.85)Darkinnerwallsofbedroom(0.40)

1.6%0.5%1.0%

10%inlivingroomand13%inrestofroomsduetoobstructionanglelargerthan200

P11 Online12.04.2018,18:15

4 Livingroom-17.4m2Kitchen-5.0m2Bedroom1-4.3m2Bedroom2-18.0m2

1.4x1.4mNon1.4x1.4m1.4x1.4m

WindowsonNWsideof“A”wing.Viewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard.Partialskyview.


1.4%1.4%1.4%1.4%

10%inlivingroom,butnotapplicableinkitchen–noexteriorwindow

P12 Notvisitedinside16.04.2018,18:30

4 Livingroom-56.6m2Kitchen-23.7m2Bedroom1-17.9m2Bedroom2-22.5m2

Terrace-15.0m2

1.1x1.4m2.1x1.4m1.2x2.1m1.1x1.4m2.1x1.4m

WindowsonSEandNWsideof“B”wing.Fromlivingroom,onebedroomandkitchenterraceviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflargeyardofVäktarenblock.Fromotherbedroomviewofbuildingontheoppositesideoflocalyard.Skyviewforwholeapartment.


0.5%0.2%0.5%1.3%

10%inbedroom2,butnotapplicableinrestofapartmentduetoroomgeometry


64

PlansandtableswithsimulationresultsfromBAUarchitects

Figure66:DFandAFresultsof1stfloor(BAU).


65

Figure67:DFandAFresultsof2ndfloor(BAU).


66

Figure68:DFandAFresultsof3rdfloor(BAU).


67

Figure69:DFandAFresultsof4thfloor(BAU).


68

Figure70:DFandAFresultsof4thfloormansard(BAU).


69

Figure71:DFandAFresultsof5thfloor(BAU).


70

Table5:DFandAFresults(BAU).Floor Room

No.Description Afloor

(m²)Abalcony(m²)

Awindow(m²)

Afloor+Abalc.

(m²)Angleofobstruction(°)

DemandtopassAF(%)

AF(%)

DF(%)

DFmedian Grading

1 1 Livingroom 18.1 0.0 2.3 18.1 19.0 10.0 12.7 1.4 1.2 Approved

1 2 Bedroom 7.6 0.0 1.5 7.6 19.0 10.0 19.2 1.7 1.3 Approved1 3 Kitchen 5.4 0.0 0.8 5.4 19.0 10.0 14.4 1.0 0.6 Approved1 4 Kitchen 5.1 0.0 0.8 5.1 20.0 10.0 15.3 1.0 0.6 Approved1 5 Living

room/Bedroom14.7 0.0 1.5 14.7 48.0 17.0 10.6 0.2 0.2 Not

approved

1 6 Bedroom 6.1 0.0 1.5 6.1 20.0 10.0 24.1 2.6 1.8 Approved1 7 Kitchen 5.8 0.0 0.8 5.8 50.0 17.5 13.6 0.2 0.2 Not

approved

1 8 Dinningarea 5.9 0.0 1.3 5.9 50.0 17.5 21.4 0.4 0.4 Approved

1 9 Livingroom/Kitchen

39.0 3.9 5.4 42.9 13.8 10.0 12.6 0.7 0.5 Approved


1 11 Bedroom 19.1 0.0 2.2 19.1 48.6 17.2 11.6 0.3 0.3 Notapproved




approved

1 16 Kitchen 2.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 36.0 14.0 28.7 0.4 0.1 Approved1 17 Living

room/Bedroom17.4 2.2 2.2 19.6 37.2 14.3 11.2 0.4 0.3 Not

approved

1 18 Kitchen 7.5 0.0 1.4 7.5 36.0 14.0 18.5 0.5 0.3 Approved1 19 Bedroom 9.2 2.2 1.5 11.4 36.0 14.0 13.4 0.5 0.4 Not

approved

1 20 Livingroom 29.9 0.0 2.7 29.9 32.0 13.0 9.0 0.4 0.4 Notapproved


room/Bedroom14.7 0.0 1.5 14.7 41.0 15.2 10.6 0.2 0.3 Not

approved


approved



2 27 Bedroom 19.1 0.0 2.2 19.1 41.6 15.4 11.6 0.4 0.4 Notapproved



approved

2 31 Kitchen 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 90.0 - - 0.4 0.3 Notapproved


2 33 Bedroom 4.4 0.0 1.8 4.4 27.0 11.8 39.8 4.3 3.2 Approved2 34 Bedroom 14.3 0.0 1.8 14.3 27.0 11.8 12.3 1.0 0.8 Approved3 35 Bedroom 5.8 0.0 0.8 5.8 34.0 13.5 13.6 0.6 0.4 Approved3 36 Kitchen 4.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 90.0 - - 0.1 0.1 Not

approved

3 37 Bedroom 4.9 0.0 1.3 4.9 34.0 13.5 26.1 1.9 1.4 Approved3 38 Livingroom 20.1 0.0 2.2 20.1 32.6 13.2 11.0 0.5 0.5 Not

approved


3 40 Bedroom 7.0 0.0 1.3 7.0 32.0 13.0 18.1 1.0 0.8 Approved


71

3 41 Kitchen 6.0 0.0 0.8 6.0 32.0 13.0 13.0 0.5 0.4 Approved3 42 Bedroom 9.3 2.2 1.8 11.5 29.5 - 15.9 1.2 0.8 Approved3 43 Livingroom 17.4 0.0 2.2 17.4 18.9 10.0 12.7 1.1 0.9 Approved

3 44 Dinningarea 11.6 2.2 1.8 13.8 18.0 - 13.2 0.9 0.8 Notapproved

3 45 Bedroom 11.7 0.0 2.2 11.7 18.9 10.0 18.8 1.7 1.5 Approved3 46 Livingroom 29.9 0.0 2.7 29.9 22.0 10.5 9.0 0.5 0.5 Not

approved

4 47 Kitchen 23.7 0.0 1.4 23.7 29.0 12.2 5.7 0.2 0.4 Notapproved

4 48 Livingroom 56.6 0.0 4.0 56.6 19.3 - 7.1 0.5 0.6 Notapproved

4 49 Bedroom 22.5 0.0 2.7 22.5 13.0 10.0 11.8 1.3 1.2 Approved4 50 Bedroom 17.9 0.0 1.4 17.9 20.0 10.0 7.6 0.5 0.4 Not

approved

4 51 Kitchen 9.3 2.2 1.8 11.5 22.0 - 15.9 1.4 1.1 Approved



room/Bedroom22.3 0.0 2.9 22.3 6.0 - 13.0 1.5 1.5 Approved

Table6:Summaryofsimulationresults(BAU).DFFail 30DF<=0.5% 25AFFail(andnotapplicable) 22AF<10%(<9.5%) 5TotalFail 19


72

AppendixE

ExplanationofRadiancesoftwarevaluesandparametersByradsite.lbl.gov(2005)SettingRenderingOptions(http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/Notes/rpict_options.html)(retrieved:17.05.2018)ValuesforRadianceparametersusedbyBAUarchitects:(-aa0.1-ab8-ad2048-ar2048-as1024-dr0-ds0.01-lr12-lw0.001-dc1-dp32-dt0.05-ms0.063-lr8-st0.01-dj0.65).


73

AppendixF

TerminologyByEganM.D.andOlgyayV.(2002)Architecturallighting,NewYork:McGraw–HillCompanies,p.386-400.Angle of obstruction (α) – angle at which light ray strikes surface, measuredbetweenrayandlineperpendiculartosurface.Brightness – subjective impressionof light reaching the eye, Subjective brightnessdoesnotvarydirectlywithmeasuredbrightness.Candela(cd)–unitofluminousintensityequalto1candelpower.Toconvertlumentocandela,divideby12.57.Candela per square foot (cd/ft2) – quantity of light reflected fromor transmittedthroughanobject.(Metricunitofmeasureiscd/ft2ornit.)Clear sky–skywith less than30percentcloudcover.Relativebrightness forclearskyconditionsarerepresentedbynumberonskyvaultsketch.Cloudysky–skywithgreaterthan70percentcloudcover.Colorcontrast–relationshipbetweenthecolorofanobjectorareaofinterestandthatofitsimmediatesurrounding.Cones– coneshapedcellsof retinawhich function inbright light,perceivingcoloranddetail.Contrast – relationship between brightness (or color) of an object and that of itsimmediatesurrounding.Diffuse–havingthepropertyofscatteringincidentlightoverawiderangeofangles(e.g.materialssuchasplaster,wood,brickshavediffusesurface).Directglare–glarecausedbybrightsourcesdirectlyinfieldofview.Disabilityglare–glare,whichreducesabilitytoperceivevisualinformationneededfortaskperformance;toomuchlightbecomesscatteredinsidetheeye.Discomfortglare–glare,whichisdistracting,annoyingoruncomfortable,butdoesnotsignificantlyreducetheabilitytoperformvisualtask.Fovea–smalldepressionatthecenterofretina,whichcontainsonlycones.Siteofthemostdistinctvisionandbestcolorresponse.Footcandle (fc) – quantity of light on 1 fc2 of surface are 1 foot away from lightsource of 1 cd. (Metricmeasure is lux; to convert footcandles to lux, multiply by10.76.Footlamber(fL)–quantityoflightreflectedfromortransmittedthroughanobject.(Metricunitofmeasureiscd/ft2ornit.)Glare–harsh,uncomfortablybrightlightsourceorreflection,whichinterfereswithvisual perception. Light from the wrong place at greater brightness that that to,whicheyeareadapted.Glossy – having the reflective properties of mirror. Example finishes are marble,polishedaluminumandenamelpaint.Illuminance E = Illumination level E– quantity of light (fc or lx),which reaches asurface.Toconvertluxtofootcandles,multiplyby0.09.Incidentlight–light,whichfallsontoasurfaceoranobject.


74

Indirect lighting – lighting achieved by reflection, usually from wall to ceilingsurfaces.Lightadaption–processbywhichretinaadaptstoluminancegreaterthanabout1fL.Completelightadaptationtakesabout1min.Lumenlm–unitoflightenergyusedtospecifylightoutputofsources.Itistherateatwhichlightfalls1ft2ofsurfacearea1ftfromasourceor1cd.Luminance L = Measured brightness – luminous intensity of a surface or object,oftenreferredtoasluminance.Objectivelymeasurelight(cd/ft2orfL)reflectedfromortransmittedthroughanobject.ToconvertfLtocd/ft2,multiplyby0.32.Luminous intensity I = candlepower (CP) – intensity of light produced by lightsource,measuredincandelas.Lux(lx)–metricunitofquantityoflighton1m2ofsurfacearea1mawayfromlightsourceof1cd(1lxisequalto0.09fc)Matte–havingthepropertyofscatteringincident light.Examplematefinishesareflatpaint,plasterandlimestone.Nit (nt)–metricunitofquantityof light reflected fromor transmitted throughanobject.Toconvertnitstofootlambertsmultiplyby0.29.Overcastsky–skywith100percentcloudcover,completelyoccludingviewofsun.Relativebrightness forovercast skyconditionsare representedbynumbersonskyvaultsketchinmargin.Partlycloudysky–constantlychangingskywith30to70percentcloudcover.Reflectance (ρ) – percentage of indirect light on surface, which is reradiated. Itdependsonangleofobstructionandotherfactors.Retina – lining atbackof insideof eye,which consistsof cones and rods that aresensitivetocolorandlightandnervecellsthattransmitsignalstotheopticnerve.Rods–rod-shapedcellsoftheretina,whicharesensitiveatlowlevelsoflight.Rodvisionisachromatic(i.e.,shadesofgray)Skyvault–hemisphericalshapeofskyasviewedfromearth.Task light– lightonaseeingtask,whichhasvisual informationthatanobserver isattemptingtoseeandcomprehend.Transmittance(τ)–ratio(inpercent)oftransmittedlighttoincidentlight.Itdependsonangleofincidence,measurementmethodandotherfactors.Visualfield–extentofspacewhereobjectscanbeseenwhentheheadandeyesarestationary.Visual noise–undesirableordistractingvisual stimuli,which interfereorcompetewithdesiredsignals.Visual task – details and objects that must be seen for performance of a givenactivity,includingimmediatebackgroundofdetailsorobjects.

www.kth.se

Acknowledgement - kth.diva-portal.org1242964/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Acknowledgement The author of this...

Documents

Transcript of Acknowledgement - kth.diva-portal.org1242964/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Acknowledgement The author of this...