Asesdayperfbui

Assessment of Daylight
Performance in Buildings
WITPRESS
WIT Press publishes leading books in Science and Technology.
Visit our website for the current list of titles.
www.witpress.com
WITeLibrary
Home of the Transactions of the Wessex Institute, the WIT electronic-library
provides the international scientiic community with immediate and permanent
access to individual papers presented at WIT conferences.
Visit the WIT eLibrary at http://library.witpress.com
About the Author
Barbara Gherri, M. Arch, PhD in Architecture is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow in

Building Technology, based at the Department of Civil Engineering, Environment,
Land and Architecture, University of Parma, Italy.
Her research aims at fostering the linkages between daylight usage, thanks to a
qualitative and quantitative daylight appraisal and thanks to the integration of
daylight devices in the building envelope, in order to exploit the beneits related to a
proper use of natural light as a mean to reduce energy demand and to improve indoor
thermal and visual comfort. She has also studied bioclimatic design and other green-
passive solutions to be merged in the building envelope to promote a self-suicient
passive design. Her academic and professional research focuses also on environmental
certiication methods.
She has been involved in international conferences about daylighting and sustainable
energy with publications in scientiic journals and books.
She has joined several national research groups and international ones, as Low Carbon
innovations in the framework of the Climate-KIC.
Assessment of Daylight
Performance in Buildings
Methods and Design Strategies
Barbara Gherri
University of Parma, Italy
Barbara Gherri
Published by
WIT Press
Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK
Tel: 44 (0) 238 029 3223; Fax: 44 (0) 238 029 2853
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.witpress.com
For USA, Canada and Mexico
WIT Press
25 Bridge Street, Billerica, MA 01821, USA
Tel: 978 667 5841; Fax: 978 667 7582
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.witpress.com
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A Catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78466-040-6
eISBN: 978-1-78466-041-3
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2014952511
The texts of the papers in this volume were set

individually by the authors or under their supervision.
No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher, the Editors and Authors for any injury
and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence
or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or
ideas contained in the material herein. The Publisher does not necessarily endorse
the ideas held, or views expressed by the Editors or Authors of the material contained
in its publications.
© WIT Press 2015
Printed in Great Britain by Lightning Source UK.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
Publisher.
Contents
Foreword: Natural light, how to evaluate immateriality ............................................................. ix

Professor Giovanni Zannoni
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... xi
Barbara Gherri
PART 1: ARCHITECTURE AND DAYLIGHT .......................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
Natural light in the architectural project ...................................................................................... 3
1 Natural light as a construction material ......................................................................................... 3
2 The architectural meanings of natural light ................................................................................... 10
2.1 Connectivity and communication .......................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Symbiosis and mediation............................................................................................ 14
3 Natural light in architectural projects: written testimonies ............................................................ 17
3.1 The historical treatises ........................................................................................................... 17
3.2 The Italian experience ........................................................................................................... 24
3.3 The experience of Central Europe ......................................................................................... 27
3.4 The experience of Northern Europe ...................................................................................... 29
3.5 The U.S. experience .............................................................................................................. 33
3.6 The experience at low latitudes ............................................................................................. 37
4 Daylighting between the project and definition of space .............................................................. 40
CHAPTER 2
Daylighting, architectural strategies compared ............................................................................ 43
1 Daylighting techniques and other devices for daylighting ............................................................ 43
1.1 Sidelighting ........................................................................................................................... 44
1.2 Toplighting ............................................................................................................................ 46
1.3 Corelighting .......................................................................................................................... 49
2 A dichotomic question: solar penetration versus solar screens .................................................... 52
2.1 Apertures and interior finish to facilitate solar penetration ................................................... 54
2.2 The role of shading in architectural design ........................................................................... 56
3 Internal and external shading systems ........................................................................................... 60
3.1 Lightshelf .............................................................................................................................. 64
3.2 Louvre ................................................................................................................................... 68
3.3 Prismatic panels .................................................................................................................... 72
3.4 Laser cut panels ..................................................................................................................... 73
3.5 Light guiding shades ............................................................................................................. 76
3.6 Sun-directing glass ................................................................................................................ 78
3.7 Glazing and shading systems that employ HOE materials .................................................... 80
3.8 Zenithal anidolic systems and anidolic ceilings .................................................................... 82
4 The role of Daylighting in environmental and energy certification procedures ............................ 85
4.1 Natural light in environmentval assessment procedures: protocols and certifications .......... 86
5 Daylighting between the architectural design and the management of light ................................. 90
PART 2: THE CALCULATION OF NATURAL LIGHT – FROM THE STATIC TO THE

DYNAMIC MODEL ...................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER 3
Daylight assessment: the evolution of static model ....................................................................... 95
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 95
2 The Daylight Factor: methods and tools........................................................................................ 98
2.1 Graphic methods ................................................................................................................... 98
2.2 Geometric methods ............................................................................................................... 100
2.3 Analytical methods................................................................................................................ 102
2.4 Rules of thumb ...................................................................................................................... 108
3 Limits of applicability of the static approach ................................................................................ 110
4 The current status of the legislation on Daylighting: European and international codes............... 112
4.1 Standards and requirements based on illuminance levels ..................................................... 113
4.2 Standards and requirements based on the Daylight Factor.................................................... 114
4.3 Standards and requirements based on the sizing of windows................................................. 116
4.4 Standards and requirements based on solar zoning building regulations .............................. 117
5 The need for a new international paradigm ................................................................................... 118
CHAPTER 4
Daylight Assessment: definition of dynamic model ...................................................................... 121
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 121
2 Climate-Based Daylight Modelling ............................................................................................... 123
2.1 Typical meteorological year climate data for the formulation of dynamic
parameters and methods of application ................................................................................. 124
2.2 The project to define an Italian TRY and the last frontier of dynamic calculation
through Real-Time Weather Date ......................................................................................... 128
3 New Metrics .................................................................................................................................. 129
3.1 Useful Daylight Illuminance ................................................................................................. 129
3.2 Daylight Autonomy – DA and continuous Daylight Autonomy – cDA................................ 133
3.3 Other parameters: daylight saturation percentage, annual sunlight exposure
and spatial daylight autonomy .............................................................................................. 136
3.4 Comparative analysis of the dynamic parameters ................................................................. 139
3.5 Daylight Assessment and dynamic performance metrics: issues worthy
to be clarified ........................................................................................................................ 142
CHAPTER 5
A new paradigm for Daylight Assessment .................................................................................... 145
1 Defining a protocol to optimise the Daylight Assessment procedure............................................ 145
1.1 An integrated protocol for the dynamic assessment of natural light in confined
spaces: a cascade framework in line with qualitative and quantitative aspects ..................... 147
1.2 Quantitative analysis through simulation by software and the models in use.
Methods, algorithms and interoperability of resources ......................................................... 152
1.3 Qualitative analysis through the subjective assessment component and POEs ..................... 153
2 Application of the new assessment protocol: dynamic simulation for a case study ..................... 155
2.1 Results of quantitative analysis of the static parameters and the new
dynamic schemes .................................................................................................................. 158
2.2 Results of qualitative analysis of visual comfort through subjective assessments ................ 168
3 Considerations on implementation of the new paradigm .............................................................. 176
4 Extension of the field of the phenomenology of daylight ............................................................. 179
Afterword ......................................................................................................................................... 183
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 185
References ........................................................................................................................................ 193
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 199
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
Natural light, how to evaluate immateriality

Professor Giovanni Zannoni
Università degli Studi di Bologna, Italy
The seemingly limited repertoire of signs with which natural light manifests has for some time
convinced the scientific community, and in particular the world of the professionals and schol-
ars of the architecture, to consider light as an element in the basic definition of architectural
space and the perception of it.
Issues related to sustainable architecture and the problems of containing energy consumption
have recently contributed to the rediscovery and appreciation of some of the many potentials
of natural light, through the adoption of systems that leverage this resource in terms of energy,
or the creation of spaces that are accessible and pleasant to dwell in where natural light plays a
starring role. However, it is surely limitative to think that the quality and performance of this
unchanged flow of photons that has reached us daily for millennia from our star of reference
can be depleted in a collision with some silicon cell, or by bouncing around inside the glazed
system of a greenhouse.
Natural light draws architecture, modulates its spaces, gives rhythm to volumes by emphasis-
ing or concealing the interior spaces and details that surround them. Consider it then a mere
creative intuition, the representation of an emotional interaction, or the verification of pure
physical principles that limits the possible interpretations of this element reducing it to a me-
chanical, physical or technical calculation, or on the contrary, to the incodificabile sensitivity of
a designer. If this twofold antithetical approach has produced numerous excellent works of ar-
chitecture in which the natural light is a decisive presence, the research that the author presents
in this book seeks to deepen the question of light holistically for the first time, surpassing a mere
description of luminous performance from an exclusively architectural and/or technological
standpoint and including, on the other hand, the question, more exquisitely methodological, of
a numerical and procedural approach to an objective evaluation of light.
The choice to speak of ‘Daylight Assessment’ encompasses, in this sense, the need to entrust
natural light with a proactive role in integration with other technical skills in order to enhance
its high degree of potential. This work seeks to define a process of assessment and analysis,
that is as unequivocal as possible, from which to derive an aware and targeted project to get
the most out of the luminous performance in interiors, aiming to achieve an adequate level of
comfort, both in terms of light and energy, by arranging physical, optical and geometric aspects
according to a single analysis protocol. A method that seeks to find application not only in
new constructions, where the technological component requested can be more easily integrated
with the building envelope but also in existing edifices, in the case of energy retrofit and envi-
ronmental one. In fact, the well-known implications that connect exploitation of natural light
to the possibility of containing electricity consumption, is also complemented by a dawning
Assessment of daylight performance in buildings  x
awareness that recourse to the light of the sun guarantees a general state of wellbeing, includ-
ing physical effects on the regulation of the circadian rhythm, and favouring concentration and
productivity in spaces for work, study and research.
The original account of this book therefore examines various assessment criteria and protocols
for the calculation of natural light, devoting space to the question of energy and environmental
certification which designers can now turn to (with an eye on possible shortcomings inherent to
the application of these methods) to end up by proposing a new integrated assessment protocol
that considers all the opportunities to use this form of energy.
Introduction
Barbara Gherri
Department of Civil, Environmental, Land Management Engineering and Architecture
New ways in which light can be enhanced and used for the definition of space are made possi-
ble by a conscious use of natural light in confined environments, thanks to the many disciplines
that are today redefining the roles of natural light with respect to materials, constructed spaces
and representation.
The role that natural light plays in this sense, finds itself among definitions of form, the con-
struction of the work of architecture and the perception of space, releasing sunlight from its his-
toric substitutive position, which it has had for centuries, to immerse the constructed space and
its occupant in its dynamic and variable flow, which as such, must be analysed and developed.
Research in the field of lighting, as has happened for technological innovation in the same field,
encompasses different areas of survey, which are interwoven and involve different areas, from
energy saving to a search for visual comfort.
Daylight, with its highly variable and uncertain character, alters, changes appearance and var-
ies with time, giving a space light performances that are always different, environmental quali-
ties that are difficult to predict, but at the same time ensures a comfortable indoor condition
that is difficult to achieve with the exclusive use of technological systems. Equally, it is possible
to use natural light, direct or indirect, filtered, or reflected, to add emphasis to an architectural
accent, to highlight a feature, and for ease of viewing.
The extensive possibilities related to use of sunlight has always interested architecture, both for
dwellings and more complex necessities, but rarely has the potential of light as an expressive,
visual and energy tool been exploited in a single project.
From these considerations comes one of the most significant misunderstandings inherent to the
use of natural light. A question, moreover, that is distorted and deeply rooted – that of confus-
ing architecture built according to Daylighting strategies with an architectural envelope featur-
ing numerous windows or other apertures; in this case, we cannot speak of an ‘architecture of
the light’, built merely to maximise its benefits.
Shapes, spaces and materials must be designed and made from an integrated standpoint, ac-
cording to a unitary project in which different disciplines and scientific knowledge are inter-
faced to draw up a formal technological system that will make full room for the natural light
project.
The development of the component linked to visual comfort must be set among the fundamen-
tal needs to ensure that the final user, together with a comfortable lighting, that it can ensure
Assessment of daylight performance in buildings  xii
the best balance between energy savings, reduction in thermal loads and lighting that can be
modulated in relation to visual tasks.
A further misunderstanding arises from the way in which light is considered: This is a primary
element that is hard to control and manage, whose presence or absence must be provided for
prior to the architectural project, to be able, during the practical phase, to take advantage of the
benefits and limit shortcomings.
Daylight Assessment therefore is always concentrated in the mere analysis phase at the time of
composing the forms, in the instant when the material is taking shape and is being configured
as constructed space, that is to say, when the instantaneous presence of the light has been caught
and fixed, once and for all, in the figures, spaces and apertures that make up the building. Any
modification, change or alteration of the light in the path of the light beam can no longer be
questioned.
Although recent studies have shown that the visual and non-visual effects of light have a strong
impact on human health and on crucial aspects in terms of energy savings, the technical culture
still lacks awareness of the high potential of light and on methods to evaluate and calculate it.
Part 1:
ARCHITECTURE AND DAYLIGHT
Chapter 1
Natural light in the architectural project
1 Natural light as a construction material

The definition Architecture of Light is the one best suited to describe the substantial role that
natural light plays in fixing, informing and bringing alive the architecture of the constructed
space; the merit goes to Joachim Teichmuller who coined the definition in 1927, on the occasion
of a publication in the magazine Licht und Lampe, using the term ‘Licht-Architektur’.
The importance of this definition was then sanctioned by the widespread use made of it over
the course of the following decades, both to define the architecture of the past, which gave light
an active role, but also for those works of architecture that employed new solutions for artificial
light in an innovative way.
‘There is an architecture of the light. And not only in seed form. Wherever this sprout grows and
has already grown with such variety and abundance it is difficult to encompass the entire field
and make order in the large amount of manifestations’ [1].
Thus was identified a new role for artificial lighting and the use of light fixtures, as well as
proposing to give natural light a preponderant role as architectural element, the equal of any
other material.
The perceptual question linked to visual and luminous stimuli was, in those years, undergo-
ing definition and experimentation, but it was necessary to trace a road for the conscious
use of light at an architectural level, so that it would not be relegated to a simple decorative
element.
Although light had always illuminated architecture and given emphasis to form, it was neces-
sary to establish the boundaries, the merits and the possibility of a real science, that blended the
historical experience, gained over thousands of years of construction traditions with the new
demands of modern man, since it could give rise to variable architectural effects.
Thus, in 1927, the role of an architecture of the light was affirmed, thanks also to Walter Kohler
who had the merit of translating into English and giving international renown to the work of
Teichmuller, according to whom the concept of an architecture of the light [2] was a natural evo-
lution of the architectural concepts of the ancients who, fully exploiting the potential of sunlight
for all their needs, made it into a real construction material.
Today light is, therefore, one of the cardinal themes for architecture, a construction material and
key component in the perception of constructed space.
Assessment of daylight performance in buildings  4
Figure 1: The Milkmaid, Jan Vermeer (credit Dannis Jarvis) and Casa Barragan, Mexico City,
Luis Barragan.
The ineffable power of light often relegates it to a secondary element of the architectural project,
making it difficult to experience it in a tangible way [5]: ‘It is the light that, when it stops being
light, becomes matter. All matter is light. Light is the donor of every presence’.
The attention to architecture often seems to reside in the seduction of an image: The purpose of
making the form built attractive increasingly results in overlooking care over those formal and
technical solutions that help to make the architectural space accessible and comfortable.
Natural light must be first a tool to read architecture, a celebration of the harmony of the parts,
an exaltation of shapes and materials, as summed up by the work of Vermeer The Milkmaid
(1660) and, in a sort of contemporary parallel, Casa Barragan in Mexico City (1947) (Fig. 1): In
both cases, sunlight permeates the rooms, it exalts and highlights their shapes, colours, sizes
and functions; in a moment of revelatory ecstasy, architecture is not simple form, but itself
becomes evocative space, as it appears in architectural spaces such as Notre Dame du Haut at
Ronchamp, or in the Pavilion of the Nordic countries, in Venice.
Since beauty lies in individual perception, changeable and variable and dependent on the con-
text in which the observation is made, light must assume an essential role in determining the
architectural space. The spatial and perceptive relationships that a ray of light creates are not
reproducible artificially and it is precisely this original nature that qualifies natural light as a
tool to denote the quality of the confined space.
Since matter itself has no form, but it is the work of the architect that bestows dignity and value
on a space, the wise and calibrated use of light delineates its image and beauty.
The ceaseless search for the epiphanic power of light and the constructed space by it is gar-
nered by Tadao Ando, according to whom it is the light itself that confers dignity and sense on
objects, relating forms to space and, in the same way, as Giedion maintained, eliminating the
Natural light in the architectural project  5
art of employing daylight involves complex issues, which include not only a calculation of the
amount of solar radiation to be ensured inside a building, but also considerations with regard
to the comfort and preferences of the users.
The implications brought by the light in architecture are therefore fundamental to fully under-
standing the essence of architecture. One of the most important achievements in applied sci-
ences between the 19th and 20th centuries was precisely the definition of a method to quantify
and codify occupants’ needs within a constructed space in relation to sunlight.
Architecture therefore discovers complete fulfilment in its materialising in and through light;
architecture as a tactile and visual art demands the presence of light and shade in order to be
experienced and appreciated: this is an art that is realised only through the presence of light
and time, as epiphanic elements. Without light, the spatial, textural, geometric and visual,
tactile and evocative characteristics could not be perceived. Within the constructed space the
occupant, whether simply a spectator or an actual user, perceives the space thanks to the pres-
ence of its physical limits and of the architectural elements that define the space, and in virtue of
the light that illumines, defines and makes it understandable. Within this closed and unchanged
system, light plays the predominant role of a catalysing element, which makes it possible for the
architecture, and the elements present in it, to take life in space and time, to change and move
thanks to the light which delineates the shapes and colours, and which throughout the day and
seasons continuously alters.
The relationship of interdependence has always been known to architects and builders who,
with the building of the first monoliths, tried to synchronise the movement of the sun and the
celestial bodies with their layout.
From those primitive experiences such as Stonehenge, light has been invested with a revela-
tory role; it draws the space even before the intervention of more tangible materials, filling it
with multiple meanings that have varied over the centuries in works of architecture, becoming
symbol, stimulus and revelatory element. At the same time, sunlight defines the meaning of the
shade, which it itself generates, justifies and reveals.
The sensorial perception of architecture therefore lies in the close link between light and shade,
in the continuous mutation of two antithetical poles that are able to generate the sensation of
space. From a full awareness of the peculiarities of natural light, the sun, and the stars, primitive
man tried to faithfully reproduce the relationship between night and day in constructed spaces,
both for religious and everyday purposes.
Light paths, thin beams that sneak into small crevices, into the very mesh of buildings, into the
ravines of architecture, which mark symbolic paths, sacred elements or simple visual effects,
have always marked works of architecture, eclipsing the creative power of the architect to pay
homage to the epiphanic and evocative power of the light.
Light has always been a symbolic material for the composition of architecture; from the ocu-
lus of the Pantheon, the windows that illuminate the side chapels of Baroque churches, to the
wondrous optical effects of John Soane, recreated to make his residence in Lincoln’s Inn-Field
a space of hyperbolic suggestion, thanks to the play of materials lit by rays of light cunningly
concealed behind architectural elements.
This is a little known repertoire but rich in examples that reflect the ‘construction’ role of light,
on a par with other materials, but with an expressive capacity that usually derives from other
elements.
Modern architecture, drawing inspiration from the historical experiences of Classical architec-
ture, has contributed to elevating light and its symbolic use to that of a real construction mate-
rial, as though it were a major constitutive element.
In this sense, some experiences ‘outside the norm’ could therefore be, e.g. the works of Nordic
architecture, of the great master, Sverre Fehn, whose early works are clearly based on what has
been called a key use of light [34], namely, an attempt to concretise the vertical structures. If we
look at the Norwegian Pavilion in Brussels (1958) and the Pavilion of the Nordic Countries (1962), it
is possible to understand his attempt to make the vertical support structures impalpable, almost
to the point of vanishing, thanks to the presence of a new building material, i.e. the light, which
filters through the beams of the roof and models the space underneath.
Design, architectural and compositional choices have always been influenced by the percep-
tion of a material, from the juxtaposition of this with a space, in relation to the light and shade:
Builders and architects have long sought to obtain effects of contrast and similarity, building
volumes and objects that mimicked others, masking the true function and altering perception
and appearance.
The goal is to exalt shapes and textures, but at the same time to deny the intrinsic nature of a
material, eagerly exaggerating reflective qualities, by treating rough and porous surfaces to the
point of almost obtaining a mirror effect, thanks to grazing light, or employing a zenithal light
that floods spaces until it dilates their very confines.
The large rotunda of the Pantheon with its zenithal oculus thus assumes the role of a perfect
testimony, a genuine metonymy, to represent the expressive potential of the light, which
inundates, gives rhythm, changes and alters the space, materials and, consequently, the sen-
sory perception of the occupant, as Ando described it.
‘When the interior of the Pantheon is illuminated by the aperture nine meters in diameter in the
centre of the roof, the space is really experienced. In nature, there is nothing similar as regards
the light and materials, and what struck me was the power of architecture manifested in this
work’ [3].
Similarly, canny calibration of shade, be it dense, or just accentuated, makes it possible to hide
elements that reveal themselves only in the presence of certain weather conditions or seasonal
variations, altering continuously our understanding of an object or volume.
The expressive potential of light and of its opposite, shade, vivifies architecture, renders it con-
tinuously changing and articulate.
Suffice to think of the famous stylistic composition that Bernini realised in the Cornaro Chapel in
the Church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome with his Ecstasy of Saint Teresa (1647–1651), an
emblem of how light constitutes the element of perfect compositional fusion between architec-
ture and sculpture, creating wonderful scenographic effects (Fig. 2).
Figure 2: Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, Gian Lorenzo Bernini (credit Jiuguang Wang).
Bernini’s insight represents light’s ability to stand as a proper construction element, thanks to
the aperture of a small window at the top of the chapel apse, which encompasses the whole
scene, and through which the light enters and, concealed from the eyes of the observer, strikes
the sculpture making it come alive.
The translation process from the design to the building, towards the realisation of the construct-
ed space, takes life from the moment natural light enters, spreads out and is reflected, creating
the sensation and size of the space.
‘It is the light that gives the feeling of space. The space is cancelled by the darkness. Light and
space are inseparable. If we eliminate the light, the emotional content of the space disappears
and it becomes impossible to perceive it’ [4].
The process of perceiving space is thus made possible by the revelatory presence of the light
and, only secondarily by the effective use of space, as in the Larking Building in Buffalo,
New York.
‘The light glittering through the tubes of a wonderful quality. The effect of the salon is magi-
cal. We look up through the light, like fish from the depths of a pond; and the discs seem to be
swimming in the flowing glass. The Salone is the most fantastic work to have been designed in
the architectural imagination for a long time. In this building, Frank Lloyd Wright creates a new
spatial sense by means of a silvery light and a plastic form, without which it is not possible to
think in terms of architecture’ [4].
It is not possible to unambiguously define the golden rule that binds architecture and light.
It has been elaborated by every thinker, creator, artist and architect in response to their own
poetic and compositional needs, according to personal taste, a philosophical ideal, or a religious
reason; every spatial experiment is generated by personal experience, and is imprinted on the
constructed space.
Figure 3: The Kimbell art Museum, Fort Worth, Louis Kahn.
From the heavy walls of the works of architecture described by Vitruvius, to the light spatial
arrangements of Baroque architecture, where the light is hidden to the eye of the beholder but
manifests like a delicate scenic magic, lighting plays a pivotal role.
Louis Kahn was among the first to express the need to obtain a precise framework of compe-
tence in order to express the potential of sunlight in architecture. Kahn believed firmly, to the
extent of basing the essence of his architecture on the creative and spatial values of light, that
natural light was an indispensable creative element to be taken into account right from the
design phase of a work (Fig. 3).
In his lecture, Law and Rule in Architecture [5], he explained: ‘Every space must have natural
light, because it is impossible to read the configurations of a space or shape by having only one
or two ways of lighting it. Natural light enters the space released by the choice of construction.’
Kahn’s compositional sensitivity, as can be appreciated by the many preparatory drawings for
his projects, is realised by calibrating natural light from the early stages of the design process.
The study of how light can penetrate and inform the space is carefully evaluated, just like the
arrangement of columns, beams and pillars. It is not simply a matter of defining materials or
choosing finishes; for the first time in the modern context, Kahn considered natural light as a
construction material, transcending the 19th century tendency of relegating natural lighting
to a secondary role, confounded by an inexpressive and often overrated artificial architectural
lighting.
The masterful intuition of the vivifying role of the sun’s rays in a constructed space found a full
definition in the approach of a scientific and at the same time compositional character, linked
to the survey of the spectral quality of light for his First Unitarian Church project in Rochester,
New York (1959–1962).
The project included the design of an ensemble of colourful elements suspended from the ceil-
ing and the walls of the church interior, so that the congregation had the sensation that sunlight
was penetrating from mysterious apertures and spreading through the space, like a genesis
moment.
The profound knowledge of the expressive, linguistic and textural capacities of light would
characterise the entire course of the professional life of Kahn, who came to make a case for the
unexpressed potential of light, how it was possible to measure and quantify the creative contri-
bution of a material so impalpable as light.
Similarly, sunlight is given a role as a tangible and pliable material, as found in Ando’s archi-
tectural vision, in the Church of the Light: ‘In the way I use it, concrete is devoid of sculptural
features and weight; it has the purpose of producing brightness and bringing detail to homo-
geneous surfaces. The traces of the formwork are treated in a manner that creates smooth
surfaces or sharp edges […]. When light is projected onto these, the cold peaceful space sur-
rounded by clearly defined architectural elements becomes cosy and transparent, indifferent
to the materials’ [6].
In Middle Eastern culture, light is in itself considered an expression of the divine, since it is
already inherent within matter. Sunlight in sacred space, in a Muslim setting, is used for vari-
ous tasks: As an indicator of the privileged orientation towards Mecca, as a decorative system
using reflections, when the light rays are channelled and made to filter through the architectural
elements, to create games of reflections and shadows, while concealing the direct source of
lighting.
In the sacred Islamic space, the function of the light is inextricably linked to the presence of
screens, architectural elements that act as a filter between the outside world and the interior,
creating views and suggestions that constantly vary, in relation to alterations in external light
conditions. Islamic art apparently relies on conditions of a two-dimensional design, which
is completed and made three-dimensional by the presence of light, together with the use of
reflective materials and shiny glazes that help to create strong contrasts between the colours
and textures.
In the eyes of a Western observer like Le Corbusier, the constructed space of Islamic culture
is revealed as he himself describes the Green Mosque: ‘Then you perceive the grandness of the
Mosque and your eyes are measuring. You are in a large area of white marble bathed in light.
Beyond is another similar space of the same size, full of penumbra, and higher by a few steps (a
smaller repetition); from each part two spaces of penumbra still smaller; turn round, two tiny
spaces of shadow. From full light to shade, a rhythm’ [7].
The light filters through richly perforated surfaces, but does not remain ensnared, on the con-
trary, it creates gradations of colour and chiaroscuro that are subtle yet defined, accentuating
the dynamism of the constructed form.
Islamic art is the only one that can create effective games of contrasts, in denying the direct
penetration of natural light; the apparent rejection of the luminous value of the ray of sunshine,
on the other hand, is exalted by the complex screen theories.
The light dons a full role as a constituent element of architecture, to delineate the character
of the space and the perception of what has been built, the relationship between inside and
outside, and the effect of visibility in the penumbra, as centuries later, also Le Corbusier
would conclude [8]. ‘Architecture in as much a skilful, rigorous and magnificent play of vol-
umes assembled in the light, assigns a task to the architect to bring to life the surfaces that
enclose the volumes, without these devouring the volume and absorbing it to their profit,
like parasites’.
2 The architectural meanings of natural light

2.1 Connectivity and communication
Natural light creates details, reveals nuances, highlights contrasts and enables us to perceive a
space that would otherwise we would not be able to appreciate, unless we used touch. Using
sunlight to light a space, a room, a detail, is therefore fundamental to create atmosphere and a
correct perception of it; in this sense the amount of sunlight brings life to the building, vivifying
and exalting it.
The dualism between light and shade, light and dark, is the first antithesis in the definition of
space, for the creation of contrasts in brightness, which, once they traverse the materials creat-
ing the constructed space, help to define volumes, textures and material effects.
In the metaphor of the cave in the seventh book of the The Republic Plato describes the relation-
ship of close dependency between light, shadow and vision, defining the role of solar radiation
in the cognitive and perceptual dimension of man.
In the chiaroscuro world of the cave primitive man’s sole possibility of experiencing reality was
through appearance, in virtue of the shadows thronging the end of the cavern. The shadows
represent, in this metaphor of human knowledge, an extension of the physical reality outside,
thanks to which man is able to have prior knowledge of external reality.
The relationship of knowledge created can be realised only through the dualism of light and
shade, between the inside and the outside.
The perception of space takes place, therefore, thanks to the decisive presence of light and its
opposite, shade. Western culture has over the centuries set aside the role played by shade in the
process of perceiving space, reducing the concept to a simple negation of light and taking the
term as a synonym of darkness.
Eastern culture, and in particular Japanese knowledge, has instead had the merit of fully rec-
ognising darkness, penumbra and obscurity as elements of equal importance in the creation of
space.
‘We do our walls in neutral colours so that the sad, fragile, dying rays can sink into absolute
repose […] A luster here would destroy the soft fragile beauty of the feeble light. We delight in
the mere sight of the delicate glow of fading rays clinging to the surface of a dusky wall, there
to live of what little life remains to them’ [9].
Masters of contemporary architecture, like Ando, refer to shade as a fundamental perceptual

element: ‘Light alone does not create light. There must be darkness so that the light becomes
light, resplendent in dignity and power. The obscurity that refines the splendour of light and
reveals its power is an innate part of light’.
For Japanese culture, a simple beam of light has no meaning, either as a revelatory element, or
a symbolic object, but only comes to life and takes on a significance when it lands on a signifi-
cant element, only when it creates a relationship, even fleeting, with an object; its existence is
renewed with every variation in intensity and brilliance, just like the moment when the first
shadows form and the relationship between light and subject becomes more complex and fluid,
until they blur into one another.
The Eastern outlook captures the role of the instantaneous beam of light, the thin breach cre-
ated between matter and the sun’s ray and the changing relations from which the meanings of
architecture, space and dimension arise.
This justifies the ecstatic vision that took hold of Tadao Ando on a visit to Europe, while de-
scribing the light penetrating through the slits of small windows within a medieval monastery,
virtually devoid of decoration, but that appeared to his eyes as one transcendent space, at the
instant when the ray settled on the masonry, making it strong and filled with energy at the same
time. Japanese architecture, both modern and contemporary, is gradually losing this traditional
link with the past, losing the sense of depth and blurring the boundary between light and shade
more and more, approaching the tendency of the west to overilluminate.
It has elaborated, as is found in Tanizaki a real aesthetic theory that is totally opposed to the
Western culture of apertures, airiness and often uncontrolled brightness, in opposition to the
culture of shadows, according to which beauty lies in the path of the shadows, in the antitheti-
cal, but fundamentally inseparable relationship between light and its opposite, and in the infin-
ity of nuances that the eye perceives.
‘Such is our way of thinking-we find beauty not in the thing itself but in the pattern of shadows,
the light and the darkness, that one thing against another creates’ [9].
Only a few architects and theoreticians of Western culture have been able to perceive the value
of the antithesis between light and dark, and to translate this into finite material elements, in
massive constructions that enhance the contrast between light and dark, brightness and gloom.
The light in the works of these masters can reveal the true spatial and tactile nature of surfaces,
impressing the retina and fixing the image of what is not there, but what the skilful game of rays
has managed to create. Suffice to think of the ability of masters such as Francesco Borromini
in San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Rome, the work that emblematically tells of the theatrical and
architectural use of natural light in the Baroque period (Fig. 4).
The characteristic arrangement of the apertures in the Roman church symbolises first the inti-
mate bond of closeness between the spiritual and natural worlds, not counterfeited. The light
permeates through the windows in the dome and lantern and spreads through the multifaceted
space of the church, revealing its sinuous lines and articulated spatiality. Borromini succeeded
Figure 4: The dome in San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Francesco Borromini.
in his attempt to create a sort of theatrical lighting, making use only of the contribution of
the sun’s rays that spread through the sacred space, managing to conceal lights and shadows
behind the scenes, as if on a stage. His extreme compositional skills reached their maximum
expressiveness with the creation of the so-called ‘chamber of light’, an optical device in which
the intensity of a beam of natural light was controlled by means of inclined surfaces inside a
channel.
The spatiality of the light is enhanced to the point of annulling the massive surface of the wall,
which leaves space for windows, arches and decorative elements.
The works of architecture by Bernini and Borromini represent the pinnacle of the skill of the
architects and builders to insert light into an architectural context, thanks to lighting of a theat-
rical type, wherein the light source is hidden from the eye of the beholder, hidden ‘behind the
scenes’, but used as a device to reveal figures.
The perceptual paradox of light lies in the fact that it must necessarily materialise to be accepted
as an architectural and material quality; essential to this process is therefore the compositional
skills of the designer and then subsequently, the builder, who must manipulate it, channel it,
filter it, sometimes hide it and then make it evident again, thanks to a cunning use of reflective
and matt materials, windows hidden or exposed.
The culmination of the perceptual research, which seeks to assign a key role to light in the visual
process, to comprehend and experience space, has been developed at the construction level by
James Turrell, who right from his first works, managed to translate the tactile nature of light in
a concrete way, evolving the relationship between communication and connection.
This Californian architect works with the objective of maximising the expressive-space poten-
tial of natural light, with state-of-the-art research in the architectural field. The keystones of his
research are the optical, visual and spatial characteristics of light: if until that point light had
been bent to simple narrative and symbolic ends, Turrell sought to demonstrate that light is
something else entirely.
‘I basically make spaces that capture light and hold it for your physical sensing […]. It is a
realisation that the eyes touch, that the eyes feel. And when the eyes are open and you follow
this sensation, touch goes out of the eye like feel’ [10].
Turrell became an experimenter with the expressive and linguistic capabilities of daylight in
the nineteen-eighties, through continuous spatial research in his special rooms, which he called
‘Skyspace’.
The perceptual experience in his works is delineated as a focal point to experiment with the
descriptive and revelatory possibilities of light not only considering its effects on the percep-
tion of three-dimensionality, but involving the notion that an observer has of him- or herself in
a confined space.
Turrell’s intention is to materialise light, to make it as pliable as any tangible element and at the
same time, to exploit the visual perception, to fully experience the physical and symbolic na-
ture of light. In this sense, Turrell’s scientific work has often been misunderstood, by taking his
search to convert optical effects into avant-garde architecture to be nothing but foolish artistic
aspiration.
The ability to combine the real three-dimensional nature of a room and light projections
reached a climax in the unfinished masterpiece of the Roden Crater, Arizona; this space –
because it is not possible to define the work in any other way – represents the summa of
optical-perceptive research in a work of architecture, which he himself renamed as ‘perceptu-
ally malleable’.
The Ganzfeld, or homogenous visual field that is often found in Skyspaces, is achieved through
the construction of a confined space without structure, and which normal perceptual logic is
redefined: For the observer, immersed in this room without visual and acoustic stimuli, it is
impossible to establish any reference point, due to the presence of a homogeneous light that
stands out on the room’s surfaces.
The various attempts made over the years included a continuous alteration of the stimuli in
the environment: From a variation in depth, to different colouring of the light, by altering the
intensity and saturation of the light, the human eye of the spectator is unable to grasp the real
shapes and sizes, the shadows and the areas of light, as if he or she were in a sort of impalpable
and widespread mist.
In the Ganzfeld, Turrell succeeded in his attempt to make vain all the efforts that the Architecture
of Light had pursued up until then: the Ganzfeld negated the constructed space and restored the
full material and tangible value of light.
Among the famous pieces of architectural and luminous research before the Roden Crater, as
well as in the countless Skypaces, Turrell sought to merge lighting-technique instances, optical
and visual demands, and architectural design into a single object, forming a space in which, a
simple framing of a quadrant of celestial vault alters the perception of the light, the circadian
rhythms of sleeping and waking, the idea of space and the traditional links between visual con-
nection and communication.
‘It’s about perception. For me, it’s using light as a material to influence or affect the medium
of perception. I feel that I want to use light as this wonderful and magic elixir that we drink as
Vitamin D through the skin – and I mean, we are literally light-eaters – to then affect the way
that we see.
We live within this reality we create, and we’re quite unaware of how we create the reality. So
the work is often a general loan into how we go about forming this world in which we live, in
particular with seeing’ [11].
2.1.1 Symbiosis and mediation

Every abstract concept, such as that of light, rather than relying on definitions, needs to be put
in common language, in daily experience: this is the only way that a concept can come to life
and its value and meaning be understood. So it was for light: only in this way can its intrinsic
value find an interpretation.
The amazement that enthrals the viewer in an ecstasy of light in front of the magnificence of
places such as the Hagia Sophia (Fig. 5) in Istanbul or the Pantheon in Rome (Fig. 6) is not related
to the space as such, but is the result of the light that illuminates them. The richness of the archi-
tectural space lies in the indissoluble union between matter and light, structure and visibility,
together with the complex of peculiarities that complement it: the surfaces, the materials, the
volumes and the colours.
Light and architecture cannot for any reason be separated, one cannot survive without the
other. Architecture is not only volume, it does not occur in the simple action of building to fill
a vacuum, to create a functional space; it is not sufficient to create a cavity in matter, or tech-
nologically connote a shell without defining what will come to life inside it. If light permeates
Figure 5: Hagia Sophia, Istanbul.

Figure 6: The Pantheon Dome, Rome.
a vacuum, this becomes space, and only then does it define a function, a purpose, a form. For
this space, light and architecture – to paraphrase Giedion – are inextricably linked. The way in
which light allows the perception and the subsequent understanding of space coincides with
the way, in which space is understood, used, experienced and created.
Only with the advent of artificial light and control devices was it possible to use light in a more
flexible way, by modifying the natural alternation of seasonal, daytime and night-time varia-
tions of solar radiation.
Light and matter are mutually dependent and, therefore, inseparable, even more so if it means
defining an architectural space, perceiving matter, experiencing the dimension constructed.
The way in which architecture enters into a dialogue with natural light is complex and multi-
faceted, declined according to the poetic needs of whoever is designing and building and, only
subsequently, modified and brought alive by those who live in, work in and experience the
space.
In this context, it is possible to speak of a ‘physical anthropology’ of light, to fully assess how
Daylighting is not a new discipline, but is rather the result of an evolution in style and human
needs that have modified construction behaviour and architectural practices. Natural light not
only affects the sensory aspects of everyone’s everyday life, but profoundly affects our mood
and other aspects related to the chronobiological rhythms of sleeping and waking in relation to
the production of hormones.
The fundamental symbiosis between the psychophysical wellbeing of man and the presence
of natural light needs to be evaluated and integrated in the design of domestic spaces for
study, work or where man spends most of the time. It is not only to respond to biological
needs and physiological, but to create a harmony with architectural language, which makes
integration and close collaboration possible between architectural, spatial and physiological
needs.
Maximising this connection is one of the objectives of the Architecture of Light, in order to
create an indispensable link between inside and outside, between the constructed and natural
environments, by creating apertures and relationships, to emphasise attention and increase the
potency of the view. The objective of daylight architecture, i.e. an architecture that does not sim-
ply exploit natural light, but raises it to a cornerstone for the definition of space, the creation of
an environment that is comfortable and beneficial for the occupants, is to acquire, improve and
articulate as far as possible the presence of sunlight. Thus the definition of Daylight Assessment
finds its roots in the most ancient forms of construction.
Connectivity and mediation are therefore utterly primitive needs, which find their first exam-
ples in the need to create a dialogue between the constructed and the outside world, to ensure a
visual and physical connection, to assure continuity between the natural world and the creation
of an artificial world that is entirely human.
The challenge to give voice to this primitive need for connection and linking with reality, that
is, not merely the constructed and the artificially creations of man, is of great importance today,
both for strategies of ecological and biosustainable construction, in line with an approach that
harks back to the first construction processes in the ancient architectural practices of the classi-
cal and medieval worlds, until the introduction of artificial light.
Connection and communication therefore become primary needs, on a par with the definition
of the boundaries of light and shade, for the users of the spaces of today, those perpetual urban
cave dwellers for whom the view of the outside is for the most part foreclosed by a theory of
obstacles and counterfeit visual stimuli, that distract us from the view of the sky.
The yearning to reconnect with the outside world, to create new rapports of connection and
dialogue with the outside world, whether natural or artificial, passes through a measured use
of natural light, the presence of which prepares the body for a natural alternation between the
hours of light and the hours of darkness, between the time of waking and sleeping, to support
normal human activities.
It is equally clear that, albeit well-controlled, lit in a uniform and efficient manner, an artificially
illuminated environment cannot create a similar ratio of psychological and physical relation-
ships and symbiosis with the outside, making a sense of general wellbeing impossible.
Finally, the diurnal and seasonal variability of natural light, like the changing dynamic of the
light stimuli of the sky due to the sun are irreproducible by artificial light equipment, but do
contribute in a tangible way to determining a feeling of generic prosperity. From a strictly archi-
tectural standpoint, light to illuminate constructed spaces cannot therefore only be evaluated
in relation to its effects on the shape of the constructed and space: What needs to be considered
as a whole is the positive contribution resulting from physical, physiological, and psychologi-
cal benefits, as well as from nonvisual effects, equally decisive for the performance of the vital
functions.
Having clarified the symbiosis that exists between architecture and light, between human needs
and the beneficial effects of lighting with sunlight, the language of architecture must take re-
sponsibility to express and articulate the variable amount of natural light through the use of
simple components, screens and filters that reflect, filter and govern the light inside. The theme
of mediation between inside and outside is a crucial issue in the process of creation and for Day-
light Assessment; it is in fact a question of calibrating brightness and contrast, light and shade,
the needs and demands of individual users, along with the thermal and energy requirements of
the building envelope, without precluding visual contact with the outside.
3 Natural light in architectural projects: written testimonies

In the discussion on the contemporary use of light, deliberately limited in geographic and tem-
poral scope to Europe and North America, it is proposed to investigate some episodes of good
architectural practice, in which the issue of integrating daylighting assumed a predominant role
in defining the project and associated architectural theories.
It has been intentionally decided to exclude others from the treatise, therefore including only
those for which the light is nothing but a simple expedient used to understand the form, a tool
for spatial definition, a means of vision and colour perception, a visual and driving phenom-
enon of the design choices, and to disregard examples in which sunlight embodies symbolic,
religious or mystical meanings, which differentiate the approach to, and the definition of the
constructed space.
For this reason, it was decided to deliberately exclude from the discussion the question of light
in Japanese contexts and all other situations outside mere architectural debate.
In order to provide an extensive overview of the historical contributions relating to the archi-
tectural use of natural light, it was considered effective to divide the discussion according to
geography and chronology.
3.1 The historical treatises

The history of architectural treatises abounds in systematic research into the use of natural light
as a vivifying element and foundational component of constructed space. The innovative idea
of treating light as a construction material dates back to primitive construction experiences, but
only with classical treaties was the definition of a true and proper role for light reached, both for
visual needs and the perception of space through colours and textures.
The analytical assessment of emblematic examples of daylight must be traced back to the gran-
diose Roman works of architecture, including the Pantheon in Rome. Even earlier must be cited
the Middle Eastern examples of Arabian and Iranian mosques, in which the physical nature of
the light that penetrates the decorated grilles, assumes a symbolic and tactile role.
To sketch an in-depth excursus on the first systematic treatment and the relevant definitions of
the ‘Architecture of Light’, we must assess the historical importance of the thoughts of many
authors, from Scamozzi, who, along with the six basic principles of Vitruvius (Order, Symme-
try, Arrangement, Eurhythmy, Propriety and Economy), in 1656 was added the lumen, until we
arrive at Serlio, Piranesi and Bernini.
The massive and spectacular use of natural light in architecture then found its maximum ex-
pressiveness in the Baroque and the Enlightenment, as testified by the examples of Francesco
Borromini and Bernini, as well as in the examples from Piedmont of Guarino Guarini, Filippo
Juvarra and Bernardo Antonio Vittone and across the Alps in the work of the Frenchman E.T.
Boullée, who attributed in construction the task of introducing the effects of light in architec-
ture: ‘Émouvoir par les effets de la lumière appartient à l’architecture’ [12].
The treatment of light thus reveals a long-time interest in the theme and knowledge of the
fundamental principles of lighting and optics that was very advanced for the time; knowledge
which translated fully into attempts to use light by means of perforations in the fabric of the
wall, the use of oculi and lanterns, atria and arcades.
‘The lighting of this monument, which should resemble that on a clear night, is provided by the
planets and the stars that decorate the vault of the sky […] The daylight outside filters through
these apertures into the gloom of the interior and outlines all the objects in the vault with bright,
sparkling lights.
This form of lighting the monument is a perfect reproduction and the effect of the stars could
not be more brilliant.
It is easy to imagine the natural effect that would result from the possibility of increasing or
decreasing the daylight inside the monument according to the number of stars. It is also easy to
imagine how the sombre light that would prevail in this place would favour the illusion’ [13].
The historical contribution of these writers therefore lies in the historical-critical analysis that
each individual author had the merit to conduct with regard to the use of natural light, thus
being among the first to raise light to the rank of a real material for construction, like wood or
brick.
Instead, as regards the study of light and different solutions for daylighting between the 15th
and 16th centuries, the fascinating essay by Sergio Bettini highlights the substantial absence of a
systematic assessment on the topic. The study of natural light remained, at that time, the exclu-
sive prerogative of treatises on theatre and the history of philosophy and art.
Subsequent to the authoritative contribution of Vitruvius, for centuries the architectural value
of light was neglected, as was light’s inescapably expressive capacity to comprehend space,
forgotten by the literature and the critics. The lack of attention to the theme is probably due
to the essence of other apparent meanings – mystical and religious – attributed to light. It was
necessary to wait for the advent of the 17th century to rediscover fresh interest in the theme of
light in the sacred space and the Templars’ buildings, a topic that would become major news
with the discovery of the remains of the Parthenon [14].
In the Renaissance, Leon Battista Alberti was the first to demonstrate a profound interest in nat-
ural light, dedicating himself to discussing it in whole paragraphs, accompanied by exhaustive
scientific, optical and architectural discourses, demonstrating how the use of special devices for
the dissemination and reflection of light could be used in building.
One of the first testimonies, his Pittura, dating to 1435, collected the first complete numbering of
the types of light in art, laying the foundations for what was later defined a primordial elabora-
tion of an ‘aesthetics of light’ [15]. But it was only with the discussion in De Re Aedificatoria that
Alberti would come to a definition of issues just sketched out by Vitruvius, on the validity of
Figure 7: Interior of Sant’Andrea, Mantua, Leon Battista Alberti.
the use of natural light, on procedures for solar penetration, in relation to functions and visual
tasks specific to the setting.
Today, Alberti’s description appears much richer and more exhaustive, in virtue of the particu-
lar attention paid to the orientation and arrangement of apertures: ‘In summer apartments large
windows will be made in every direction in the walls facing north, low and narrow in those
addressing the midday sun; some will be ventilated, others less vulnerable to the sun; even so
the lighting, due to the continuous shining of the sun all around, will be sufficient in places such
as these, where the search is, more than for light, of shade. But however we want to introduce
the light inside, it is obvious that we must freely look at the sky’ [16] (Fig. 7).
‘The windows of temples should be modest in size and in a good high position, so that through
them we cannot perceive other than the sky, like the celebrants, and the men of prayer are in no
way diverted from the thought of the divine’ [16].
The theme of an unfettered view of the outside, a fundamental requirement for current strate-
gies of Daylighting, was thoroughly analysed thus by Alberti, who highlighted, for the first
time, the need to limit excessive visual stimuli and thermal effects coming from outside.
The architectural and symbolic interest in light, that it is possible to trace in many steps of the
treatise, therefore touches on aspects, then considered marginal, of which today it is possible to
appreciate the high cultural value: From the precise control of light amounts to the variability of
dynamic light, to attempts to reproduce light effects, games of reflection, and attempts to diffuse
sunlight, strategies analysed in a decidedly modern key.
Among the subsequent amounts, designed to develop natural light in its many architectural
applications, we must recall Sebastiano Serlio, who, among the first defined as builders and
designers, was able to intervene in the implementation of perforations in ecclesiastical settings,
to ensure the most balanced amount of light in the side chapels, in order to maintain dramatic
effects that fostered an atmosphere of meditation and mysticism, necessary to accommodate
the faithful: ‘Square chapels shall have the light from the sides: but as to that of the Temple, if
there will be at the top of the ceiling an aperture, the diameter of which shall be a fifth part of
the Temple, make there above a lantern, as I told of the others’ [17].
Construction practices in relation to visual and spatial effects on the entry of natural light seem
to already have been known to Serlio in the 16th century, through the reading of previous trea-
tises and derived from direct experience. Knowledge of the writings of Vitruvius proved useful
to the subsequent treatises by Serlio who, albeit in a rather inaccurate and inhomogeneous way,
defined the importance of an appropriate arrangement of windows with suitable orientation,
for country houses, as he narrated: ‘In the middle of the room there shall be two niches at the
top of which there shall be a large window, to take in light and wind’ [18].
The instructions appear immature and ill-defined; these seem to be summary suggestions, de-
rived from experience rather than from extensive physical and optical assessments, however,
they clearly demonstrate that the legacy of the first hints of Vitruvius, on the architectural sig-
nificance and thermal performance related to the use of light for private mansions had not been
lost through the centuries.
Instead, to Scamozzi, one of the last great architects of the 16th century in Italy, is due the merit
of having first coined the precise distinction between the different types of natural light.
In the season of passage between the age of the great scientific discoveries, before the time of
doubts and disputes about the validity of these findings, Scamozzi is an often forgotten author,
who has the merit that he paid architectural attention to light by treating it with scientific ap-
proach that was then unusual, making it worthy of an extended exposition initially theoretical
and then practical, which opened the way to subsequent attempts at classification among his
numerous Italian followers.
Scamozzi, a pupil of Palladio, demonstrated his personality by founding his theory and the
architectural practice on solid scientific and technical bases, brought together in his work The
Idea of a Universal Architecture.
Within this weighty scientific treatise, which is abounding in technical details, there is a detailed
inquiry, the first, organised in a scientific way and accompanied by drawings and technical
plates on the control and management of light from the windows of church side chapels.
In this sense Scamozzi is often considered to be one of the first ‘moderns’, attentive to issues
that only with Le Corbusier and Kahn would find worthy positions among purely architectural
questions.
‘Natural light is one only but for various reasons, it can be altered not a little: and however,
we are going to break it down into six species: i.e. overwhelming or celestial; lumen vivo per-
pendicular; lumen vivo horizontal; lumen finished; lumen of lumen, or also called secondary
or participated lumen, and finally, minimal lumen, that is also said tertiary, namely, lumen re-
flected or refracted. Lumen in the upper part of the Rotunda expands with much grace, for all
parts, as if not stopped by any thing … all is born from the celestial lumen, which by no thing
is stopped’ [19].
And again in his book V, light returns to play a beneficial role for the wholesomeness of domes-
tic environments, thereby providing a specific definition for each type of light, in an attempt to
provide a primordial scientific cataloguing of the present techniques of Daylighting: ‘Now that
we have spoken enough of the air, let us reason something over the lumens, so as to apply them
well and conveniently according to the quality of buildings.
Natural light is one only but for various reasons, it can be altered not a little: and however, we
are going to break it down into six species: i.e. overwhelming or celestial; lumen vivo perpendicular;
lumen vivo horizontal; lumen finished; lumen of lumen, or also called secondary or participated lumen,
and finally, minimal lumen, which we will discuss briefly to our benefit and not curiously or
philosophizing’ [20] (Fig. 8).
Natural light in a broad sense is defined for the first time by Scamozzi as ‘lumen overwhelming
and celestial’, meaning the sum of the amount of direct and reflected light from the celestial
vault: ‘By lumen overwhelming and celestial we intend all that from under the open sky we
receive abundantly by virtue of the sun above this our part of the air and the earth, by means
of which light we see and discern all things here below and without which we would have the
darkness of the night’ [20].
Scamozzi also seems to describe for the first time the strategy of zenithal lighting, in precise
terms, such as to recall the definition of modern systems of toplighting: ‘By lumen vivo and per-
pendicular we mean that which comes from the open sky and which we receive in the courts
or in the apertures of domes, such as the Rotunda of Rome and similar places: which, not being
stopped by anything goes proportionally spreading until the ground’.
In the same way the clarification of lumen horizontal is one that comes closest, in the history of
architectural treatises, to the current characterisation of the technique of sidelighting: ‘The lumen
free horizontal is what we take every day in front or diagonally from pure heaven and, freely,
which, not being prevented by anything, duly illuminates the loggias, halls, lounges, rooms,
and other places of the house’.
A lighting accent, focused on a detail or used to underscore is described by Scamozzi under

the name lumen terminated: ‘The lumen ended is that which, still bright and clear, is nonetheless
terminated by some small and enclosed place, as in front of some road, which is stopped on one
or both sides by buildings: and therefore this light does not provide much benefit to the inside
of the rooms: since it is quite accessible and powerful it arrives in front of a some loggia of not
so much width and with high colonnades’.
The exhaustive discussion is not limited to a simple definition of direct lighting strategies, but
also goes deeply into the function of secondary strategies of sidelighting, as in the case of prime-
val solutions of borrowed light, which are described thus: ‘The lumen of lumen, which can also
be called secondary or participated, is what we receive from another near place near lighted
by the first lumen and the brightness of the sky: such as loggias, arcades, galleries and similar
very open places, that have the true lumen horizontal and diagonal of the pure sky: these places
are more or less bright as they approach or leave the brightness of the air, which is found in
the first places illuminated. Minimal lumen, which we can also call tertiary, is what we receive
from other places not very lighted, i.e. taking even the lumen of lumen, or finally even lumen
Figure 8: Venetian villa, Section and plan, Vincenzo Scamozzi.
reflected, which is very weak, and therefore is of no use to us, if not in the event of greatest need,
for secret stairs, cupboards, places of need and similar other doorways enclosed in rooms’ [20].
Scamozzi is therefore, quite rightly, considered a forerunner of that peculiar 16th- and 17th-
century sensitivity for the use of and interest in the effects of light, which enhanced not only ‘its
tonal values’, but also it luminous effects that it can create within the architectural space, such
as to be a precursor of the luminous dynamism of Baroque architecture [21].
The experience of Scamozzi in the theoretical study and practice of light and its different uses
inspired subsequent authors to experiment with the expressive potential of direct light, filtered
light and light hidden behind architectural elements.
The many experiences of the Italian Baroque contributed in great measure to increasing the
use of light as a construction material, and, only afterwards, were more daring experiments
conducted in other countries. The famous lessons in architecture of John Soane were to intro-
duce to the countries of northern Europe a new focus on the compelling possibilities related to
the use of natural light in home environments and public buildings.
The renowned example of his classroom built at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in London represents the
summa of Soane’s light concepts, brought to the maximum expressiveness thanks to the cali-
brated use of what he called ‘lumière mysterieuse’.
The project for a private residence in Lincoln’s Inn Fields served for years as an experimental
laboratory in which Soane tested his insights into the use of direct and indirect light, and the
effects of diffused and reflected light, by putting into practice the instructions he had culled
from classical texts: ‘Palladio, Scamozzi, Phibert de l’Orme, and many other great architects,
gave us their different views on the shape and proportions of the windows, but, from the mo-
ment that the windows must be of appropriate proportions to particular climates in which we
must build, and from the moment that the observations of those great men related to a warmer
climate than ours, their directives may be of little help [...] Our windows are also larger than
they have been in the past and, being constructed so as to open the centre, the general effect is
very good; in this way more air and light are entering, and an appearance of greater habitability
is conferred on the apartment’ [22].
Soane’s interest vis-à-vis the evocative power of light, as a true creator of spaces and volumes,
together with his faith in the transfiguring power of the light beam, developed from historical
knowledge of the Vitruvian treatise.
The cultural debt to the skilful compositional mastery over natural light is reflected in the search
for an architectural declination of incoming rays, that are reflected and illuminate the interiors
in complex games of refractions, a global poetic of light, clearly traceable in every smallest de-
tail of the house, from the dining room up to the dome hidden on the outside, defined a ‘balda-
chin’ by Soane himself, namely a room with zenithal lighting, with a glazed octagonal skylight
and two smaller skylights arranged at the sides.
His curiosity for the creative and deforming potential of optical devices impelled Soane to place
mirrors on the walls of his residence-laboratory, strategically positioned to follow the path of
the sun and reflect in many directions the coloured light of the zenithal skylights, creating evoc-
ative and unexpected glimpses, and using that simplest of technical tricks, natural light.
‘The architect will do well to examine different ways adopted by painters to get the light in their
studies.
The lumière mysterieuse, applied so successfully by the French artist, is a very powerful tool in
the hands of a man of genius, and this power can never be too inclusive, nor too highly appreci-
ated’ [22].
The definition of lumière mysterieuse is thus used by Soane himself to experience the infinite pos-
sibilities of natural light, concealed from view or coming from lateral apertures, to create evoca-
tive coloured and luminous effects. Perhaps inspired by the fascinating engravings of Piranesi,
Soane created the interior spaces of his London residence with the ability of a sculptor, using
light as a punch with which to chisel the surfaces.
As a result of Soane’s innovative experiences, other benefits inherent to the presence of sunlight
within spaces were investigated from an environmental, architectural and luminous standpoint,
which enabled many subsequent architects to reach a definition of a new use of natural light, as
a technical expedient for the attainment of the much sought-after sense of structural lightness,
thanks to which, personalities such as Horta, Labrouste and Mackintosh were to magnify the
sense of lightness of the constructed space, obtained with the use of iron and cast iron, through
a cunning use of apertures to the outside.
The exact distinction between lumière naturelle and lumière artificielle can therefore be placed in
the trough of a vast collection of direct experiences and treatises on architecture that define,
in relation to different epochs and geographic regions, architectural trends, stylistic notes and
good building practices for sunlight, founding the bases of the modern definition of Daylight
Architecture and Daylight Assessment.
In the following centuries, Soane’s eclectic and innovative experience was to radically mark,
in Anglo Saxon circles, the development of the multiple tendencies to enhance the expressive
and spatial use of natural light, as well as strategies of illumination, while attempts at defining
space through management of sunlight continue to echo today, in the works of architects such
as Louis Kahn, who makes his knowledge of the arrangement of the apertures for natural light
diffused and poetic, as in the case of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. Likewise,
as regards exterior lighting, assessment of the perceptual impact of light on the surrounding
landscape can be attributed to the research that developed around the 60s and 70s by Louis
Kahn, e.g. at the Yale Centre for British Art, where the architect produced specific assessments,
accompanied by a wide-ranging theoretical discussion:
‘It is light which, when it stops being light, becomes matter. All matter is light. Light is the donor
of every presence’ [23].
3.2 The Italian experience

The Italian architectural tradition, from the Classical era to the Renaissance period, up to the
scenographic practices of the Baroque, has its roots in a context in which natural light constantly
affirms its presence, determines the form of the constructed space and its variable glimpses,
never the same twice, and because of this unique and unrepeatable.
Great modern masters made this natural constant their own, through formal subtleties that
allow us to glimpse an awareness very close to the techniques of Daylight Assessment, or by
putting forward proven solutions from secular experiences unwittingly, the fruit of a deeply
rooted cultural heritage.
Among the most admirable ambassadors of this representative capacity through light, Ignazio
Gardella makes the theme of the articulated treatment of surfaces and light as a tool of spatial
composition his own.
Reflecting on the implications that light plays in the Italian scenario, also Carlo Scarpa repre-
sents an incarnation of that architectural mastery which is able to guide the eye towards an
understanding of the elements denoting and connoting the space of his creations.
The architectural light that Scarpa used gradually dissolves the box-like space of the environ-
ments while the declination of the light rays on the surfaces projects visions that are always new
and different from one another. Scarpa succeeded, in this sense, to shape light as if it was solid
light [24], as he himself describes to explain his famous angular window used in Possagno, ‘the
edge glazing is a blue block pushing upwards’ [25].
Scarpa’s compositional and material skill lies therefore in maximising the expressive potential
of natural light within architecture thanks to which he came to obtain stunning plastic, tangible
and chromatic effects: ‘What I want to say is that sense of space is not communicated by a picto-
rial order but always by physical phenomena, that is by matter, by sense of mass, the weight
of the wall. This is why I assert that is the apertures, openings and orifices that create spatial
relationships’ [25].
The light alone defines the dimensions of the space, thereby altering perception without chang-
ing the setting’s volumetric system. Scarpa manages, with brilliant skill, to cope with the uncon-
trollable variability of the sunlight, releasing it from the position of the observer, so as to offer
perceptive angles that are constantly new and unexpected.
Among the most significant examples of the use of light, the project for the Brion Tomb is
emblematic of the poetics of Scarpa, where the theory of small windows along with a further
aperture at the foot of the dome, light up the altar (Fig. 9).
And once again the spatial definition of the box-like volumes and the works exhibited at the
Palazzo Abatellis in Palermo, is articulated by virtue of the incoming light.
The uncontrollable dynamism of the Mediterranean light makes it possible for Scarpa to play
with the perceptual mechanism of observers in motion, in such a way as to create a symbiosis
between the modulations of the sunlight and the subjective perceptions, so as not to alter the
composition of forms and figures, but evoke continuously changing suggestions.
‘The visitor, who comes from the double-faced room of the chapel, is first attracted by the
chiaroscuro game of the outline, three-quarters illuminated, then is urged to move around the
bust feeling its volumetric implications, and is ultimately directed by the dynamics of the gaze
towards subsequent stations along the route’ [25].
Daylight, as a spontaneous element of architectural expression, is also realised in complex

games of blendings, duplications, transmutations and negations, through the architectural use
of solar radiation, in the works of Franco Purini.
The architect himself reveals his deference towards sunlight, for its creative and descriptive val-
ue, which Mediterranean architecture cannot ignore: ‘Light is the closest thing to the idea of the
divine that it is possible to know. It is indeed the divine essence of the world. It is an intangible
thing, an incorporeal phenomenon translated into a conceptual oxymoron, in an experience of
abstraction that literally coincides with beauty’ [26].
The constant references to light in the theory and practice of Purini reveal an in-depth theo-
retical research in respect of an impalpable instrument, which finds its maximum tangible
Figure 9: Brion-Vega Cemetery, San Vito d’Altivole, Carlo Scarpa (credit Seier+Seier).
expression in the creative process of art and architecture, in as much as it constitutes the
founding sign for the understanding of space.
The light separates, establishes differences and confers identity. It arouses by isolating, creates
by dispersing. In this showing of its diversity among the things it reveals its hostile side, turning
to the representation of what there is at the end of the irreducible, in the difference. Coincid-
ing with truth, light is in fact where contrasts subside. But at the same time that they become
recognisable, they remain indefinitely: light is therefore constant contradiction, immutable
insolubility.
The opportunities inherent in the architectural, creative and revelatory use of light collide with
the need to properly calibrate its variable contribution, through a simple but intuitive approach
to Daylight Assessment, as Purini himself stresses in his writings
‘Obstructing the light in its liquid pervasiveness, excluding it, therefore, is necessary but not
sufficient: it is necessary that the architect removes its ability to represent and recount by
attenuating its emotional outcomes and reducing it to a logical size. Indeed theological.
The architectural light, the light of architecture, is then a cold and distant current, a passionate
but frozen fluid, a classical and heroic voice, Davidian, measuring weights and distances […].
Light coincides with space’ [26].
Awareness of the compositional possibilities of the beam of light due to the multiple meanings
of Mediterranean light then evolved in the works of Paolo Portoghesi, whose celebrated Mosque
in Rome (1984–1995), takes on the role of a manifesto of a real poetic of architectural light at
the service of Mediterranean light, connoting and denoting element underlining meanings and
confined spaces.
‘In the Mosque of Rome the concept of light from light of the Koran has been translated into a
dual presence of light: as indicator of privileged orientation and a system of light reflection
in which the architectural elements serve as mirrors channelling light, concealing its direct
sources’ [27].
3.3 The experience of Central Europe

In Europe the most significant experiences in relation to light experimentation assign a dimin-
ished role to Daylighting strategies, for the most part integrated with artificial light sources, due
to the large variability of natural light in the daytime and in the summer season.
The exaltation of form and the definition of the quality of materials can only be done through
light: having exhausted the attention to artificial light as the only possibility to illuminate
spaces, the 20th century saw sunlight resurfacing as an eloquent, dynamic and variable tool
of representation. The architects wanted to ensure their works an added value derived from
performance linked to natural light, without which architecture itself does not exist.
Among the most important testimonies, Le Corbusier had the merit of reflecting fully on the
impact and exploitation of natural light in the confined space project. The evocative power of
light for the representation of articulated spaces, able to evoke complex and variable sensations
in response to its inconstancy becomes an integral part of his creations (Fig. 10).
‘We want to create a place of architecture made of materials, light, and proportions, in which
room can be found for works of another emotional potential, works that are dense and strong
and from which emanates the power of thought or emotion’ [28].
Figure 10: Unité d’Habitation, Marseille, Le Corbusier (credit Lisa Lorenzini).

Figure 11: Notre Dame du Haute, Ronchamp, Le Corbusier (credit elyullo).
The artistic treatment of light, devices with a shading or illuminating function are what distin-
guish Le Corbusier’s projects, becoming instruments to calibrate and modulate light, which is
cleverly concealed or integrated with the constructed form and distributed like a veil over the
surfaces.
It is therefore extremely simplistic and inaccurate to bring the architectural identity of Le

Corbusier, like so many other masters in the same period, down to a single geometric question
of form, just as it would appear unproductive to produce an assessment focusing solely on the
technical innovations of his projects, given that light remains a central milestone of his poetic
complex, as he himself admits: ‘there is no doubt that I am making abundant use of light; light
is, in my opinion, the basic element of architecture. I compose with light’ [28].
The symbolic and spatial use of light reaches its culmination in the complex arrangement of
apertures for Notre Dame du Haute in Ronchamp (1950–1955), in which Le Corbusier seems
to want to reinterpret the articulation of light in Italian Renaissance chapels, one of the first
examples of the scenic use of natural light (Fig. 11).
‘In the interior, I imagine a symphony of shadow, of light and shade materialised in a rough
epidermis of sprayed plaster, entirely covered with the milk of lime white. The needs of wor-
ship intervene here in just a few things. The natures of the forms were a response to the psycho-
physiology of the sensation’ [29].
The cadence of articulated lights and shadows, and the game of the reflections on the rough
materials of the interior surfaces thus characterise some of the projects of the Swiss master.
Similarly, the creations of Mies van der Rohe are distinguished by the strict simplicity of forms,
which is equally reflected in colour choices and the desire to encourage the pure essence of
the light as much as possible. In contrast to some of his contemporaries, it is not possible to
affirm that Mies evaluated a true strategy of natural illumination, but rather, it is clear how he
preferred to use natural light as a tool for the enhancement of the surfaces, a means to control
the plasticity of form.
The difference in approach between the poetics of Mies and those of Le Corbusier as regards
light as an expressive medium and creator of form can also be identified in the essentiality with
which Mies employed holes in the masonry.
The compositional potential of light for Mies lies in games of reflection of light onto materials
to affirm that reflection and diffusion are more important than the light itself, including the
extreme exploitation that light represents through the transparency and reflections of glass.
For Mies, the architecture of the light means light filtered through glass, and transparencies:
‘In the hands of Mies the primitive obscurity of crude constructions is truly transformed into its
counter image: it acquired a crystalline elegance of great simplicity in design, which allowed
one hundred percent architecture of the light on the basis of a high level of technological culture,
without which Mies’ visions could not have developed’ [30].
3.4 The experience of Northern Europe

The discussion on the use of natural light and its capacity as an expressive, formal and instru-
mental vehicle for the plastic modelling of surfaces has been developed in the works of archi-
tecture of the Nordic regions, according to the so-called Nordic Light approach.
Many theoreticians and architects have looked into the issue and in particular on the actual
existence of a ‘northern light’. With the term Nordic Light there is a tendency to define, not only
the light at higher latitudes, but the set of all the design and technology processes that relate to
the choice of the arrangement of apertures in relation to the variability of the light. The dispute
is still open, and there continues to be discussion of the validity of such a definition, as well as
the concrete applicability of specific strategies for Nordic Light.
In the case of works of architecture located in high latitudes, the light plays a very different role
compared to the consolidated situation in middle latitudes.
The presence of diffuse light for long periods of the year and the different distribution of light
radiation makes a radically different approach necessary: the primary requirement remains to
convey the greatest amount of natural light as possible and spread it in depth, at the same time
ensuring greater solar gains and thermal loads.
Experiments concerning the use of light as a creative and vivifying tool in Nordic architecture
has permeated many projects, from dwellings to public buildings, in which the expressiveness
of white light and translucent reflections reached its apex.
The relativism of the architecture of Alvar Aalto, viewed from the perspective of daylight, sym-
bolically represents the synthesis of the relationship between architecture and northern light.
‘Architecture is usually understood as a visual syntax, but it can also be conceived through a
sequence of human situations and encounters. Authentic architectural experiences derive from
real or ideated bodily confrontations rather than visually observed entities’ [31].
The historical development of the techniques of representing space in Scandinavian, specifi-

cally, is intimately linked to the development of architecture itself, and to the perspective un-
derstanding of space: In this case, we can speak of a genuine architecture of vision, oriented to
multiperspective realisations in which the light, albeit weak and faint, envelops the viewer, as
not even the warm and collected Mediterranean light manages to do.
The projects of Aalto base their spatial and perceptual essence on the light source which, in
a country paradoxically deficient in natural light for most of the year, must necessarily be
integrated by artificial light. In the projects for the libraries of Viipuri (1927, 1933–1935) and
Saynatsalo (1949, 1950–1952) can be identified the beginnings of complex zenithal devices to
diffuse the light, which take the form of skylights and other light sources, affirming the use of
a primitive ‘Daylight Assessment’, that allowed Aalto to analyse more accurately the angle of
light rays in relation to the vision to obtain the interior spaces.
The same process of preliminary analysis on the presence and effects of natural light that per-
meates the reading rooms by means of systems of toplighting and sidelighting is also found in
many subsequent projects: ‘The lighting of the library at Saynatsalo was resolved with large
windows facing south. These are located above the shelves of the libraries, to give them a suf-
ficient size, the slanting ceiling rises precisely towards the south. But given that the direct light
from the south is unsuitable both for books and the eyes, to screen it partially, the windows
were equipped with dense slats of dark wood’ [32].
The windows of Aalto, as can be seen in the Stockmann bookstore, defined by the architect him-
self as solar windows, almost as if to emphasise the vital function of the same in capturing the
unequalled power of sunlight, are placed on the roof, where the incident radiation is greater in
those latitudes, causing an evocative and shocking effect, as if ‘enormous pieces of ice were try-
ing to pierce through the roof’ [32].
The library of Wolfsburg embodies a successful attempt to design a space bathed in zenithal light
that pervades obliquely from the roof the reading space below and is then reflected from the
texture of the side walls, creating the illusion of a space in full light, a sensation that Aalto him-
self defines permanent stability.
In a large part of Aalto’s repertoire of construction (Fig. 12), it is easy to identify the constant
tension for the search of a suitable use of light, both from an architectural and perceptual stand-
point to solicit the attention of the users and facilitate the visual task. His writings and design
research focussed in particular on the spaces for reading and study, where the amount of the
light must be constant and rendered harmonious in its time variations, via the games of reflec-
tions from the surrounding surfaces. Within the Nordic architectural context, where natural
light is so scarce as to be considered a valuable asset for the definition of spatial functions, Aalto
does not limit himself to simple theoretical speculation, but applies to his projects the concept
of visual comfort for a specific task.
The visual function is elevated to a fundamental theme both for the formation of space, and
for the subsequent enjoyment: The awareness that a library should be well-lit and technically
functional gives way to the question of how it can be regarded as humanly and architecturally
complete, to meet the needs of reading.
Figure 12: The Stokmann bookstore, Helsinki, Alvar Aalto (credit Jean-Pierre Dalbéra).
Aalto’s sensitivity to light was born in the wake of a general trend that relegates the perfor-
mance aspect of interiors to a secondary question: The rationality of Aalto’s construction ap-
proach and lighting lies in the quantitative and qualitative definition, defined on a human scale,
of integrated systems of zenithal and artificial lighting, to ensure ‘A light that is mixed, reflected
and diffused by the tapered walls of the skylights, which is extremely suitable for reading’ [33].
It seems correct to trace in this type of design approach the germs of a modern design of a dy-
namic type that is designed to investigate the time and seasonal variations of light, an approach
that today is found in early attempts at validating dynamic analysis based on the weather.
Might we find in Aalto’s architectural practice a first attempt to provide precise answers to
the complex issues of Daylight Assessment, both from the point of view of a quantitative and
qualitative approach?
Aware of the profound changeability of Nordic light, Scandinavian architects, from Aalto to
Fehn, have experimented with luminous solutions and material textures that developed the
amount of natural light in constructed spaces, playing on the size of apertures, the colours
and spatial articulation. The obsessive search for light has produced outstanding examples of
architecture in which each element is aimed to maximise the amount of incoming light, through
diffusing elements that direct diffuse radiation in distance and depth.
‘If you build in Greece it is the light itself that creates your architecture. Just scratch the surface
of marble with a fingernail, that scratch remains visible, while up there, under the northern
light, it wouldn’t. These factors mean that our architectural world has no shadows […] each
material has its own shadow. The shadow of stone does not resemble that of a brittle autumn
leaf. The shadow enters the material and radiates its message’ [34].
Figure 13: Nordic pavilion, Venice, Sverre Fehn (credit Frans Drewniak).
Curiously, Fehn’s compositional skill with natural light reaches its culmination in a project con-
text far from the Scandinavian world, namely, the Pavilion of the Nordic Countries in the gardens
of the Venice Biennial, built in 1962, with the chief intention of transforming Mediterranean
light into an atmosphere of the North. The typical treatment of Nordic light is transposed to the
Mediterranean context with amazing results as regards perceptions of space and the spectacular
effects of the light, in an exhibition context; this is a room with a square base, whose roofing
is made with close beams of concrete, but made light-permeable, characterising the pavilion
from a structural and formal point of view: ‘Crossing the double order of the roofing beams, the
intense light of the lagoon undergoes a magical metamorphosis, and transforms into a homoge-
neous light, without shadows, as creeping as that of Nordic countries’ [34] (Fig. 13).
As has been observed by Paolo Giardiello, the key question for the Scandinavian world, is not
the continuous struggle to search for light, but rather the Nordic treatment of the light-shadow
relationship and of its mutual relations with the constructed space; the correspondences that are
created between closed and covered spaces and the presence of natural light are summarised in
the image of the umbrella, under the shade of which the key game is played out between the
light and the spatial relationship defined by the constant antithesis of the shade [35].
The psychological potential of the light-diaphragm-shadow ratio in Fehn’s works of architec-

ture therefore represent the perfect synthesis of the relationship between Nordic architecture
and daylight.
In the diaphragm that is born where the shadow line leaves room for the brilliance of the light,
is found the architectural and spatial search of many Nordic masters, whose goal is to establish
the correct amount of light, through the use of the variable strategies of Daylighting, not to
undermine the quality of the radiation, but to accentuate its flexible and variable nature.
Both in projects for dwellings, and in projects for exhibition spaces, Nordic light fully acquires
role of creative tool and construction material; simplicity and discretion in the geometric and
spatial composition of the apertures, as well as attempts to diffuse the light with devices ori-
ented to the path of the sun alternate, through a search for formal solutions and innovative
techniques, which are designed to enhance the natural rhythms of light and darkness.
‘Bare areas, along the perimeter wall, bathed in light contrast areas marked by shadows and
penumbra created by means of translucent panels positioned between the high laminated wood
beams. It is thus that the places inside are exclusively obtained by modulations and nuances of
light’ [34].
3.5 The U.S. experience

In the contemporary U.S. panorama, the experiences related to the use of natural light are not
very dissimilar from those mentioned previously on a European scale, apart from complying
with specific solutions of Daylighting belonging to theories and architectural trends that origi-
nated there.
On the one hand, the aesthetics of the skyscrapers, the grand constructions and the extended
and multifunctional shells, on the other, the transparency of the shell, split between the need for
aperture to the outside and protection from excessive sunshine and heat, became the challenge
that U.S. architects had to tackle for over a century.
In this sense, we owe to Colin Rowe, among others, the merit of having defined the concept of
transparency, in close relation to the themes of natural light and the issues of Daylight Assessment.
Thus was a revised concept of transparency evolved, as a synonym for brightness, to be applied
in architectural and artistic fields.
Thus literal transparency concerned the representation of translucent objects in deep spaces,
while the phenomenological transparency [35] belonged to the representation in abstract, non-
natural spaces of objects aligned frontally and arranged with respect to a shallow depth.
The discussion therefore re-examined the fundamental difference subtended to the two terms
associated with the concept of transparency, but sharing the idea that transparency and, conse-
quently light, were essential tools of organisation and spatial definition, essential for the inter-
pretation of space.
The spatiality of the construction, whether small or large-scale, can be changed and altered
through contractions and expansions in virtue of the characteristics of their own shell, which
can appear transparent to light, letting enter large quantities of it, or aperture up to slender rays
of light. According to this logic, even the idea of transparency related to apertures and the use
of transparent materials found numerous examples in North-American architecture.
An expressive medium and construction foundation, in the U.S. context light is therefore closely
linked to the very existence of the skyscrapers, which originated in the United States.
‘The skyscraper is therefore, in the penumbra, a sparkling vertical prismatic form, a veil of
gauze of a festive scene, which descends against the black backdrop of the night to dazzle,
entertain and amaze, in large masses.
Lighted interiors transpire from the veil exuding a sense of life and wellbeing.
The city then seems living.
It lives as illusion lives’ [36].
The skyscraper becomes a testing ground, both in terms of transparency during daytime and
in the treatment of the immense glazed surfaces during the night. The intensive use of glass
allowed, on the one hand to experiment with new strategies to manage daylight, on the other, it
raised issues of great importance, for shading and shading needs.
Among the greatest U.S. leaders to be a spokesman of innovative application solutions on the
use of natural light in architecture was Louis Kahn, master in the use of geometric shapes,
whose plasticity is exalted by the knowing use of natural light.
Kahn’s innovative contribution resides in his compositional skills, which enabled him to cali-
brate simple geometric shapes in buildings made of reinforced concrete that are seemingly cold
and detached. The use of light in these discordant contexts assumed the form of a complex,
detailed and evocative spatiality.
Taking to the extreme both the structural system and the potential inherent in the materials,
Kahn grasped the full potential of an architecture that went beyond its own formal limits, to
open up to new expressions through the use of natural light, which is the key to ensuring satis-
faction of the functions to be realised for the comfort of the building’s occupants.
The description of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas (1971), clearly shows that, in
spite of the structure being based on the creative intuition of cycloid vaults, as technological and
formal solutions to roof the exhibition halls, the essence of the project rests entirely on the chang-
ing and dynamic effects of the light, which defines the interior space and its functions (Fig. 14).
‘No space, architecturally, is a space unless it has natural light … I am designing an art museum
in Texas. Here I felt that the light in the rooms structured in concrete will have the luminosity
of silver. […]
This light will give a glow of silver to the room without touching the objects directly, yet give
the comforting feeling of knowing the time of the day […] Rather than a new way of calling
something; it is a new word entirely.
It is actually a modifier of the light, sufficiently so that the injurious effects of the light are con-
trolled to weather the degree of control now possible’ [23].
In this specific case, prior to the lighting design specific knowledge is assumed of the varying
effects of natural light in relation to the hourly and seasonal fluctuations and the precise effects
that it may cause on the objects on display in the rooms of the museum, and for the constraints
that Daylighting might inflict on the occupants.
Therefore this is a case where Daylight Assessment is integrated initially in the design, in rela-
tion to the optical possibilities offered by the geometric shapes and finishing materials, which
play an essential role in determining the interior luminous effects.
Kahn’s attention to the theme of light as a building material in the same way as reinforced
concrete, widely used in those same years to realise his creations, highlights an accurate assess-
ment of the problems related to the management and use of solar radiation, developing its use
in complex and in a certain sense avant-garde poetics, that consider light as the only source of
illumination to vivify the spaces.
Figure 14: The Kimbell Art Museum, detail of the clear-span cycloid concrete shell,
Louis Kahn.
Knowledge of the optical perceptive effects of light, in relation to the human eye urged Kahn’s
project to embrace knowledge of the nonvisual effects of natural light on an individual’s general
sense of wellbeing in a space designed to be illuminated by daylight.
‘A man with a book always goes toward the light; this is the beginning of a library.
That man will not travel more than 15 metres to reach the light of a light bulb. The table on
which he reads and the niche that might originate the ordering of the space and its structure. In
a library the column always comes from the light’ [37] (Fig. 15).
Natural light in his projects is an integral part of the design and programming related to the use
of the building. The first director of the Kimbell, Richard Brown, expressed significant doubts
about the use of natural light in an exhibition space.
According to the conventions then consolidated, natural light distracted the visual experience
of the spectator from the observation of works of art: Kahn refuted this theory, demonstrating
how integrated design, which would require a preliminary survey of the daylight, enabled the
achievement of effects of natural zenithal light, diffused and reflected, which enhanced the
objects on show and made the visual experience of the spectator unrepeatable and comfortable.
Among the most significant works for the use of natural light, and compositional and technolog-
ical choices for the creation of interior spaces, the Philip Exeter Library in Exeter, New Hampshire,
must be mentioned.
Figure 15: Interior of the Philip Exeter Library, Exeter, Louis Kahn (credit Kathia Shieh).
The zenithal light that spreads from above allowed Kahn to subvert the traditional structures
of libraries, allowing him to organise the reading rooms on four levels around an open well in
the centre, from which the light spreads in continuous variations of light and shade, without
affecting the stored books.
The different internal spatial articulation builds on the needs to light the rooms, while the niches
for reading arranged along the sides; specially designed shielding elements, offer the possibility
to modulate the amount of incoming natural light.
The arrangement of the roofing responds to the needs dictated by an in-depth analysis of light
boundary conditions and provides a zenithal lighting that is never direct, but rather a light that is
reflected and scattered, thanks to shading and diffusing elements, together with a careful choice
of interior finishing materials. The light does not have the role of a simple functional element,
but expresses the natural material thanks to which the form is revealed and draws motivation,
while the direction, and the way in which is modulated, reveal the building’s symbolic value.
Richard Meier, one of the most prolific American architects, and a profound connoisseur of the
aesthetics of light, also expressed the spatial value of his buildings through the vibration of
light, an element that makes the materials used alive and bright, on the basis of his profound
admiration for the works of Borromini.
‘For me, daylight is the key. Daylight is the protagonist of this church and daylight will emanate
from the skylights above and will also bounce off and spill around the walls in the shells of the
church. It is the light that accentuates the curved forms. The light creates atmosphere. And the
interior of the church is constantly permeated by light, and the white concrete shells subtly
reflect this palette’ [27].
3.6 The experience at low latitudes

The use of sunlight in tropical and subtropical countries has always been an element inherent to
architectural design since, where light plays a predominant role, precise measures are required
for protection from the sun, long before accentuating expressive and compositional peculiarities.
At low latitudes the incessant amount of light radiation during the day and in different seasons
represents a constant that architecture always has to deal with.
Daylight Assessment in contexts of this type constitutes an indispensable preliminary tool for
correct design and subsequent management of the apertures, and at the same time the neces-
sary shading and shading systems that must actively cooperate to provide refuge from exces-
sive illumination and thermal overload.
In this situation, the activity of Luis Barragan reveals itself among the most emblematic for the
function he attributes to light in the Mexican context, where solar radiation is conceived as a
problem to be mitigated, rather than a resource to be exploited. Barragan’s works of architecture
draw strength and vitality from two essential materials and from the mutual relationships they
create: light and water, as can be seen in Casa Gonzaléz Luna, in Guadalajara.
˘
Both these natural elements become the fundamental constitutive engine and raison d’etre of
the design of the famous Casa Gilardi (1975–1977) and Villa Valdez (1982–1984), in which sunlight
becomes a construction material to all effects and purposes, and also a surface finish, a veil that cov-
ers all the surfaces and alters the perception of them through colours and different textures (Fig. 16).
Emblematic as regards the use of light is the Convent of the Capuchin Sisters of Tlalpan (1954–1959),
often compared to Tadao Ando’s famous Church of the Light. If on the one hand the parallel picks
Figure 16: Casa Gonzaléz Luna, Guadalajara, Luis Barragan (credit Elisa Abati).
Figure 17: Interior of Capuchinas Chapel, Tlalpan, Luis Barragan (credit Armando Rosado).
up on the similarities in the treatment of materials and the value assigned to the natural light
that filters through slits in the massive surface of the roof, on the other hand it does not take into
account the inherent differences linked to the value of the light, itself an epiphanic element and
life-giver, as a direct evocation of the presence of God.
The purpose of Barragan’s design, through the calibrated use of light in the chapel is to recreate
an atmosphere of meditation and contemplation, a goal that could scarcely have been reached
in the presence of high levels of illumination (Fig. 17).
‘He thought that the light that pervades a cathedral was not intended for the eyes, but for rea-
son, reflection and an echo of the divinity, not a mere visual effect but a rational evocation of a
presence […] inside the convent he made the central patio the dominant light source and the
place for communication between the closed environments and the sky’ [38].
The filtering and shading system becomes fundamental in Barragan’s architecture, not a simple
secondary system, but a tool to manage direct light and identify the project itself.
‘The light filtered by a grid that concludes the triangular space on the opposite side of the nave
laterally illuminates the cross […] But Man is not permitted to look at the light directly, but only
through the mediation of the cross, which, in the chapel, carries out this fundamental function.
The whole building coincides with an apparatus that precisely filters the light’ [38]. The prin-
ciples underlying Barragan’s works are openly declared: The weightiness of the material and
the stone are highlighted and at the same time denied by the presence of a light that is specially
filtered and then directed towards the objects, almost as if wanting to upset the natural order of
things.
Gravity, light and time also feature in the Spanish works of architecture of Alberto Campo
Baeza, become elements through which the material textures, interwoven with light, bring to
life the architecture of complex spaces.
‘Light is a material. It lets the constructed space and man relate.
Light wakes up matter, which is dormant. Only true architecture can wake up and begin to express
its own value. Everything that is not architecture continues to sleep remains insignificant’ [39].
The a-temporal value of the light is an essential fulcrum in architectural composition, as can be
read in the many theoretical contributions that reveal the role of Daylighting: Natural radiation,
so abundant and inherent to the culture of Campo Baeza, plays a decisive role in the definition
and use of space, drawing inspiration from Classical examples of great power, such as the Pan-
theon in Rome, an absolute and unrepeatable reference, a model to aspire to: ‘Gravity builds the
space, Light builds the time, makes Time right. Here are the central issues of architecture: the
control of Gravity and the dialogue with Light.
The future of Architecture will depend on a potential new understanding of these two phenom-
ena’ [40].
Collaboration with the colour white becomes an archetypal element for the whole of architec-
ture at Campo Baeza, in whose realisations the finishing treatment in white is made even more
blinding by the skimming light that covers the interiors with horizontal, oblique and variable
beams, according to the principle that light is: ‘The supreme principle of architectural structur-
ing and spatial qualification’ [20].
Particular interest among architects and critics arose regarding the concept of ‘structural light’,
to be found in the works at Campo Baeza, a subject to which Alberto Morell Sixto devoted a
sweeping critical analysis, suggesting how the idea of making an intangible and authentically
natural element like sunlight a supporting structure for the definition of architecture, redefines
the logic of composition and surface treatments.
In this sense, the most effective example is that of the Caja General de Ahorros in Granada
(1998–2001), a work in which the relationship between structural materials and light is achieved
clearly, and defines the poetics of Campo Baeza with simplicity and naturalness.
The massive presence of opaque and heavy reinforced concrete, which provides a perception
of colour and texture that is always the same, is altered and enhanced by the fluid light, which
helps to lighten the solid material par excellence and make it inexplicably ethereal.
Daylight Assessment arranged on the basis of the needs of the geographic context and in tune
with the desire to alter the perception of materials such as reinforced concrete, induces the ar-
chitect to use multiple light beams, differently angled, reflected and refracted, to the extent of
losing individual directions and points of origin.
‘Many times we forget that the light inside a building is a summation of the inclined luminous
beams that rotate throughout the day. Without a doubt, in this building, all its constituent ele-
ments, fullnesses, voids, stairways, structure and material, are composed and ordered around
the angle and rotation of the light. It is not that the space is different and that the light passes
through it diagonally, as usually happens, but it is the space that is diagonal to receive the light:
as if to say that the space becomes light’ [20].
The handling of the light in a context that is strongly lit in a concentrated and diffuse way
demands precise demands in managing the apertures in the shell: The inclusion of shading ele-
ments, essential to manage the light, and create internal scenographic effects.
The architect must therefore anticipate the effects of the light, allowing light rays to permeate
space only after a thorough preliminary analysis. Nothing can be left to chance, nor to the natu-
ral hourly and seasonal variations: The light cannot be passively suffered, but must be put to
work to define the space.
4 Daylighting between the project and definition of space

It was Kepes who first delineated a grammar and syntax of vision, emblematically outlining the
importance that light plays at the moment of the architectural process, the stages of design
and creation, and the subsequent use by its occupants: ‘we live in the centre of a vortex of
light quality. From this whirling confusion we build unified entities, those forms of experience
called visual images. To see a picture is to participate in a formative process; it is a creative
act’ [41].
The dynamism and flexibility demanded today of a built space cannot be divorced from a
dynamic use of light, not only as a simple tool for the vision of space, but as a means to continu-
ously vary the perception of it.
Natural light, in a strictly architectural key, must therefore cover a twofold function: spatial and
visual connotation.
In a large uninterrupted space, natural light acts as a tool to define the spatial limits, ignore the
boundaries or amplify the extremities; the rays of the sun impress on the space on which they
insist, an imperceptible dynamism, even in the case of a more modest size and with the assump-
tion that the user remains still in the given environment.
The intangible element par excellence, without artifice or optical tricks, becomes the substance
and as such, corporeal and experiential, as in Turrell’s spatial experiences.
‘What interests me is the possibility of building the space with light even more than with any
other material, I am interested in the way in which space forms depending on where the light
falls and how this building up relates to us’ [42].
The spatial effect obtained dilates the confined space beyond the limits of the material, denoting
one continuous space, but difficult to identify as concluded. Spectators within his installations
are thus compelled to a perceptual effort to discern an apparent phenomenon of the optical
type, which tends to fade continuously in a real vision, as if these were homogeneous fields of
dynamic coloured light that constantly change.
Otherwise, in the small fragmented space, the measured use of light may be used architectur-
ally to confer a sense of unity and conclusion on a space, thanks to the presence of light coming
from different sources, that interrupts the path and that defines the boundaries between dark-
ness, light and penumbra.
The unexpected entrance of the light and the dynamic variables of the shielding establish ad-
ditional parameters to be taken into account in the realisation of the areas illuminated naturally.
The question of Daylight Assessment demonstrates how different strategies need to combine
in a comprehensive and integrated approach that takes into account many factors, from local,
geographic, meteorological and climatic aspects, to optical and perceptive needs linked to the
sensation it is intended to give the environment, in addition to the requirements to connote a
space that is concluded and accessible, by means of the light that illuminates it.
Understanding the multiform possibilities offered by natural light in architecture means taking
a cue from the many historical experiences, which have their roots in construction practices
that are distant in time and space, to achieve a new orientation, one that cherishes the intui-
tive approach to develop a scientific discipline, and that includes aspects of spatial and formal
research.
The experiments of the past make evident the incongruity of an approach that focuses exclu-
sively on the question of constructed geometric form, as it likewise seems unproductive to re-
flect exclusively on technological systems with which to check, calibrate and manage the light.
The natural evolution on the compositional and technological plane of architecture responds
to more complex demands, that are necessarily articulated according to a multidisciplinary ap-
proach, open to new contexts, in which space is connoted in relation to function, the variable
demands of the user, and, last but not least, to the demands of the changing nature of the light.
Chapter 2
Daylighting, architectural strategies compared
1 Daylighting techniques and other devices for daylighting

For centuries, from the first construction experiences, natural light was used to illuminate spac-
es by optimising the amount of incoming light radiation, maximising the evocative effects of the
light being projected onto the interior walls, from zenithal apertures and any other device that
allowed exploitation of solar radiation, to view, heat and define the space.
Architecture has always been dominated by the need to create efficient systems to let light enter
environments, without interfering with the composition and design of the façade, interacting in
an optimal manner with the articulation of the volumes.
The challenge of the natural light project is, therefore, to be able to communicate stylistic and
compositional needs with those of size and energy, with respect to the apertures in the building
envelope.
From the ancient caves used as a primordial shelter to today’s buildings, passing via the com-
plex operations of recovery and energy retrofit, the theme of natural light is a challenge for both
the architect and the builder: It is the light that defines our lives, regulates our existence and
controls individual responses in relation to the surrounding environment.
Treating natural light as a building material, as a strategy to ensure interior comfort and energy
savings, actualises a challenge that involves architecture as a whole, the design of interiors and
the design of the shell.
The history of architecture is inextricably linked to evolution of the shape, size and technol-
ogy of the apertures in the shell building envelope, be they windows, skylights, zenithal oculi
or any other device that has been used for Daylighting: From the windows constructed in the
first residences, to the slots of medieval churches, to the spatial articulation of the apertures in
domes of Baroque architecture, up to la fenêtre en longeur, a true emblem of modern architectural
theory from Le Corbusier onwards.
The choice of materials, dimensions and positioning are only some of the technological issues
to be analysed for the construction of windows, transparent façades, glazed atria, that is, all the
apertures in a building’s shell to allow the light to illuminate, heat and circumscribe the space
within (Fig. 18).
In the following description the intention is to give room to those systems that are predomi-
nantly of a passive type, without mechanised or electrical elements for natural light.
Figure 18: Daylight techniques: Sidelighting, Toplighting and Corelighting.
1.1 Sidelighting
With the term sidelighting, does it mean a vast system of architectural solutions that include side
windows only on one or more fronts, as exclusive means to provide natural lighting.
The techniques of sidelighting envisage the use of vertical windows to allow natural light to
enter; unlike other techniques such as toplighting and corelighting, sidelighting is co-responsible
for numerous problems related to the excessive heating of the areas near the apertures and
irritating dazzling phenomena in the vicinity of these.
Solutions of sidelighting most easily suit buildings that are oriented east–west or towards the
south, since they can ensure direct solar gain and provide constant illumination all day (Fig. 19).
In order to illuminate a room from one side only, the mechanisms to be taken into account are
the correct design of the aperture, an adequate size and the positioning, with respect to the
morphology of the interior space and the façade.
The actual distance natural light can cover from the time it enters an interior – in the case of glazed
apertures on only one side of the room – is rather limited and closely dependent on the width of
the window itself, the depth of the room, and the presence of obstacles inside and outside.
In the case of buildings with a ratio of about 1:2 between the surface of the floor and the usable
height of the ceiling, the solution with sidelighting from the front only ensures a potential level
of illumination sufficient for most visual tasks; instead, in the case of different and more com-
plex spatial configurations the sidelighting solution on only one front is greatly lacking.
In cases where the height-width ratio of the room exceeds the ratio 1:2 by about 25%, the differ-
ence in brightness between the zone immediately facing the window and the central part of the
room will be considerable.
Due to the fact that the human eye is able to adapt very quickly to changes in brightness, thus
accommodating the contrasts in illumination present in the room, the perception of darkness
and irritating dazzling phenomena must be attributed to a general lack of brightness along the
length of the room.
To compensate for a possible absence of uniformity in illumination it is possible to use two dif-
ferent strategies, to be adapted according to the specific visual and luminous requirements of
the room.
Daylighting, architectural strategies compared  45
Figure 19: Different types of sidelight solutions.
The depth of the interior should be as small as possible in relation to the size of the fenestrated
front, in order to ensure a good level of homogeneity.
Alternatively, in cases where this ratio is unfavourable, it is necessary to use other types of light-
ing, whether natural or artificial.
Horizontal windows provide the largest amount of illumination for an equal size, especially in
the absence of internal or external obstructions that threaten to restrict the penetration of solar
radiation.
The greater the height of the aperture, the more chance the sun’s rays will have to penetrate
deep into the room and be reflected off finishing materials and objects.
At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that a position that is too high with respect to
the floor may deleteriously affect the view of the outside, creating disagreeable effects of disori-
entation and discomfort.
The most suitable configuration to satisfy these needs is therefore the horizontal window that
develops along the whole length of the exterior of the room, in line with the 19th century tra-
dition that included this type of aperture especially for industrial buildings, to guarantee an
adequate level of lighting for the workers inside.
More evolved solutions in the case of sidelighting strategies on only one front are windows
with a clerestory, that is, high windows that provide light predominantly in depth, and avoid
problems of discomfort glare, being positioned higher up than the eye of the occupant.
A successive development of the window for sidelighting is the full-length window, a tech-
nological and formal solution that has marked the development of numerous architectural
trends, together with the appropriate technical solutions to overcome problems such as ex-
cessive illumination or overheating in warm weather, resulting in the development of new
shading systems, films and glass to control incoming solar radiation. In the case of a solution
with a double-fenestrated front, the complexities increase and particular attention needs to be
paid to balancing the luminous variables arising from multiple sources [43]. It is desirable that
windows, regardless of their shape, are arranged along the highest part of the wall, since the
distance covered by incoming sunlight is equal to one and a half times the height of the window
itself.
It is preferable to provide continuous clerestory windows for deeper solar penetration of the
room, in order to ensure greater uniformity in illuminance levels. This solution allows separate
control over the operations of aperture up and darkening of the room in relation to the visual
tasks to be performed there.
Where possible, windows should be distributed on several fronts; windows should be posi-
tioned near interior walls to reduce the contrast in brightness between the windows and the
walls themselves; other preferred solutions are ones that filter direct natural light before passing
through the window. Lastly it is recommended to include moving shading devices, in particular
on the south front.
1.2 Toplighting
One of the most common methods to regulate natural light in interiors consists of solutions of
toplighting, that is, through skylights or roof monitors that can be opened or are fixed to the roof,
which represent only a narrow range of the systems available to achieve illumination from the
top down.
The main advantage of this technique of Daylighting is the possibility of having a uniform light
that comes from the brightest part of the sky, the zenith, without incurring any reflections or
encountering obstacles; this ensures a much more extensive availability of light, regardless of
the type of glass used.
It can be affirmed that toplighting is the strategy of natural light that most resembles the per-
formance offered by artificial light, due to the fact that it ensures direct illumination, neither
filtered nor reflected, from top to bottom (Fig. 20).
For this reason, many of the principles relating to lighting techniques are also used for the
design and arrangement of individual toplighting systems.
On the other hand, the management of incoming zenithal light through toplighting devices can
cause problems of glare and overheating in the area just below the aperture, where there are
no control or shading systems. In addition, the use of zenithal light systems is highly advanta-
geous only for the floors immediately beneath the roof, while it is totally ineffective in the case
of multi-storey buildings.
A further restriction in the case of similar solutions is the absence of a view of the outside, with
negative effects on the perception of the alternation of day and night, accompanied by effects of
discomfort for the occupant.
When designing toplighting systems, particular care should be dedicated to the sizing and po-
sitioning of the apertures, in addition to the selection of individual devices and technical solu-
tions as regards finishing materials and their degree of reflection, to avoid irritating dazzling
phenomena.
Figure 20: Interior of the Nasher Sculpture Centre, Dallas, with toplight solution.
Figure 21: Skylights.
Many systems are used for toplighting solutions, classified in relation to the luminous perfor-
mance they offer, and the uses they can be put to.
Skylights or domes are realised through horizontal or slightly inclined glazed apertures in the
roof. Skylights offer the chance to see a wide swathe of the sky from a location that is free of
obstacles and transfers within almost all of the incident light (Fig. 21).
Where it is necessary to control a quota of incoming solar radiation, it is possible to treat the
surface of the skylight with translucent or reflective material, to encourage internal diffusion.
The sizing and positioning of skylights is closely dependent on the climate, the geographic loca-
tion and even more on the prevalent sky conditions, in addition to the type of building being
worked on.
So-called sawtooth skylights, or sawtooth roofs, consist of a succession of slanting zenithal

apertures, all oriented in the same direction (Fig. 22).
Figure 22: Saw tooth skylights.
Figure 23: Clerestory window scheme.
This strategy allows natural light to penetrate into the environment according to a homoge-
neous, evenly distributed flow, obtaining a type of wall-washer lighting, thanks to the system of
spontaneous reflections between the inclined surfaces the light is shed on, to then be directed
onto the opposite wall below.
Therefore a decisive choice remains, namely, the correct orientation and degree of inclina-
tion to angle the surfaces of skylights arranged in series: Pointing them southwards will
provide a greater quota of daylight in the interior space, but at the same time will require
shading systems for the hours of maximum solar insolation. On the other hand, in the case
of apertures towards the north, the flow of light channelled to the interiors will be more
constant and uniform, but provide illumination levels lower than the annual average of
south-facing apertures. For this reason, it is desirable to provide an interior with both tech-
nical solutions.
The use of these devices for toplighting is normally reserved for large environments, in which
is sought a homogeneous diffuse illumination, and in which the presence of large free spaces
between the floors reduces the luminance contrast which, inevitably, is created in the vicinity of
the zenithal apertures.
Roof monitors or zenithal skylights, are systems that can be produced with vertical, horizontal
or inclined sections with respect to the surface of the ceiling they are resting on. These are hy-
brid systems between skylights and high windows (clerestory), made to assimilate the benefits
and advantages of each of their respective systems (Fig. 23).
These devices allow homogeneous, controlled illumination in the central part of the room,
instead of a perimeter lighting obtainable only with clerestory windows. Clerestory or high
windows can currently be used to realise both toplighting and sidelighting systems.
In cases where the positioning of the window happen approximately one-third of the way up
the height of the wall, we talk of high windows.
The benefit of this type of window is the large quota of daylight, which is able to spread in
depth through the room.
Clerestory windows do not allow a view of the outside, being located higher than the eye of
the occupant: this feature limits its use to large public spaces where natural light is not the only
source of light, but does make it possible to maintain eye and perceptive contact with the exter-
nal environment.
1.3 Corelighting
The term corelighting refers to the most complex of the Daylighting techniques, which makes use
of both architectural systems and optical devices to naturally illuminate interior spaces.
Despite the development of specific technologies for corelighting having undergone a process
of considerable evolution over the past decades, especially for the optical systems of collec-
tion and distribution of the light, the origin of the first devices has to be traced back to Ancient
Egyptian culture, when the primitive attempts to provide tunnels and rooms with direct light
opened the road to research into the optical properties of lenses and mirrors to channel the sun’s
rays. As is the case for sidelighting and toplighting systems, corelighting too includes the use
of active and passive systems, in order to transport the light inside complex and articulated
spaces, also to the floors under the roof, down to the edifice’s lowest floor.
Corelighting techniques essentially include the use of light duct systems, to illuminate the cen-
tral core of the building, in the absence of other systems or apertures that allow contact with
the outside.
It is usual to distinguish between optical ducts, atria and internal courtyards.
The light court or open court is the simplest system to implement the corelighting strategy, since
this is a simple space open towards the celestial vault, for use in both private and public build-
ings. It can assume various shapes in relation to the interior lighting needs (Fig. 24).
Figure 24: Light Court scheme.
Figure 25: Light well scheme.
Properly designing a glazed atrium or light well can, in itself, constitute an important expedient
for the control and management of natural light in the case of central plan buildings. The main
difference between an open atrium and a light court consists in the possibilities inherent in the
latter to ensure levels of illumination for spaces adjacent to the glazed court (Fig. 25).
The atrium or light well, is a technique of basic lighting that is used in modern buildings with
several storeys. The core of the building is open to the outside through an element that is glazed
or transparent at the top, while the building’s shell must feature numerous apertures that pro-
vide light to perimeter rooms, through techniques of sidelighting.
A basic rule of intuitive design consists in relating the height of the atrium to the breadth of the
building: This means that the two dimensions should be as similar as possible, to ensure the
penetration of light even in the innermost part. The ratio between the height and width of a
glazed atrium must therefore be no greater than 2:1.
Figure 26: Litrium scheme.
However, in the case that this ratio cannot be guaranteed, it is advisable to use reflectors and
interior diffusers suspended in the central space below the glass roof to facilitate dissemination
in several directions.
A considerably efficient solution in achieving adequate levels of interior lighting can be achieved
with translucent and highly reflective interior fittings that accentuate the interior lighting.
The glazed atrium therefore has considerable advantages: It ensures homogeneous interior
lighting with a profoundly natural effect in areas that would otherwise require artificial light.
In addition, the constant visual and perceptual contact with the external world ensures a good
level of visual and psychological comfort for the occupants.
The litrium, from the English light and atrium consists of a foyer, whose shape tapers towards
the bottom, that is, in which the open surface decreases towards the lower floor, in order to
maximise solar penetration from the top of the light well (Fig. 26).
In these glazed atria with their particular shape closed at the bottom, the sunlight, coming di-
rectly from the sky, is usually directed towards the walls rather than the ceiling of the confined
rooms overlooking the atrium.
The question of greater weight in selecting the most appropriate Daylighting strategy depends
essentially on the most appropriate size for the spaces around the corelighting device.
The choice of the geometry of an atrium is regulated by some parametric formulae, such as SAR
- Section Aspect Ratio - PAR - Plan Aspect Ratio - and WIR - Well Index Ratio [44,45].
On the basis of these devices employed to maximise the amount of natural light in a glazed
atrium in relation to its geometric shape, numerous studies have attempted to define a unique
method to develop a relationship between the methods of forecasting the availability of Day-
lighting and the design tools related to them [46].
In addition to the formal and architectural solutions, the solution strategies for corelighting also
concern active systems made using optical devices, through which the light is captured and col-
lected by heliostats, that is, mirrors and independent optics regulated by photosensitive cells,
which enable the system to follow the daily track of the sun and to concentrate the light beam
in confined environments by passing through closed ducts.
To transport solar radiation it is possible to take advantage of the multiple reflections of incident
sunbeams, collected by Fresnel lenses through a pickup head and then routed long distance into
the ducts coated with reflective materials and lenses that avoid dispersing – in terms of both
quantity and efficiency – the sunlight picked up at the top.
Finally, the emission system concludes with the introduction of the light into the room through
circular or other shaped apertures of variable diameter.
In deciding the size of the system, in addition to the selection of the most suitable length of the
inner duct, it is useful to assess the integration of shading systems for the pickup head outside,
to shelter it from excessive summer insolation and overheating, just as it is equally advisable to
provide devices that encourage absorption in the event of predominantly overcast conditions
or for the winter months.
2 A dichotomic question: solar penetration versus solar screens

Rational and conscious design to facilitate the application of architectural and energy strategies
for daylight essentially concern the initial stages of an architectural project: assessment of the
most effective solutions to introduce technological systems for the control of solar penetration.
Strategies to provide a suitable amount of natural light within an architectural space are imple-
mented, first, by means of a design oriented towards maximum exploitation of solar radiation,
by resorting to shading systems or other architectural elements to integrate the roof.
Technical considerations and assessments on the nature of the site are therefore vital prelimi-
nary steps in order to ensure, in the first instance, optimal exploitation of the sun’s rays and,
secondly, the technological choices best suited to safeguarding the building from excessive
overheating in the summer.
To consider all the factors that contribute individually to the access of light and its diffusion
from apertures, skylights or glazed atria, is virtually possible at the design stage, however,
at the construction stage, managing such discordant and random factors often constitutes an
obstacle.
The visual comfort challenge in a confined environment is therefore characterised by attempts

to integrate into the design aspects that are apparently secondary – from the preliminary to the
executive step – in order to ensure a comprehensive approach to the questions of indoor com-
fort and energy saving.
The factors to be taken into account in a design process can include: the configuration and
arrangement of the apertures, the percentage ratio between the surface area of the floor and
Figure 27: Scheme of daylighting penetration via toplighting devices.
the fenestrated surface, the shading conditions, the orientation of the apertures in relation to
whatever visual task will take place, the presence or absence of fixed or mobile partitions, the
presence of manually or mechanically operated shading devices (Fig. 27).
The integration of aspects that are so different from one another and the involvement of disci-
plines belonging to different areas make it very difficult to manage solar radiation, both in the
case where it is wished to encourage solar penetration, and when a system of screens instead
proves indispensable.
The dichotomous question of management between the two opposing polarities is always a
pivotal theme of architecture.
This concerns equally Mediterranean and Nordic architecture; despite the availability of sunlight
being highly variable and greatly dependent on geographic latitude, questions relating to sys-
tems to manage and control sunlight can be found in all episodes of the history of architecture.
‘Winter triclinia and bathrooms look to the winter west, due to the fact that it is necessary to
use the evening light there, moreover, as also the waning sun emanates light from the front,
increasing the heat it makes this orientation warmer in the evening. Bedrooms and libraries
must look to the east, because the morning use requires lighting, and also the books do not rot
in libraries’ [47].
The choice of the orientation and, even before that, an assessment and analysis of the site are
essential to ensure a good supply of sunlight and visual comfort for the functions that are to be
carried out inside the built environment.
These concepts date back to the most ancient architectural experiences but, like other knowl-
edge of good design practice, have often been ignored over the centuries, disrupted by purely
stylistic and expressive demands. At the same time, the concepts of good design practice are dif-
ficult to apply in a unique way, however specific solutions can be applied to different situations,
as Palladio wrote in his treatise, highlighting the impossibility of setting absolute standards.
‘In doing the windows, you should be aware that the more or less light you capture, shall be no
rarer, nor denser than, that the need seeks. So the result is that a large room needs more light,
so that is bright and well-lit, than a small one: and if we make the windows smaller and rarer
than what is suitable, this will make the places dark: and also if they are excessive in size’ [48].
Awareness of the problems relating to over-illumination acquired great significance in the lit-
erature and treatises above all as a result of the invention of the incandescent bulb.
Until the industrial revolution, and with the spread of oil lamps and electrical appliances, the
term ‘shading’ was often assimilated – if not often used as a synonym – with the term ‘shielding’.
The technical solutions used were mainly oriented to darkening the rooms during the night-
time hours, or to offer shelter from the weather, while devices and systems for shading in the
summertime consisted of simple curtains or porticoes.
Otherwise, the countries at low latitudes still show today valid examples of bioclimatic design
to protect from excessive solar radiation and to ensure a constant exchange of air, thus avoiding
excessive heat loads.
In the case of works of architecture at low latitudes, light assumes instead a different weight,
accentuated also by the need to exploit up to extreme consequences, the constructive and
epiphanic power of sunlight, in conjunction with the needs of shelter and protection from the
sun’s rays.
The most emblematic examples that make the binomial light-shade explicit in compositional
forms and laws, that is, the dichotomy between penetration and solar shading, can be sought
in those works of liminal, tropical or Nordic architecture, where the excessive or deficient avail-
ability of natural light makes it difficult to arrange for technological devices that maximise the
opportunities offered by daylight.
Therefore, any daylighting strategy, regardless of the latitude and geographic context, cannot
overlook a careful assessment of the distribution of luminance, the component of the sky, the
surrounding buildings and the quota of radiation reflected from the ground and from the ma-
terials used for the interior space.
2.1 Apertures and interior finish to facilitate solar penetration

Analyses of the site and the microclimatic conditions are instruments of preliminary analysis;
however, these are not sufficient to ensure an environment that is properly illuminated and for
this reason, they cannot be separated from an assessment of the internal finishing materials.
Just as there is an assessment of the obstructions outside the building, also particular architec-
tural choices that concern the internal layouts can help increase or decrease the availability of
sunlight.
Therefore, the objectives that must be pursued to illuminate, satisfy the visual task and produce
a feeling of comfort for the occupant, to provide a pleasant environment and optimise the con-
sumption of electric energy, are closely interdependent on the architectural choices taken, and
the management of daylighting control systems.
Visual, architectural-spatial and thermal-energy performances linked to Daylighting for an en-

closed space depend essentially on the light availability that invests the building envelope and
that determines the possibility of exploiting natural light inside it; on the physical and geomet-
ric characteristics of the building envelope, such as the presence of projections, loggias, balco-
nies and other obstructions, as well as the arrangement of the windows, and other apertures;
and on the physical and geometric characteristics of the internal space, in addition to the optical
properties of finishing materials and objects present in the interior space.
The windows, seen not as mere apertures but as real technological elements of the building
envelope, play an increasingly crucial role in defining the architectural form, and, more impor-
tantly, control over the light.
Technological innovations have above all focused on the windows and the structures of the
frame, as determinant elements for optimising penetration and at the same time modulating
the entry of light radiation.
The specific choice of the frame and of the related type of glass (opaline, Low-E, triple coated
glass etc.) is not only an aesthetic and purely architectural issue but a technological choice that
has a direct influence on the amount of incoming light.
The subsystem of windows, doors, shading and shading elements contributes to creating the
organism as a whole through which it is possible to control, and get the maximum benefits
from, the exploitation of sunlight.
Visual contact with the outside world must also be ensured by the global nature of the subsys-
tem and the individual elements that constitute it.
Together with these choices, a crucial contribution to the question of the distribution of illumi-
nation is identifiable in the choice of materials for interior finishings, which can be reflective,
diffusing or absorbent, in order to ensure maximum visual performance, and avoid irritating
and harmful glare.
Although the impact of this type of choice falls primarily within the range of interior design, the
contribution made by each finishing material must not be overlooked as regards the proportion
of sunlight reflected or absorbed.
A preference for materials traditionally used for interior finishing can often be detrimental if
not carefully weighed up in relation to other choices for the definition of the illuminated area,
of course.
Suffice to think of an instance where a significant amount of solar radiation enters a room dur-
ing the summer through large, full-height glass façades, and spreads diffusely through a room
featuring light-coloured plaster or reflective surfaces, creating irritating reverberations and ir-
ritating glare.
Similarly, opting for a floor treatment using materials such as enamel paints or gloss resins can
cause irritating effects in especially bright rooms, for which it would be more appropriate to
choose satin varnishes or porous coatings.
Causing a rigorous interaction between the architectural choices relating to finishes and those
relating to the shell would therefore help control the ratios of luminance between the surfaces
directly and ensure greater emphasis on the chromatic yield of each object.
2.2 The role of shading in architectural design

The issue of integration between the building envelope, sunshades and darkening systems,
already finds its first examples in vernacular forms of architecture.
It is complex to historically date the first examples in which specific devices were developed
with the purpose of deliberately shading solar radiation; the first forms of control over natural
light were born with the purpose of adjusting the light inside a built environment; however,
with the passage of time and the occurrence of precise requirements by occupants, the need
arose for integrated systems, modular and movable in relation to the sun, which did not com-
pletely darken the environments they were arranged in.
Screens, porticoes, awnings and simple projections made their first appearance in the earliest
examples of architecture, especially in those contexts where the sunlight was for most of the
year excessive or unpleasant.
Techniques of bioclimatic architecture and passive systems have always included the use of
simple technologies to integrate with the shell, allowing control and mitigation of daily solar
penetration within a building throughout the seasons. These were simple expedients, derived
and developed from common experience, then refined and improved, leading to today’s tech-
nology of active systems.
The first elements that functioned as sun screens (think of the porticoes and triclinia of Roman
times) arose from direct experience and the need to screen the summer sun and favour the
penetration of sunlight during the winter. These were fully integrated into the building and
allowed the occupant to exploit solar input in different ways, in accord with the seasons and
thermal requirements.
The very shape of the building and the architectural design were created simultaneously, ac-
cording to a passive design, to increase the potential of solar penetration and ventilation.
Not only European architecture, but also the vernacular building tradition of the Americas
experimented with numerous revivals of Greek and Roman architecture, replicating double
height porticoes for public and civic buildings.
Variations on protruding and shading elements were adapted in relation to the climatic condi-
tions of the different places: Where a hot, humid climate required a larger amount of natural
ventilation, there was a preference for shallow porticoes and shielding systems to be applied
directly to the windows, such as reticles and perforated screens.
In traditional Italian architecture there are many examples of simple shading devices, which
were made at the same time of the building, often as integral elements of the architecture itself,
and ending up as stylistic connotations.
Systems made by resorting to modular elements in brick, such as the mandolato of terracotta
tiles typical of the Tuscan countryside or the apertures with shutters, envisaged that the bricks
would be placed obliquely in ribs, so as to allow the entrance of both sunlight and air.
Similar systems were adopted over the centuries in rural areas: these were different types of
screens, used as a filter to sift and modulate natural light, but that at the same time connoting
an element of the outer shell.
In works of architecture in hot and humid countries, preference was given instead to archaic
shading systems, inside cloisters, first as protection elements and then applied to individual
apertures as screens of perforated stone, as in the case of Moorish and Muslim architecture.
Arab-style screens carried out the dual function of promoting cooling, ventilation and evapora-
tion, while allowing the right amount of sunlight to illuminate the interior space.
Among the first examples of bioclimatic design that reveal a particular attention to orienta-
tion and screens are to be found in the settlements of the indigenous peoples of Mesa Verde,
Colorado (Fig. 28).
In the 13th century, natives realised their homes by exploiting the beneficial presence of the sun,
while at the same time ensuring constant protect from excessive solar radiation by building
their homes in the cutting of a rock peak on a canyon facing south, a sheltered position during
the summer and exposed during the winter.
The thermal inertia of the rock behind, as well as the arrangement of the peak on the gully,
ensured a constant supply of heat and natural ventilation.
Figure 28: Mesa Verde settlement, Colorado.

Figure 29: Wind Tower, Old Dubai.
A different bioclimatic strategy for sunscreens was adopted by the people of the Caribbean,
who made the porticoes and large overhangs in inlaid wood of the farmhouses a hallmark of
their homes.
Some of the buildings of Middle-Eastern culture, such as Iranian or Pakistani constructions, still
use today examples of devices for protection from the sun and excessive sunlight, such as the
wind towers, the so-called baud geers, examples of vertical chimneys, divided into several sec-
tions, where the air and light can enter and meet in the various rooms of the building (Fig. 29).
At intermediate latitudes, shading and shielding devices are only required in certain periods of
the year, but traditional architecture has always used simple steps in order to exploit the solar
contribution, as in the case of dovecotes and roof terraces.
The architecture of the great masters of the 20th century reflects knowledge of local tradition
and appropriated it, inserting sun screens and protection devices into buildings, as real ele-
ments of design, hallmarks of the architectural project.
Projecting roofs and aperture systems that follow the path of the sun became hallmarks of Frank
Lloyd Wright’s Prairie House, protecting the occupants from hot and humid weather and ensur-
ing solar penetration into the rooms.
In particular, Wright’s ability to manage the quotas of radiation and incoming shade are reflect-
ed in the projecting and covering roofs that he designed for the Robie House in Chicago, where
the projection of the roof is elaborated in such a way as to protect from excessive heat without
denying the right degree of brightness for the rooms below.
The ability to act in perfect harmony with the surrounding natural scenery marked all of
Wright’s work, along with his particular sensitivity to the theme of natural light. Indeed, organic
Figure 30: Chandigarh High Court interior, Le Corbusier (credit Aleksandr Zykov).
architecture aspired to a more complete integration between shading and shielding elements
with the shape of the building.
The founding values of organic architecture blended with local tradition and the technological
possibilities of the time, to obtain admirable compositional effects: ‘Stage by stage, we are creat-
ing the contemporary architectural revolution. And here we are in front of the stunning story of
the window. I have allowed myself the de-Vignolizing of architecture with this prosaic statement:
architecture consists of illuminated floors’ [49].
In light of this deeply rooted awareness, Le Corbusier himself used several times in his con-
structions sunshade elements to protect the interiors, ending up connoting these as emblems of
the architecture itself, as in the case of High Court of Chandigarh (Fig. 30). Buildings for the new
city followed a mostly horizontal pattern, and Le Corbusier succeeded in transforming a simple
element of protection from the sun typical of the place, into a recognisable symbol of the proj-
ect: a projection in the shape of the crescent moon pointing up, translated from tradition local
construction, gave impetus to the design of elaborate brise-soleil.
In the monumental realisation of Chandigarh, the grazing light is therefore a pivotal element
which, exalted or damped, thanks also to the presence of large basins of water placed at the
foot of the High Court, is made dynamic and changeable by the articulated perforated screens,
arranged along the sunnier sides of the building.
This project of Le Corbusier, outside of the better-known places where in those years he was
experimenting with new solutions for shells, emblematically embodies the possibility of an ef-
fective integration between the architecture of the shell, and the definition of the interior space
through natural light and local construction traditions.
Daylighting as a strategy for visual comfort, environmental and energy-saving measures, was
therefore subject to mutations that have helped make it, over the years, an aspect of primary
importance.
The building envelope can now also act as an adaptive skin that performs multiple functions
through different functional levels: Its performance varies in relation to external stimuli, includ-
ing climate, heat and light, to adapt to the needs of the occupants.
The end user is now able to make precise changes to specific elements of the building envelope
separately or jointly, in response to particular needs.
The role of the designer assumes more and more weight, in the context of actively combining
architectural and technological instances, to the satisfaction of the end user, who lives in and
continuously changes the constructed space.
The integrated design approach is the one best suited to different techniques of solar shading
and other devices designed to facilitate Daylighting.
The culture gap that today permeates architectural works in terms of solar shading appears
almost paradoxical, considering how many simple expedients could be derived from vernacu-
lar architecture and how many have been used over the centuries to prevent too much daylight
from entering the buildings.
The spread of extremely sectorial technical skills has often made the basic knowledge of bio-
architecture, in use for millennia, quite unnecessary as simple design tools.
3 Internal and external shading systems

Shading systems can be divided into different categories depending on use – internal or exter-
nal, the type of shielding provided and the operation – mechanical, manual or mixed.
The choice of one system with respect to another must be determined in relation to the needs of
the shell, its architectural features and in accordance with requests of the user.
The functionality and performance offered by individual systems are variable and in continu-
ous evolution, because they respond to more and more specific needs related to the overall
performance of the envelope and the activities that will be carried out inside.
They can perform the functions of
• shading from sunlight;
• protecting the interiors from dazzling phenomena;
• avoiding overheating;
• encouraging solar penetration up to the maximum depth of the environment, by directing

natural light right to the end.
At the same time, an essential feature to ensure a sense of comfort inside is the possibility of-
fered by some shading systems, both internal and external, of enjoying the view of the outside.
Even if it is not an essential function, numerous joint studies have demonstrated that the view
of the outside increases concentration and makes unfavourable microclimatic conditions more
acceptable. Therefore, guaranteeing constant contact with the outside from the visual point of
view allows keeping attention high, stimulating sight and providing constant production of
melanin to adjust the natural sleeping-waking cycles.
In this sense, shading systems can be subdivided in relation to the contact they create with the
outside:
• Systems that ensure a view of the outside without obstacles and optical distortions.
• Systems that provide a partial view of the outside, for example, apertures at the top of the
window.
• Systems that guarantee an occasional view of the outside, but that can be operated at the
discretion of the occupant.
• Systems that offer full shielding, hiding the view of the outside completely.
Therefore, as regards shading systems and their operation, it is possible to distinguish two fur-
ther sub-families:
• Systems that allow management of levels of variable shielding in relation to the needs of the
user and climatic conditions.
• Systems which, in addition to the shading function, can pick up the light and direct it into the
desired regions (e.g., regions that are under-lit), to create indirect lighting, by exploiting the
contribution of a reflective ceiling or other interior surfaces.
Shading systems therefore perform two functions seemingly separate: shielding and providing
a proper amount of natural light in specific areas, in addition to secondary functions of heating
and reduction of glare.
As regards strictly luminous systems, it is therefore possible to distinguish between [50]
• systems that favour the presence and distribution of diffused light;
• systems that facilitate the presence of direct light;
• systems that distribute natural light in a random manner;
• systems that transport natural light.
If we wish to set up the peculiarities of each system, the following table summarises the key
features of currently available shading systems, in relation to the type of aperture to which they
may be applied, as shown in the following table, where the symbol D stays for depends, V stands
for yes and X stands for no (Table 1).
Table 1: Review of the main shading systems.
Shielding systems – Toplighting
System performance
Manual/automatic
Glare protection
Deflected light
Homogeneous
Energy saving
External view
distribution
operation
System Position
Prismatic panels Vertical windows and skylights D X D D D D
Prismatic panels Vertical windows V V X V V V
Louvre and blade systems Skylights D X X V X X
Assessment of daylight performance in buildings

Anidolic zenithal systems and anidolic ceilings Skylights and glass roofing V V X V V X
Lightshelf Vertical windows and skylights D V X D V V
Systems and windows for directing sunlight Vertical windows and skylights D V X V V V
Direct lighting systems

Guided diffusion systems Transparent windows V V D D D X
Louvres and Venetian blinds Vertical windows V D V V V V
Lightshelf Vertical windows D V – V V D
Glazing and holographic optical element (HOE) systems Vertical windows D D D D D X
Skylights with laser-cut panels Vertical windows D – D V V D
Lightshelf Vertical windows and skylights D D D D D V
Venetian blinds with anidolic systems Vertical windows V D D V D D
(Continued)

62
System performance
Manual/automatic
Glare protection
Deflected light
Homogeneous
Energy saving
External view
distribution
operation
System Position
Lightshelf Vertical windows D V D D D X
Integrated anidolic systems Vertical windows X V V V V X
Daylighting, architectural strategies compared

Anidolic ceilings Transparent façades – V V V V X
Fish system Vertical windows V D V V V X
Glazing and HOE systems Transparent façades in glazed courtyards – V V V V X
Systems for indirect light

Laser-cut panels Vertical windows and skylights X V V V V X
Prismatic panels Vertical windows and skylights D D D V D D
Glazing and HOE systems for skylights Skylights D V V D V X

63
3.1 Lightshelf
Among the most efficient systems to ensure visual and energy performance is the lightshelf.
This term refers to those shading devices consisting of a horizontal shelf positioned inside or
outside an aperture (Fig. 31).
The oldest examples of lightshelf can be traced back to some constructions in Ancient Egypt,
when these simple shading devices were used to create shade and shelter from excessive radia-
tion reflected or directly from the sky.
Therefore, these are systems that can adapt to any size and shape of aperture to which they can
be fitted: It is usually preferable to install this device on the outside of a room.
The height at which the shelf is positioned depends on the interior demands and possible addi-
tions of the device to the building’s shell. The lightshelf usually divides the area of the window
into two parts, of which the lower one is situated at a height that ensures a view of the outside
while the upper part becomes a clerestory.
In addition, there are several systems of lightshelf that can be integrated within optical systems
to redirect the light in depth, in order to create indirect but homogenous lighting for the furthest
corners of a room.
The inclusion of an internal lightshelf thus allows reduction in the percentage of Daylight Fac-
tor, as a result of the decrease in the effective fenestrated area for the purposes of geometric
computation, while the integration in the building’s shell of an external lightshelf permits miti-
gation of the amount of incoming light and ensures the ability to transmit a greater share of
solar radiation towards the furthest corners of an interior.
Integration of these devices results in substantial alterations in the design of a façade and,
more generally, on the compositional aspect of the building: which is why the application of
Figure 31: External and internal lightshelf in case of summer and winter sun.
Figure 32: External lightshelves in Dubai.
lightshelves in the case of a building already in use can produce significant alterations in the
building envelope.
The realisation of a lighshelf must arise from careful assessment of the needs of the interior space
and the final user, to adapt the most appropriate solution to the orientation of the window, the
configuration of the room and the geographic latitude, and to determine the most appropriate
depth for its projection and inclination. Recourse to this type of device has proved particularly
effective where the apertures in the shell are mainly arranged north-south, while they prove
less effective along an east–west axis, referring to exposure in the northern hemisphere (Fig. 32).
The use of these solar shelves is recommended for rooms that mainly develop in depth with
respect to a fenestrated front and are oriented southwards; in these cases, the shading solution
proves very effective in the area around the window, by reducing the amount of direct radiation
and heat, ensuring greater light distribution in the furthest part of the room.
Better performance can be obtained in the case of lightshelves that are movable and can be ori-
entated mechanically or manually, and which offer the possibility of changing the angle of the
slat in response to external light conditions. This type of device can also be made with a system
that can adapt to climatic changes and solar tilt, while it may also have a surface treatment that
enhances the optical properties.
Normally the solar shelf has two different surfaces, either in glass or in another non-transparent
material: The lower surface provides protection from glare and excessive exposure to the sun
by projecting a shadow, while the upper surface is coated with diffusing materials to capture
direct solar radiation, sending it towards the roof area and also acting as a reflective element.
One particularly interesting characteristic relating to the use of the lightshelf is the possibility
of integrating it into existing buildings. In order to add the new device efficiently to an exist-
ing façade or within an environment already in use, particular attention needs to be paid to the
positioning and the angulation of the slat, whether fixed or mobile. An angle that is too slight
Figure 33: Residential application of external lightshelves, Darmstadt.
may in fact prove disadvantageous since it will limit both solar penetration and direct radia-
tion, as well as reducing the extent of the view outside. For these reasons, the width and height
of a lightshelf need to be studied in relation to geographic latitude and the prevailing climatic
conditions. At high latitudes, where the solar height is lower compared to the horizon and in
the case of a building oriented to the prevailing east–west axis, a considerable amount of direct
solar radiation will always manage to penetrate through the gap left between the lightshelf and
the ceiling.
Furthermore, the slat may be inclined downwards to minimise the radiation reflected towards
the ceiling, just as an inclination upwards will increase solar penetration in the lower part of a
room, to the detriment of the shading effect.
In general then, it is possible to say that having shading systems like the lightshelf is the best
compromise to ensure a gradual and adjustable level of shading, which at the same time facili-
tates indirect and homogeneous lighting in the depths of a room. Where these devices are to be
used in intermediate latitudes, numerous simulations and tests have shown that the maximum
shading effectiveness is achieved with the installation of external systems, equipped with re-
flective surfaces in combination with internal surfaces with high reflectivity (Fig. 33).
Instead, where internal lightshelves are used, the shading effect is too high for most of the
year, thereby tending to decrease the average illumination in areas furthest from fenestrated
fronts. The surface treatment of the shelf is very significant not so much in its shading capac-
ity, as in the reflectiveness of the element, in particular as regards the amount of reflected light
and its degree of homogeneity. An optical treatment, in order to ensure maximum reflectance
from the upper surface of a lightshelf is therefore particularly effective in countries with low
latitude or that are particularly sunny: Treatments that offer semi-specular or high reflectance
Table 2: Features of lightshelf system.

Advantages Disadvantages
Traditional lightshelves
Reduce thermal loads in summer Can potentially cause glare during the winter
Maximise solar gains in winter Performance reduced in the case of sun low on
the horizon
Avoid irritating dazzling phenomena Reduced performance in the case of overcast skies
Evenly distribute illumination Reduced performance along the east–west axis
Ensure a view of the outside Reduced performance in case of use in a room with
a depth of more than 3.5 meters
Affect the composition of façades Problems of maintenance and cleaning in the case
of external application
Direct natural light in depth
Optically treated lightshelves

Shielding from direct light in any Very expensive from an economic point of view
condition of the sky, both in summer
and winter
Increase levels of illumination up to Implementation and technological research
10 meters from a fenestrated façade very expensive
Effective for depths of more than Problems of maintenance and cleaning in the
2.5 meters case of external application
Sun tracking lightshelves

Shielding from direct light in any Very expensive from an economic point of view
condition of the sky, both in summer
and winter
Increase uniformity of illumination These systems are still being developed to
optimise their technological performance
surfaces can be obtained using optical films to be applied to the lighshelf, to preserve the
brightness of the interior space with a maximum extension of 10 meters from the fenestrated
front.
It is possible to obtain similar performance even in cases of non-horizontal surfaces, but with
curved or segmented surfaces that reflect the sunlight thanks to simple arrangements of a pas-
sive type.
A common peculiarity of a lightshelf with optical treatment is, instead, to offer constant adapt-
ability to external conditions by blocking direct solar radiation, thus increasing illumination
and minimising thermal loads in confined spaces where they are applied.
Finally, the new technologies are now concentrating on the development of the so-called sun-
tracking light shelf system, an automated system that adapts to the path of the sun, offering vari-
able inclinations in relation to the movement of the light. Following is a table that summarises
the peculiarities of the use of the three main families of lightshelf [51] (Table 2).
3.2 Louvre
Louvres, slats for ventilation and solar penetration, comparable to awnings, are the most popu-
lar solar shading devices for protection against overheating and to redirect the sunlight within
a constructed interior.
Louvres and other types of adjustable slats make use of horizontal, vertical and inclined ele-
ments, with shapes and surfaces optically treated.
It is possible to realise sun-louvers in galvanised or anodised steel, or aluminium, which meet

both architectural and compositional needs, as in many cases of public and private buildings.
The arrangement of internal slats is more difficult to manage: It is preferable to use less invasive
systems, consisting mainly of slats in PVC or aluminium, in which the individual elements are
curved or straight.
As for the angle of inclination of the individual slats, the shading system offers the possibility
to obtain total shielding or partial protection from the sun’s rays, with a limited view of the
outside (Fig. 34).
Slats and awnings are, to date, among the systems with the greatest possibilities and wide-
spread use, particularly if applied to existing surfaces and buildings with extensive transparent
surfaces; their effectiveness proves high, managing to reduce up to 70% of the incident solar
radiation on a surface in summer, while during the winter period, manual and automatic man-
agement of the slats makes it possible to increase the quota of direct and indirect radiation that
penetrates a confined space.
The maximum efficacy of these systems is mainly linked to the shading capacity, since they are
able to eliminate solar radiation before it reaches the glass, thus preventing a greenhouse effect
in the vicinity of the transparent surface. The correct positioning of these shading systems en-
sures the highest performance in applications outside the building’s shell, while the diffusing
Figure 34: Louvre system in case of summer and winter sun.

Figure 35: Horizontal adjustable louvres, Darwin.
performance is weak due to the limited surface of each single slat and the closeness between
individual elements.
The sizing of the type of slat and the free angle of inclination for each element, as well as the pat-
tern of the elements, are data to be assessed and to choose from in relation to the shading needs,
the prevailing climate, as well as the latitude of the site, to optimise the passive behaviour of the
building in both summer and in winter, thereby reducing the thermal loads (Fig. 35).
External horizontal slats offer the maximum shading effectiveness if installed on the southern
front of the building envelope, shading or attenuating the amount of direct radiation during the
middle of the day, but allowing light to enter the interiors during the winter season. Slats and
slats fitted vertically are to be preferred in the absence of pre-existing shading elements, in the
case of surrounding buildings or trees.
These vertical systems, fixed or movable, of the brise soleil type, make it possible to modify the
aperture angle to control the amount of radiation entering the interior space (Fig. 36). The maxi-
mum effectiveness can only be guaranteed by horizontal systems that not only offer protection
from dazzling light and overheating but can also be used throughout the year to obtain variable
shielding of the interior spaces.
A similar distinction must be made between internal and external systems: Maximum solar
efficacy is guaranteed by external systems, the only ones that can ensure full protection from
overheating.
Among the most innovative adjustable slat systems, Fish systems are created with horizontal
slats featuring a triangular cross-section and with a micro-perforated concave surface, which is
aligned by means of two connecting elements belonging to the slat itself (Fig. 37).
Figure 36: Vertical louvres, Dubai.
Figure 37: Diagrams of Fish, Okasolar and Okasolar 2 system operation, in summer sun
and winter sun.
The upper concave surface of the slat is able to capture different angles of incident radiation and
then direct the light within.
Direct glare is instead mitigated during the day and throughout the year.
This shading system can only be used for vertical windows to prevent glare and to diffuse the
light: for this reason it is usually associated with other systems, wherever additional shielding
and protection from overheating are called for, especially at low latitudes and in warm climates
[52] (Table 3).
Also Okasolar, among the fixed systems, consist in a series of planks made of highly reflective
materials arranged with a small pitch within two glazed surfaces.
Table 3: Features of louvre systems.

Louvres with fixed and mobile blades
Maximum effectiveness as shielding Do not offer the possibility of intervening
in the angle of inclination
Maximum protection against overheating Do not scatter solar radiation in the
environment in winter
Ability to direct natural light in depth in the Reduced performance in the case of
environment concerned overcast skies
Offer flexibility and adaptability to the external Effective system if applied in a room
conditions with a depth not less than 3.5 meters
from a fenestrated façade
View of the outside Problems of maintenance and cleaning
in the case of external application
Maximum effectiveness as shielding Do not offer the possibility of intervening
in the angle of inclination
Translucent strips
Shielding from direct light in any condition Very expensive from an economic point
of the sky, both in summer and winter of view
Transmit a small fraction of solar radiation even Costly systems from the point of view
when closed thanks to the translucent materials of technological research
If backlit, constitute a source of direct lighting Difficult to adapt to existing buildings
Ensure high levels of illumination, both in the case Complex maintenance
of clear and overcast skies, especially when the
sun’s rays approaching the normal of the glazed
surface
Light directing louvers

Usually used in the window interspace Very expensive from an economic point
of view
Maximise the amount of radiation reflected within Expensive from the point of view of
towards the ceiling technological research
Offer significant levels of energy efficiency with When angled offer no view of the outside
respect to the consumption of electricity
They reflect the light towards the surface of the roof in the winter and offer good shading level
during the summer.
The design and installation of Okasolar must be suitably programmed to adapt to the solar path
at different latitudes, on the basis of the prevailing climatic conditions.
3.3 Prismatic panels

Prismatic panels are mainly employed in temperate climates to direct and reflect incident light
onto the façade and transparent portions of a shell. These systems are intended to be used
mainly for solar control in summer (Fig. 38).
The two faces of the panels each have a different coating: the exterior is made with triangular
prisms that help divert a quota of incident solar radiation, while the inner face of the panel is
smooth.
Linear prismatic panels offer luminous performance by virtue of the presence of a series of tiny
prisms, the faces of which offer a reflective surface, and therefore shading, for a wide range of
inclinations.
This type of panel is usually inserted between two glazed surfaces, which protect the prisms
and reduce the need for maintenance. Prismatic panels may be fixed or mobile, according to the
shading requirements of the shell on which they are installed. In a fixed conformation, which is
the most widespread, these systems need to be integrated with other shading structures.
The flexibility in the use of these panels lies in the different behaviour in relation to the seasons,
and during the summer most of the incident radiation is reflected and diverted, thus deflecting the
sun’s rays from the shell and avoiding glare and overheating; during the winter, the rays with a
lower slope manage to pass through the prisms past the panel, spreading into the interior (Table 4).
Figure 38: Prismatic panels.

Table 4: Features of prismatic panels.

Prismatic panels
Reduce thermal loads in summer Possible presence of irritating dazzling phenomena
if prisms are oriented in a manner that does not
conform to the solar path
Maximise solar gain in winter High costs for installation and to be made to
measure for each latitude
Protection from irritating glare Reduced availability of natural light in standard
overcast conditions
Uniform distribution of illumination Require additional shielding components
Ability to provide tailored angling of
the prisms
Reduced maintenance when cleaning
the panel in which they are inserted
Direct natural light in depth in the room
and reduction in artificial sources
In the winter, the efficacy of the panels is therefore due to the greater share of solar radiation
transmitted, which increases the levels of illumination and reduces costs for artificial light.
Therefore, to obtain the maximum effectiveness, the panel should be able to function at a wide
range of angles: for example, an angle of 15° with respect to the horizontal enables reflection of
the light, so that a substantial proportion of radiation exceeds the barrier of the device, prevent-
ing glare.
Determining the angles of inclination of the triangular face that form the prisms must be based
on the path of the sun in the locality where the panels will be used. Consider also that, in the
presence of a standard overcast sky, the prismatic panels work to reduce by up to 20–30% the
illumination of the interior, just as brightness in the upper part of the fenestrated or transparent
surface is greatly reduced (Fig. 39).
In the presence of clear skies the reflecting and diffusing action of the prisms ensures a remark-
able homogeneity of illumination in the areas surrounding the panel, protecting also from an
increase in the average Em levels in the depths of the room, in proportion to the reflectivity of
the ceiling.
During the solstice and the vernal equinox, at our latitudes, solar radiation with a low angle on
the horizon is able to filter through the panels and to illuminate the room, even in depth, while
circumventing glare in the vicinity of the transparent surface.
3.4 Laser cut panels

Laser cut panels perform the task of re-directing incident light; they are also counted among the
shading systems, by virtue of their inherent ability to manage particular incident angles of light,
Figure 39: Translucent prismatic panels canopy, Yankee stadium, New York.
within whose range the optical properties of the panels allow reflection of the full quota of light,
thus protecting interiors from glare and overheating.
These are thin panels cut by laser to create prismatic surfaces of infinitesimal size in a transpar-
ent acrylic material, PMMA – Polymethyl methacrylate, capable of directing natural light.
When incident light is inclined at an angle of about 30°, all the rays are reflected towards the
outside, while with inclinations equal to or less than 20° from the horizontal, light is directed
towards the surfaces of the ceiling and diffused towards the bottom of the interior space, far
from the apertures.
Thanks to this configuration, laser cut panels possess a variable dynamic behaviour that guar-
antees maximum protection from incident rays during the summer, and a greater level of illu-
mination than plain transparent glass during the winter (Fig. 40).
The path the light follows within the prismatic surfaces cut by the laser is composed of multiple
refractions, to ensure maximum effectiveness of diffusion and shading.
Usually, laser cut panels are engraved with an inclination perpendicular to the surface of the
panel, but it is also possible to realise other angles to respond to special illumination needs us-
ing Daylighting.
This particular system is used between glazed panels, to create a fixed system that cannot be
modified once installed. Customised angling of the panel guarantees maximum efficiency for
the device. On the other hand, the physical conformation of the panel prevents perfect vision of
Figure 40: Laser cut panels, system of operation.
Figure 41: Façade cladded with laser cut panels, London.
the outside: the view is often compromised or distorted by the optical properties of the panel.
For this reason, it is preferable to use it for the upper part of the windows, or in the case of
transparent glass, at a height greater than that of the eye. Since the incident solar ray is naturally
inclined downwards by the cutting of the panel, the external view is often compromised.
The main uses of these devices is as reflector systems that can be used either vertically or hori-
zontally: In both cases, the peculiarity that makes them so effective is the ability to consistently
reduce glare in the vicinity of the transparent surface, by virtue of the fact that the diverted
ray is directed upwards, while the radiation not diverted continues its journey downwards,
together with the incident light (Fig. 41).
The quota of light dispersed is considerably reduced by the absence of curved surfaces, elimi-
nated in the production stage by the laser. It should be understood that the most appropriate
positioning is therefore in the upper part of windows (Table 5).
Table 5: Features of laser cut panels.

Laser-cut panels
Reduce thermal loads in summer Possible irritating dazzling phenomena if panel
is placed at height of the eye of the beholder
Maximise solar gain in winter Need additional protection against direct sunlight
Protection from irritating glare Distorted view of the outside
High availability of natural light as High costs for installation and customisation for
the sole source of lighting each latitude
Direct natural light in depth in a
room, with deviation of 120°
3.5 Light guiding shades

This Daylighting system works primarily as a tool for the diffusion of light in interiors and, only
secondarily, as a tool for shading. The light guiding shade consists of an outer screen that conveys
light and directs it according to a pre-determined angle towards the ceiling.
The system is constructed in such a way as to cover a range of angles that extend from horizon-
tal up to a maximum of 60°, with a minimum inclination of 0° in order to avoid any risk of glare.
The device has the appearance of an external slat – a lightshelf, but features a screen fixed
towards direct radiation, with the difference that the slat is coated with more sophisticated
materials to ensure a wide range of tilt angles, so that the deflected light is directed towards the
reflective surface of the ceiling.
The finishing material of the light guiding shade is highly reflective to ensure maximum optical
efficiency.
Particularly advanced light guiding shade solutions are usually positioned at a height equal to
one-third of the light from the aperture, while a further slat consists of an aperture of diffusing
glass and two reflectors, designed to drive the light into a channel that is created towards the
inside of the room.
The complexity of the device and the inherent cost of the materials used, make light guiding
shades rather expensive, but very effective, even though they may suffer from some problems
of rainwater infiltration, which collects within the slat and can percolate inside or onto the glass.
The main use of these devices for Daylighting is to diffuse the sunlight according to a pre-
determined angle, while at the same time offering shading from direct light; this peculiarity
makes them particularly suitable for tropical and sub-tropical climes, where the direct solar
radiation is excessively strong and simple shading systems threaten to plunge closed environ-
ments into total darkness.
For this reason it is recommended for these climates to have diffusion angles with an amplitude
that can ensure the correct amount of diffused light to carry out visual tasks, without having to
resort to the contribution of artificial light (Fig. 42).
Figure 42: Light guiding shades for residential use, Cape Town.
In these specific cases, the efficiency of light-guiding shades is also optimal to reduce thermal
loads from overheating, without precluding the presence of adequate levels of illumination
within rooms to which they are fitted.
Light-guiding shades can be used in any building that includes external shading systems,
because these act as a barrier to direct incident light, but provide a quota of reflected light
directed towards the ceiling that meets the needs for homogeneous and indirect illumination
(Fig. 43). It is considered that an excessively shaded window offers an average illuminance
equal to 50 lux, while if a light-guiding shade has been fitted, it is possible to reach 1000 lux at
a depth of about 5 meters from the fenestrated front in the case of clear skies, and up to 250 lux
in the presence of a standard overcast sky.
The direct light that strikes a light-guiding shade and enters and spreads through an interior,
can strike the slat according to such a broad spectrum of angles that it would be impossible to
check all the possible directions of reflection.
The diffusion treatment that the inner surface of the device can be created with ensures control
over the particular direction with which the light is diverted into the interior space, according
to a variable angle that depends on the illumination needs.
Therefore, particular attention needs to be given to the selection of the most effective aperture
angle for the device, as well as the choice of diffusing and reflecting optical materials used to
treat the surfaces of the slats and the surfaces of the ceilings and walls.
The high performance of these systems lies in the fact that they can ensure remarkable savings
in terms of energy (Table 6).
Figure 43: Light guiding shades with treated optical glass, Dubai.
Table 6: Features of light guiding shades.

Light guiding shades
Reduce thermal loads in summer High production costs
Protection from irritating glare Need additional protection against direct sunlight
Uniform distribution of illumination High costs for installation and customisation for
even in tropical climates each latitude
High availability of natural light as
sole source of lighting despite the
outer shield
Reduced maintenance
Direct natural light in depth into a room
Do not affect the external view
3.6 Sun-directing glass

Despite being an evolved glazing system, sun-directing glass deserves to be counted among the
daylighting devices. It is made by sealing together concave acrylic elements vertically arranged
on top of one another, to allow direct incident light to be directed and angled towards the ceil-
ing, in a pre-established direction.
To prevent the device totally excluding the view of the outside, sun-directing glass is normally
fitted at the top of a window, so as not to preclude the view or alter the colour, while the lower
portion of the window is made from double standard glass and possibly shaded using tradi-
tional systems.
Figure 44: SMUD HQ, Sacramento, one of the first examples of the use of sun-directing glass
in a public building (credit Dreyfuss & Balckford Architects).
It is usual to fit a sinusoidal structure to the inner surface of the glass in order to be able to dif-
fuse the light with a reduced horizontal angle, while the outer surface of the glass is treated with
film to capture incident light and concentrate it according to a precise angle.
The peculiarity of optical devices of this kind is the shape of the acrylic elements with which
the double pane is made: the concave elements are cut onto a holographic film by a laser beam,
similar to what happens for a sinusoidal surface.
Sun-directing glass offers considerable flexibility in application: it can be inserted above the
height of an unobstructed view, either inside or outside a window, on an existing window or
even onto transparent façades, where retrofit operations are necessary (Fig. 44).
They can also be effective for horizontal apertures in the case of toplighting, in the pres-
ence of skylights and glazed atria, as long as the system is tilted to a minimum angle of 20°
to encourage solar penetration, but avoid irritating glare and direct the solar rays deflected
downwards.
The best orientation for sun-directing glass is south, in temperate climates. In the case of use
with east–west orientation, the maximum effectiveness of the system is obtained in the early
hours of the morning and in the afternoon.
The ability to redirect the light protects against excessive illumination ensuring homogeneity
in the areas surrounding the fenestrated front, while the illumination at the bottom finds no
particular benefits, especially in the case of very long rooms (Table 7).
Table 7: Features of sun-direct glass.

Sun directing glass
Effective for all solar heights High production costs
Protection from irritating glare Need additional protection against direct
sunlight in the lower slotted part
Uniform distribution of illumination in depth Alter the view of the outside
Integrate with other shielding systems Give a milky or opaline appearance to façades
Can be used in cases of energy retrofit
Direct natural light in depth into a room, in
the presence of diffusing finishing materials
May be installed inside or outside
We must bear in mind that the operation of sun-directing glass is guaranteed both in the case
of vertical and horizontal inclination, in relation to the type of curvature used for the concave
acrylic elements interposed in the glass.
The variable behaviour of this glass, by virtue of its own composition, together with the optical
properties of the holographic film affixed to it, alters the transparency, modifying the perception
of colours and giving the façade a milky, opaline appearance that must be carefully evaluated in
the overall design for the building’s shell.
3.7 Glazing and shading systems that employ HOE materials

Systems employing holographic materials in the form of films applied to windows allow inci-
dent light to be distributed in depth in the interiors, especially in the case of zenithal illumina-
tion. The film coating is made from a polymeric material, which, through the reticules of which
it is made, reflects the light according to precise directions. The HOEs direct incoming diffused
light allowing the achievement of high thresholds of illumination.
The limitation of this type of window is the restricted field of use: In fact it is effective only in
the case of diffused light, since, once it has been struck by direct solar radiation, it creates glare
and uncontrolled disturbances in the light.
A further limitation is the slight deformation produced, making this type of glass unsuitable for
use on large transparent surfaces, where the view of the outside should be unhindered; in fact,
it is preferable to employ it in the upper part of larger apertures.
On the other hand, in the case of zenithal light this type of glass offers a good response when
the inclination is around 45° (Fig. 45).
The use of systems and windows that employ HOE film is advisable in situations where the
view of the sky is strongly precluded, whether because of the presence of obstructions, for
example, in strongly urbanised contexts, or in cases where the sky is predominantly overcast
throughout the year. In the latter case, composite systems or simple light-guiding glass can
direct natural light into the interior space using an inclination of about 45° with respect to the
Figure 45: HOE glass and light guiding shades, Administrative Building of UCSD, San Diego.
plane of the façade, thereby increasing light levels. The addition of reflective materials, for
both walls and ceilings, is essential to complete the diffraction effect of the film applied to the
windows.
Installation of HOE glazing is very sensitive therefore as regards the angle of incidence of the
sunlight due to the conformation of the holographic film, which requires an optimal angle of
solar height around 5°. Some experimental tests, for example, some HOE glass installed on the
fifth floor of the Hartley Library at Southampton University, mainly concentrated on quantifying
the performance of HOE in ideal conditions. The assessments focused on investigating differ-
ing performance in relation to specific positions of the sun with respect to the inclination of the
HOE glass.
In addition to a simple application for the production of glazing panels, HOE film can be used
for the construction of complex systems, such as in the case of transparent sun breakers made
from selective holographic glass.
The advantage consists in the interoperability with other systems and with vast transparent
surfaces, both for façades and roofing elements, in addition to notable ease of maintenance.
In this way, in addition to ensuring penetration of natural light into the depths of a room, it
prevents overheating and irritating glare near the fenestrated front.
Unlike the installation of simple HOE glass, systems of louvres or lightshelves which make use
of holographic films, need to be integrated with an automatic, mechanical system that modifies
the inclination of the slats, following the direction and the path of the sun, to optimise perfor-
mance and ensure a proper angle, both in the case of vertical and horizontal mounting (Table 8).
Table 8: Features of HOE windows and systems.

Glazing and shielding systems that employ HOE
Savings in terms of reduction in artificial lighting Solar gains cancelled during the winter
Protection from irritating glare Complex maintenance
Integrate with other manual and mechanical Alteration of colours
shielding systems
Can be used in cases of energy retrofit
Re-direct natural light in depth into a room, in the
presence of diffusing finishing materials
Can be placed inside or outside
Savings in terms of reduction in artificial lighting
The movement that an integrated mechanical system provides, therefore, allows inclination
along a single axis, an angle that is selected based on the average height of the sun for the site
in question.
A further sub-category of products that employ holographic film is sunlight-concentrating system.
In this case, the effectiveness of a single device is maximised: from a simple shading system, it
becomes a daylighting device that makes it possible to take full advantage of diffused light and
the same time to produce energy, thanks to the presence of photovoltaic elements.
3.8 Zenithal anidolic systems and anidolic ceilings

Zenithal anidolic systems, better known as anidolic ceilings or Anidolic Daylighting Systems
(ADS) capture the diffused light from a large portion of the celestial vault and transmit it with-
in a building, at the same time screening out direct radiation for visual and thermal comfort
inside [53] (Fig. 46).
This system makes it possible to reach a homogeneous and constant level of illuminance for
most of the daytime hours, both in the case of clear and standard overcast skies [54].
The optical facilities of these zenithal systems make use of parabolic concentrators that collect
the diffused daylight coming from the sky and then direct it towards a specular light duct above
the ceiling, which transmits the light captured to the end of the room.
These systems, created for non-residential applications, make it possible to build systems that
focus and intensify the incident radiation and then direct it into optical channels and concentra-
tors that operate differently from traditional mirrors, since the final product is not an image but
a concentrated ray.
The element that makes the system particularly efficient is a compound parabolic concentrator,
which governs a wide range of reflectors for natural light, to be used for horizontal roof struc-
tures, that is, anidolic ceilings.
Figure 46: Scheme of an anidolic ceiling system.
The spread of these complex systems has found fertile ground especially in metropolitan areas,
where solutions of sidelighting are far from efficient, due to the proximity of the buildings and
the large number of obstructions along the paths of light.
A convenient solution for strategies of Daylighting, therefore, consists of anidolic systems,

applicable to cases where windows alone are not sufficient to ensure adequate levels of illu-
mination.
The zenithal anidolic system consists essentially of three subsystems: an external manifold, a
solar tunnel and a diffusing element for the interior space. The concentrator is positioned on the
roof, to receive the diffused light from the celestial vault, where it captures diffused sunlight,
regardless of the sky conditions.
Each element of the subsystem performs a specific function: The manifold has the task of col-
lecting the flow of sunlight, which is then transported through the optical duct into individual
rooms, where it is distributed. The luminous performance resulting from the use of these ze-
nithal systems is greater the more light the manifold manages to gather.
The illumination at the back of the room is lower, as are the overall lighting levels, due to the
lowering of the height of the ceiling.
Recent assessments and tests on mock-up rooms, performed in the department coordinated by
professor Scartezzini, have shown that the maximum effectiveness of systems of this type are
for interiors with depths of more than 6 meters. Within this family of optical devices should be
mentioned anidolic solar screens, made from a succession of hollow reflective elements coupled
with two tiny three-dimensional parabolic concentrators (Fig. 47).
The maximum shading and diffusing effectiveness is obtained by using these optical bodies in
a lateral position, in order to control the amount of light that enters through the windows by
selecting only useful angles, hence they are also called anidolic solar blinds (Table 9).
Figure 47: LESO Solar Experimental Building, EPFL Campus, Lausanne

(credit Chantal Basurto).
Table 9: Features of anidolic devices.

Anidolic Daylighting systems and anidolic ceilings
Uniform distribution of illumination in depth Solar gains cancelled
Protection from glare Tough integration in case of retrofit
operations in existing buildings
Re-direct natural light in depth into a room, in the
presence of diffusing finishing materials
Maximum effectiveness regardless of the conditions
of the sky both overcast and clear
Possibility of integration with other systems of an
existing building, but only in the event that a
suspended ceiling is used across the full width
and depth
Also applicable in the case of obstructions and
limited portion of sky
Ensures unobstructed view of the outside
Savings in terms of reduction in artificial lighting
The slats of anidolic solar blinds are part of a fixed system applied to windows, or to be affixed
to the upper part of an aperture, so as not to obstruct the view of the outside, while providing
a variable amount of natural light inside the shaded environment. Systems of anidolic slats
control the radiation on entry and regulate the thermal quotas during the winter and summer,
especially in the case of façades looking south.
In both applications, the slats are enclosed within a glass interspace to avoid exposing them
to dust and inclement weather, thus guaranteeing enduring constant use and facilitating main-
tenance.
The most evident shading performance is obtained in hot countries that are mainly sunny, due
to the inherent nature of the slats, which once positioned, cannot be adjusted.
To increase solar gain in sunny climates, it is possible to angle the slats with respect to the verti-
cal up to an angle of approximately 18°, along an axis that will also lead to an increase in levels
of illumination.
4 The role of Daylighting in environmental and energy certification pro-

cedures
In accordance with recent policies aimed at fostering sustainable development, to reduce the
emission of pollutants, and consciously exploit natural resources, Daylighting can act as a cru-
cial element to maximise the input of sunlight and exploit its beneficial contribution in terms of
energy consumption and indoor health.
There is now widespread awareness that the controlled use of sunlight, wherever possible, is
one of the most important strategies in terms of energy saving, not only because of the reduc-
tion in energy consumption due to a lower quota of artificial light, but also because of the
reduction in thermal loads related to conditioning. The potential related to the quota of electric-
ity and thermal energy savings must lay the foundations for an informed integrated approach
between different professional skills, suitable to carry out a project in which Daylighting is
included from the early stages of the project.
Although the preconditions to the question depend on the definition of multidisciplinary ap-
proaches in order to promote energy savings, the fundamental question has rarely been inves-
tigated thoroughly, and in effect, few examples of valid integration of daylighting strategies are
to be found in energy-saving policies.
Instead, there is a rather diffuse idea that, ‘good sunlight’ is a method in itself sufficient to ad-
dress the issue of energy saving, without addressing the problem of weighing up and providing
adequate systems of solar penetration, shading and artificial lighting.
Potential savings in electricity were then obtained by analysis of the levels of the Daylight Fac-
tor [55] for the illumination of an interior [56], information that was then aggregated to manage
the first artificial light control models.
The first apparatus proposed envisaged manually turning on and off switches and appliances
for artificial light, based on levels of user satisfaction.
The inherent limits of this type of practice were understood very early on, which often, instead
of promoting energy saving and creating an environment that was comfortable from a lighting
and thermal point of view, created overheating and overloading of the whole electrical system.
Some primitive forms of automated control to dim artificial light on the basis of the needs of the
user were proposed for public buildings, together with theoretical formulations on the possible
behaviour patterns of occupants in relation to natural and artificial light.
The design of complex systems for the control and management of lighting equipment and
sensors to detect the occupation of working environments has considerably improved over the
course of the last thirty years, also thanks to POE – Post Occupancy Evaluation.
In addition to assessments concerning the real preferences of occupants, it is also important to

pay attention to the control of electrical and thermal power consumption in the cooling and
heating of buildings, in particular public buildings, schools and offices, where energy loads are
considerably higher.
These various considerations must therefore be merged in a policy that integrates skills, in
which natural and artificial light, mechanical devices or ones that are automated and manually
adjustable by users can be controlled to provide the maximum in energy and indoor environ-
ment performance.
The methodology proposed in recent years is therefore one of synergistically bringing together
new dynamic parameters according to the CBDM dynamic model, along with a specific thermal
modelling of the building, its various areas and its environments, making it desirable to have a
realistic and reliable simulation to provide genuine savings in terms of electricity [57].
The help offered by specific software for the dynamic climate simulation also makes it possible
to resolve precise solutions both in the design phase ex novo, and energy retrofits, by evaluating
also the overall environmental performance of a building.
In the context of environmental certifications of the Anglo-Saxon matrix, we can in fact find
numerous parameters for assessment and verification that suggest and encourage exploitation
of natural light.
Among the targets to be achieved to ensure achievement of the thresholds set and the subse-
quent attainment of relevant scores, is that of a design, as integrated as possible, at different
stages and applied to various building components. In this way, attention must be paid to the
selection of finishing materials, surface treatments and colours; crucial choices to vary light
distribution in a confined environment.
A further practice to ensure energy effectiveness and saving is based on a component-level ap-
proach, which includes an effective combination of active and passive approaches to control
the light, through the most state-of-the-art solutions of toplighting, sidelighting and corelighting.
Therefore, the concretisation of an excellent level of integration between elements of the build-
ing and the availability of natural light must occur at the earliest design stages, so that the build-
ing envelope and the other systems involved will collaborate smoothly.
4.1 Natural light in environmental assessment procedures: protocols and

certifications
Accreditation programs and systems for environmental certification of buildings are currently
burgeoning, including both mechanisms and scores of a voluntary nature, and the adoption of
certain legally binding requirements that are capable of influencing the inherent processes of
the design and management of buildings.
Environmental Certification includes Life Cycle Assessment, which takes a holistic approach to
the environmental sustainability of a building.
The purpose of this type of procedure is to assess the totality of energy consumed and the total-
ity of the environmental impacts, with a view to an improvement in overall performance of an
edifice.
Among the most widespread systems, and among the first to include categories that contribute
to the formation of a natural light score, is the US system called LEED, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design.
LEED is used today to certify almost all types of building on the basis of the prevailing func-
tions, from public buildings, schools, and offices, to buildings for cultural pursuits and research.
This system of accreditation is voluntary, and is therefore based on the acquisition of scores
relating to six categories, used to declare the achievement of a standard level, which also con-
siders daylight.
Among the categories of requirements the system is based upon is Indoor Environmental Qual-
ity, which assesses the presence and effectiveness of solutions for the exploitation of natural
light.
Specifically, this awards a credit upon reaching the minimum level of illumination of at least
2% of Daylight Factor over 75% of the area in question (according to a test in situ), on the other
hand, if a computer simulation is used, the achievement of at least 25 candles per square foot
must be achieved, with reference to 75% of the area of assessment; a further credit may be
scored in the presence of transparent fenestrated apertures, that ensure a vision of the outside
environment for 90% of the surface of calculation.
Daylighting Credit 8.1 quantitatively assesses the efficacy of adequate levels of illumination ca-
pable of ensuring optimal conditions of environmental and visual comfort indoors, while al-
ways preserving a view of the outside from each work or rest station.
Despite the U.S. origin of this accreditation system, where the debate on the validation of new
units of measurement and assessment systems for natural light is more lively and productive,
incredibly, the LEED system still includes recourse to the static DF parameter which, as will
be explained subsequently, provides no indication of the quality and variability over time and
space of natural light.
Assuming different methods of calculating the credit 8.1 as valid therefore means a risk of con-
siderable variations from one measurement to another, considering also the absence of a verifi-
cation protocol in the assessment methodology itself.
In addition to establishing the criteria through which to give scores, some possible strategies are
suggested to increase the amount of natural light in interiors, by promoting the use of systems
designed to maximise the efficiency of shading devices, encouraging integration with combined
natural ventilation systems, to bring the maximum possible benefit to indoor climates.
Similarly, practical guidance is also provided on the most appropriate choice of finishing mate-
rials and on the type of glazed panel to be used for windows.
Among the most important features derived from the approach provided by the LEED system
are some guidelines, which are proposed as support for a new Daylighting project, but that can
also be adapted to working with an existing system.
There is also an emphasis, in addition, on the vital urgency to integrate systems using natural
light, not only with the architectural envelope, but with the utility networks, in order to derive
the maximum possible gain through close collaboration between various subsystems.
For the first time in a voluntary certification scheme, attention is paid not only to the amount of
light but also to the quality of the visual environment.
Similar in approach to the LEED system, is the British BREEAM – Building Research Establish-
ment Environmental Assessment Method – which, for the most part, accepts as valid the require-
ments demanded by British building regulations, giving scores related to the achievement of a
pre-determined standard.
This is a system of certification of a voluntary type, based on the acquisition of credits that
defines the standards to be pursued for the achievement of high standards of sustainability for
the construction industry, from individual components, to a consideration of the system in its
entirety.
Specifically, a BREEAM credit is assigned if the availability of natural light is such that it covers
80% of the light requirements of the area under consideration, in relation to the requirements of
the prevalent visual task that takes place there; in addition, a DF of at least 2% must be detected
on the working plane, with a uniformity of at least 40% in the distribution of the illumination;
additional credits are also assigned if the view of the outside is preserved.
Additional suggestions for good practice are provided for Daylight Assessment in a residential
area, for which the assignable credits are three.
In response to the need to adapt the Italian and European regulatory landscape, the EU direc-
tive 2002/91/EC on energy efficiency in the building sector, in addition to a calculation of the
requirements of the building, includes the introduction of a section for assessment of electrical
consumption related to artificially lit environments.
In Italy, the Directive 2002/91/EC was transposed through several legislative acts: Legislative
Decree 19/08/2005 no.194 (then modified as Legislative Decree 29/12/2006 no.311), Legislative
Decree 30/05/2008 no.115 and with the corresponding Presidential Decree 02/04/2009 59, as
well as the Ministerial Decree 26/06/2009, which instead, established national guidelines for
the energy certification of buildings.
Again in Italy, the current status of regulations and ordinances for energy certification has been
further transferred to the initiative of individual regions, which, through their own mechanisms
and on the basis of the afore-listed directives, define methods and ranges of values with which
to carry out classification. Although currently these assessments only determine the energy
needs of a building’s shell, there will soon be further considerations to calculate primary energy
needs for air-conditioning and lighting.
Instead, the EN 15193 standard (2008) introduced the parameter LENI, Lighting Energy Numeric
Indicator, for the assessment of energy performance of buildings as regards lighting.
Criteria were established to calculate the amount of lighting installations in terms of energy
consumption, both in the case of existing buildings and new constructions.
The LENI indicator thus makes it possible to calculate energy consumption in accordance
with EN 15193, in the same manner as the calculation of consumption related to heating, air-
conditioning and sanitary hot water production. The LENI, in other words, is calculated as
the ratio between the energy consumption for lighting and surface of the environment, and
is therefore measured in kWh/m2 per year. It can be calculated from the annual amount of
electricity consumed Wlight:
Wlight
LENI =  kWh / m2 year  (1)
A 
LENI is therefore significantly influenced by the amount of natural light present that reduces
energy consumption, as well as the possibility of manually or automatically operating systems
to control the natural light, shading devices and by the combination of natural and artificial
light.
In addition to the quantitative-type indicator there is a further parameter, created for artificial
lighting, which is useful for qualitative assessment of visual comfort.
This is the ELI – Ergonomic Lighting Indicator – which makes it possible to evaluate the level of
quality of a lit environment, based on five parameters, whose aggregate provides a good basis
to prepare improved Daylighting strategies: scores are ranked by visual performance, overall
look, visual comfort, vitality, individuality and flexibility.
Finally, mention must be made of the contribution in terms of environmental assessment

provided by the ITACA protocol, applicable in a limited number of Italian regions and used to
assess the sustainability of buildings, according to the proposed methodology and approved by
the Decree 760/2009.
This protocol is a system to evaluate an analysis of the overall performance of a building accord-
ing to several criteria that can be assigned a score, from which comes an aggregate.
Among the criteria that make up the areas of assessment, can be found numerous parameters
relating to the quality of light in a confined environment: in the requirement of Table 4, under
the heading 4.1 – Visual Comfort – there is a comprehensive analysis of natural light, through
verification of compliance with the requirements 4.1.1: Natural Lighting, 4.1.2: Penetration of
direct sunlight and 4.1.3: Uniformity of illumination.
For each requirement, the ITACA protocol expects minimum indicators of performance, just as
each category of inquiry is supported by specific strategies of reference to be followed. In par-
ticular, Requirement 4.1.1 evaluates the exploitation of natural light for the purposes of energy-
saving and of visual comfort through the use of the parameter DFm, on the basis of which a
reference scale has been drawn up that combines at determined intervals of DFm percentages,
scores in a range from 2 to 5 points.
The main objective of the survey is therefore to examine the architectural choices, from the
preferred orientation of the façades of the building, to the layout of the interior space and the
selection of the type of apertures to be used.
5 Daylighting between the architectural design and the management of

light
The technological question, concerning both the choice of diffusing systems and shading devic-
es, parallel to the need to integrate in the design of the building shell – choices that will meet the
requirements of visual and thermal indoor comfort, shows the need to deal with the question of
managing Daylighting according to a complex and well-constructed practice.
A key role in strategies for light definition is also played by the finishing materials and the
choice of colours for these; fundamental in determining the distribution pattern of the sunlight,
assessed on the actual demands of the space.
Management of the optical properties of the materials is considered an issue of vital importance
at the time of design, at a technological level, both with respect to the optical properties of the
apparatus to diffuse the light, and of those involved in shading.
The technological solutions previously addressed are mainly suitable for large buildings, where
multiple and variable needs over the course of the day, and in relation to the type of user, must
be able to offer different and variable shading solutions for positioning with respect to the win-
dows, to be arranged at the outset of the assessment, or designed from scratch.
Natural light, filtered, screened and directed, becomes a central theme in the designing of a
space, since different multi-criteria assessments have helped us understand that the preference
for natural light is a factor of individual inclination, just as the predilection for different levels
of natural light depends on a multitude of factors.
The use of these devices allows, in the first place the designer, and secondly the user, to measure
their own preferences against their real needs in a flexible way. The most coherent approach is
therefore geared towards maximum adaptability, arranging for complex and integrated solu-
tions.
While the new architectural trends are intended to meet, where possible, the majority of the
needs of the occupant, thanks to the integration of automated control systems for the manage-
ment of domestic devices, the management of natural light simply follows natural and organic
paradigms which, if properly evaluated and used, can also contribute significantly to the cre-
ation of comfortable and energetically advantageous environments within the overall budget
of a dwelling or a public building.
Lighting design, seen in the context of the most effective combination of devices for artificial
light, devices for natural light and automatic and adaptable systems for the shell, can only be
entrusted to professional figures whose profile is capable of combining architectural, plant and
environmental instances.
By drawing on experiences of good practice from traditional and local construction traditions,
it is also possible to orient the management of natural light to permeate the constructed space
with an eye on energy savings and sustainable environmental management of the building.
Lighting design, the timely management of solar contributions together with the assessment of
spatial and energy aspects cannot only cover the optimisation of the shell, the apertures and the
devices to manage the light and shade but must deal with defining a global system of assess-
ment that can define the limits of the field of action, as well as matching the variable instances
to the exact needs of the occupants in relation to a particular visual task.
The question of Daylight Assessment demonstrates how different strategies need to combine
in a comprehensive and integrated approach that takes account of complex factors, from local
geographic, meteorological and variable aspects, to optical and perceptive needs linked to the
mood to be given to the environment, in addition to the requirements to define a space that is
concluded and accessible through the light that illuminates it.
Architecture in its broadest sense must therefore necessarily tackle the most contradictory chal-
lenge between two primitive and extreme requests: it must mediate between change and tradi-
tion, reconciling the request for innovative and technological solutions with the difficulties in
management and integration that these entail. But, primarily, daylight architecture must know
to deal with the unpredictable: to be flexible and adaptable to the constant variability of users’
requests, the technologies of the shell and solutions for the reduction of energy consumption.
In this sense, Daylight Assessment can also be described as a complex system of critical assess-
ment that makes the architectural space somewhere that is never concluded, but is changing,
dynamic and never standardised, in virtue of natural light.
Part 2:
THE CALCULATION OF NATURAL
LIGHT – FROM THE STATIC TO
THE DYNAMIC MODEL
Chapter 3
Daylight assessment: the evolution of static model
1 Introduction
Defining the performance and the expressive possibilities of natural light in architecture is the
task of a multi-criteria assessment, which is able to take into account the complex performance
related to the use of daylight, not only in an architectural context, but also linguistic and for-
mal. An analytical system based on an assessment of the static type, to assess the persistence of
prevailing conditions in levels of lighting, glare and visual comfort in a confined environment,
constitutes most widespread the approach today.
Daylight Assessment according to the static model, envisages that an optimal level of natural
light is possible to explain simply through the achievement of threshold levels established a
priori, in relation to the prevalent visual task expected to be carried out in a given environment.
An approach of this type appear excessively restrictive and inconsistent, since it does not take
into account the conditions of extreme volatility and dynamism of the sky conditions, variabil-
ity in the functions and tasks that an interior may house, in addition to not taking into account
a possible, and probably necessary, integration with appliances for artificial light.
The role of light, according to the static approach, remains confined to a simple element that
enriches the environment, by virtue of the possibilities of integration between light, shape and
colour in a space, creating new configurations, flexible and always renewable scenarios, capable
of conferring emotionality on a constructed space.
Static analysis at this point appears reductive and imprecise, incapable of representing actual
lighting conditions, distributions of the light, and the potential inherent in the appropriate use
of direct and indirect radiation for energy saving strategies.
While the focus towards the creation and management of illuminated spaces naturally evolves
in a constant manner, both to meet the needs of energy saving, and to deal with requests for
indoor comfort for occupants, the definition of new parameters for a fresh approach to the as-
sessment of natural light still seems stuck at the initial characterisations.
Assessment according to a quantitative approach of natural light in a confined environ-

ment is relatively recent: the first attempts at measurement of external ambient lighting in
fact date from 1895 [58].
The first to introduce the Daylight Factor concept was the English physicist Trotter who, at the
same time as the first attempts to systematically measure the illumination of the sky, tried to
define the geometric parameter, of which today we know the exact definition thanks to it being
elaborated by Hopkinson. To define the amount of natural illumination of a horizontal surface

within an environment, numerous studies came subsequently to different systems of analysis.
In 1955, Ketteler came up with a formula to calculate the luminous distribution of the sky, which
is essential for studies of the various models of the sky, which was then followed by the diagrams
of Waldram, elaborated by Peter and Michael Waldram to assess the components of the sky.
Proposed in the United Kingdom in the early 1900s and subsequently taken as a basic param-
eter for the definition of light analysis in closed environments, the Daylight Factor (DF), was set
up in the current version in 1963 [59]: ‘The Daylight Factor is defined as the ratio between the
daylight illumination at a point in the interior and the simultaneous exterior illumination avail-
able on a horizontal surface from an unobstructed hemisphere of overcast sky (excluding direct
sunlight) expressed as a percentage’.
Therefore, by DF is meant the ratio between the illumination inside detected on a horizontal
plane in CIE standard overcast conditions and the corresponding illumination outside.
The studies by Hopkinson took as valid two criteria to calculate Daylight Factor: If, on the one
hand, the DF is definable as a percentage of the relationship between internal illumination and
the simultaneous illumination level outside, measured in the absence of obstacles and with an
unhindered view of the sky, on the other, it is also possible to define it as the summation of three
individual contributions that take into account the Sky Component (SC), the External Reflected
Component (ERC) and the Internal Reflected Component (IRC).
At the present time, the greater part of luminous assessments on the performance of natural
light consider the DF as the only valid criterion, according to a methodology of a snapshot or
single-point-in-time type, ignoring in both cases the real influence of the sky conditions and the
temporal and climatic variations linked to the geographic location.
The DF, in fact, excludes, by definition, the contribution of the light coming directly from the
sun, considering only the diffused component, i.e. that reflected from the sky, according to the
standard approved by Commission Internationale de l’Eclaraige (CIE), in overcast conditions.
Some scholars have tried to deeply understand the diffusion path of sunlight in a confined
environment through study of the solar path, using a sun path diagram, thanks also to dynamic
analysis of shading systems, but systematically excluding the contribution of direct sunlight, in
favour of the single sky component.
Because of these limitations, calculation using the static approach always produces a relative
value, independent of the extensive range of possible weather conditions. It is therefore of great
importance to specify the real distinction that exists between direct light, coming straight from
the sun, and diffused light, coming from the whole sky, diffused and reflected by it.
In this connection, reference should be made to the preceding scheme, useful to understand the
range of applicability and its limitations related to the use of the DF as the sole criterion for the as-
sessment of the luminous performance with only natural light. This diagram shows the different
components of natural light and their respective contributions with respect to the static model.
Daylight assessment: the evolution of static model  97
Figure 48: Daylight components.
Natural light is therefore formed from two essential components, the proportion coming from
the sun and the quota from the sky (Fig. 48).
Since light can reach a point on the Earth’s surface directly or indirectly, direct lighting is de-
fined as the quota of solar radiation that reaches the surface from the source, without intercept-
ing any kind of obstacle; while if a light beam reaches the point of calculation as a result of
several reflections, we talk of indirect light.
Although it is correct to consider as sources of natural light both the sun and the sky, the light
coming directly from the sun must be considered in a distinct manner, due to its reduced angle
and its high illumination potential. Meanwhile, the proportion of light reflected several times
from the sky, cannot be considered properly indirect light, but rather diffused light.
The first studies on the nature of the sky and the wide variety of light conditions associated with
it, were performed by Kimbell in Chicago and Washington, in order to collect a vast amount of
data, to create an extensive overview of the real sky conditions over a sample period of three
years, from 1921 to 1923.
As a result, two prevailing models of the sky were defined – still in use today – the model of the
standard overcast sky, and the model of the clear sky [60].
As a result, scholars such as Pokrowski [61] implemented existing models, arriving in 1929 at
the definition of a new formula for calculating the luminous distribution of a cloudless sky, sim-
ilarly to that obtained by Moon and Spencer, with the calculation of an empirical formula for a
graphic representation of the standard overcast sky, to which was added finally the mathemati-
cal formula to represent the luminous distribution of the standard overcast sky by McDermott
and Gordon-Smith in 1951.
Only in 1955 was a definitive validation by the CIE made of the formula of Moon-Spencer to
calculate the luminous distribution of an overcast sky, thanks to which it was immediately clear
that this contribution was crucial for the assessment of natural light.
Despite the widespread use and the popularity gained by the DF parameter, especially in rela-
tion to recent trends aimed at enhancing passive technologies as much as possible, including
exploitation of sunlight as a prevalent source of lighting in indoor environments, it is evident
that some substantial limitations are obvious in the very definition of the Daylight Factor.
2 The Daylight Factor: methods and tools

The Daylight Factor (DF) is not a unit of measurement on the good quality of light in a confined
environment, but is a parameter to assess the satisfaction of a minimum threshold of natural light.
The DF stands as the most widespread unit of measure for estimating luminous performance,
just as any qualitative or quantitative consideration for the measurement of natural light cannot
do without the DF today.
Several methods are currently being validated to calculate the Daylight Factor. Illumination
achieved through sunlight can be expressed in absolute terms as the value of illumination ex-
pressed in lumens per square metre, or as a percentage of the natural lighting available in the
presence of a standard overcast sky.
Natural light that strikes an object or that affects a horizontal surface in a confined space is
not composed only of the quota of light coming from the portion of the sky visible through
the window or door frame, but also by the amount of light reflected from the ground and the
surrounding elements that reaches the point in question after a journey of multiple reflections.
The global value of the Daylight Factor can be defined by the sum of these different contri-
butions; however, the numerous methods for calculating DF can essentially be divided into
graphic, geometric and analytical.
2.1 Graphic methods

Among the graphic methods in use to estimate DF, the best known is the Waldram Diagram for
the assessment of the Sky Component, SC [62].
The use of this graph-type tool refers to a condition of the sky with uniform radiance, thus com-
pelling simplification in considering the actual conditions of the celestial vault. The Waldram
Diagram can be used to estimate the direct lighting from the sky for a single point.
This method is usually employed, often using specific software, for a preliminary estimate of the
availability of a sufficient quota of natural light in the design stage of a building, or in the case
of volumetric increase or increase of the volume of a nearby building, operations which could
influence the presence of light for a given room and in the case of complex fenestrated apertures.
The Waldram Diagram consists of a rectangular field that represents half of the celestial vault,
in which the vertical axes correspond to the altitude and the horizontal axes represent the
azimuthal angle between the wall and the sky (Fig. 49).
Figure 49: Waldram diagram and example of graphic calculation.
Figure 50: Pepper-pot diagram and Turner diagram.
The peculiarity of this graphic system lies in the fact that the vertical representation axis is dif-
ferent from the horizontal one, making it possible to compare measurements that are otherwise
too different: in this way, the areas that are formed on the graph represent quotas equivalent to
the radiance of the sky. The graph makes it possible to represent the space taken by a room and
the positioning of the relevant apertures, in such a way as to evaluate the portion of sky visible
through them, without any obstacles that may intercept the incoming light.
The ratio of the area enclosed in the projection of the portion of sky viewed from the point in
question and that of the entire diagram considered twice, gives the percentage value of the Sky
Component, SC.
This simplification is feasible in virtue of the fact that the chart is divided by a grid of squares
in multiples of fifty.
Another graphic system that can be used to assess the DF in a room is the Pleijel or pepper-pot dia-
gram, first presented in 1954, for standard overcast conditions, very similar to the graph of Turner,
in which clouds of points are used to represent distribution of the sky’s luminance [63] (Fig. 50).
2.2 Geometric methods

Among the geometric instruments, goniometers for the assessment of components of internal
and external reflection are characterised by their ease of use, apart from the complexity of the ap-
ertures to calculate the amount of light. The goniometer geometric method is used to estimate the
proportion of light reflected from the sky and interior finishing elements, in the presence of either
standard overcast or clear skies. Goniometers are laid directly on a plan view of the interior space.
The so-called ‘primary goniometer’ is a graphic scale on which to read the value of a component
directly, while on an auxiliary goniometer, corrective factors can be found in relation to the geo-
metric and physical characteristics of a window sash (Fig. 51).
The analytical formula that the goniometer geometric method assessment is based on makes
reference to the principle of solid angle projection.
These tools base their operation on the concept that the internal distribution model of illumina-
tion depends essentially on certain variables: the luminance of the source, the apparent angle
between the source, the floor whose luminance is being assessed and the relative position of the
source with respect to the point considered. The goniometers used are known as SAB protractors
and include five different types for horizontal and vertical windows to be used in the case of a
uniform sky, and five for the CIE overcast sky model [64] (Table 10).
Other goniometers are used for aperture with vertical and horizontal angles of inclination up
to 300° and in the case of an absence of glass. Depending on the prevailing condition of the sky
and the type of aperture, the most suitable protractor must be chosen to obtain the value of the
external reflective component.
Among the many models of goniometers available for Daylight Assessment, we must also con-
sider Bryan goniometers for clear sky conditions.
Figure 51: BRS Sky component goniometer for vertical glazing (CIE overcast sky) and BRS Sky
component goniometer for horizontal glazing (CIE overcast sky).
The 9 Bryan goniometers for clear skies were developed by Bryan and Carlsberg in 1982, by revis-
iting the best-known goniometers of the BRS system, but which, unlike the previous ones, are
used exclusively in the presence of clear sky conditions.
Table 10: Use of goniometers.

Series 1: Clear uniform Series 2: Overcast sky
skies CIE standard
Vertical openings 1 2
Horizontal openings 3 4
Openings with an inclination of 30° from the 5 6
horizontal
Openings with an inclination of 60° from the 7 8
horizontal
Openings without glazing 9 10
Figure 52: Nomograms for the calculation of the IRC component in case of sidelighting,
illumination from vertical windows and in case of toplighting.
They provide data on the individual components of reflection, to be read in relation to the angles
formed on the goniometer, less the IRC component that is instead derived from special tables.
The restrictions on the application of these goniometers exclude their use in the presence of
horizontal apertures and strongly inclined glazed panels.
A further method to calculate the percentage of DF is known as BRS Daylight Factor, using tools
such as nomograms.
The method of calculation is among the geometric methods, since it uses instruments similar
to rulers to calculate the reflective component inside a room, based on extensive measurements
performed to calibrate these tools themselves, rather than by resorting to empirical formulae.
The applicability of tools such as BRS nomograms is limited to cases of standard artificial sky, in
which the distribution of brightness is therefore controlled, as a faithful replica of the conditions of
the standard overcast sky in accord with the CIE model and in relation to certain specific situations.
Nomograms are deemed reliable where the light reflection coefficients of the finishing surfaces
of floors and ceilings are equal respectively to 15 and 70%, with a luminance of the ground
outside and the entirety of the obstructions near the window equal to approximately one-tenth
of the average of the sky, in the presence of continuous external obstructions or ones that are
horizontal with respect to the front of the room being assessed.
The first valid nomogram to calculate the average IRC reflected component is used in the case
of vertical windows and in the presence of sidelighting from one side only.
The nomogram to calculate the reflected internal IRC component to be used in the case of verti-
cal windows requires inclusion of the ratio between the glazed surface and the total area of the
outer shell, as well as the average coefficient of reflection of the room’s surfaces.
Instead, the last BRS nomogram is used to calculate the percentage of IRC in the presence of
toplighting devices, including both horizontal and inclined skylights.
Unlike the preceding nomograms, it is necessary in this case to evaluate some corrective factors
that take account of the inclination of the window and the angles that are formed with respect
to the horizontal due to the presence of external obstructions.
For this case, use is made of tabular values that list the correction factors as a function of the
angle of obstruction for vertical skylights and ones with glass inclined at 30° and 60° with re-
spect to the horizontal plane.
2.3 Analytical methods

For the calculation of natural lighting through analytical methods and mathematical formulae,
it is possible to single out two different methods: the DF Method and the Lumen Method, based
on an analysis of the coefficient of utilisation, mainly developed and used in the United States.
Analytical calculation of the DF consists in a comparative assessment of the compliance of the

DF percentage value calculated with respect to predefined thresholds, in relation to the visual
task carried out in the room in question.
Figure 53: Determining contributions of direct light, internal and external reflection quota.
In this regard, it is necessary to evaluate how the incident luminous flux on a surface within a
given environment depends on two components: the direct one, entering through the window,
and the indirect or reflected one from interior surfaces, which reaches the calculation point after
repeated reflections. The direct component can be considered as the summation of the sky compo-
nent – the amount of light coming directly from the sky, and the exterior reflectance component.
It is inferred that the Daylight Factor is composed of three factors (Fig. 53):
DF = SC + ERC + IRC (2)
in which are distinguished: the SC, Sky Component; the ERC, Exterior Reflectance Component; the
IRC, Interior Reflectance Component.
For the determination of the individual components that make up the DF value, it is possible to
resort to graphic, geometric or analytical methods.
In particular, to determine the Sky Component SC and the Exterior Reflectance Component ERC,
it is possible to opt for the reading of SC values on a Waldram Diagram, on goniometers, or on
Pilkington pepper pot diagrams, whereas for the ERC quota, reference can be made to tabular values.
To determine the IRC value, however, it is possible to use the relevant analytical formula, tabu-
lar values provided by the BRE or through a graphic interpolation on BRE nomograms.
By analysing the amount individually, it is possible to note how the Sky Component SC repre-
sents the greater input in relation to the reflected component, whether internal or external.
The quota of direct SC radiation depends on the area of sky visible from the point in question
and, in the case of assessing the CIE condition of the sky, also from the position of the area in the
subdivision of the celestial vault.
It is usual to proceed through a reading of the angle relative to the portion of sky visible from
the point considered, choosing an appropriate goniometer in relation to the type of aperture
and the geometry of the room.
Table 11: Assessment of the coefficient C in relation to the angle of obstruction.

Angle of obstruction 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80°
Coefficient C 39 35 31 25 20 14 10 7 5
Instead, to define the quota of ERC, the Exterior Reflectance Component, values from the BRE
Tables are used, in reference to external obstructions, the shape and the prevailing material;
otherwise a graphic quantification is used.
The reflectance component that requires the most analytical effort is that of the interior IRC,
whose value is obtained by the BRS formula, which in simplified form is:
0.85 × A
IRC = × ( C × dmb × 5 × dm ) (3)
S tot × (1 − rm )
in which: A represents only the surface of the glass of the apertures excluding the frames;
Stot represents the sum of the areas that delimit the interior space, including the area of the
apertures; rm represents the average coefficient of light reflection surfaces S, according to the
relevant table; δm represents the average coefficient of light reflection of the interior surfaces
situated in the lower part of the space in question; δmb represents the average coefficient of
light reflection of the inner surfaces situated at the top of the space in question; C represents
the coefficient to determine the degree of obstruction outside, which can be deduced from the
appropriate table (Table 11).
The determination of the IRC comes from the studies in 1954 of Hopkins, Longmore and Peth-
erbridge, which had the merit of introducing, among others, a further method of calculation
known as the split-flux method, which was realised through the processing of a specific relation-
ship to assess the IRC.
The basic concept was, as in the eqn (3), to split the amount of the ray of incoming light from
the aperture into two separate amounts, one above the horizontal axis of the window and one
below. The component involving the upper part is the one that comes from the sun and the sky
without external obstacles; while the second is represented by the quota of light reflected from
the ground without any obstacles. Determination of the percentage value of DF can be made
through an assessment of the following quotient, which represents the original definition pro-
vided by Hopkinson:
Ein
DF =
Eout
[% ] (4)
where Ein represents the average illuminance obtained only with the amount of natural
light at a considered point inside the room; Eout represents the simultaneous illuminance
value measured outside on a horizontal plane without obstructions or obstacles exposed
toward the sky, in the case of a standard overcast sky.
The average Daylight Factor, which is the usual reference, must also refer to the physical and
geometric characteristics of the room in question. For this reason, the following formula is used
to estimate the average DF value:
Aw × t × q
DFm = (5)
( 2
A tot × 1 − r m )
in which the contributions are: Aw which represents the area of the windows and the glass aper-
tures; t which represents the light transmission of the panes, θ which represents the angle of the
sky visible from the point in question; A tot which represents the total area of all the surfaces that
define the interior space, including the area of the windows and other transparent apertures;
e.g. skylights or high windows; r2m which indicates the weighted average of the reflection coef-
ficients of all the finishing materials that define the environment.
The formula, processed as a simplification compared to the one proposed by Littlefair in 1996,
is applicable to small rooms with a maximum depth of 6 metres, mostly quadrangular; on the
other hand, in the case of complex ground plans it is necessary to split the area into rectangular
portions on which to apply eqn (5).
Subsequent experiments underlined that the formula was actually attributable to a wider range
of environments and that at the same time, it was possible to improve the performance resulting
from the calculation by replacing the value of the total area with a simpler variable, i.e. the floor
area, considering the calculation plane conventionally positioned at a standard height of 85 cm
from the ground, assuming this measurement as the average height of windowsills.
With these premises the simplified formula was introduced, expressed by the relationship:
Aw × t × q
DFavg = 0.30 × (6)
A tot × (1 − rm )
From eqn (5) came the introduction of a further formula to calculate the DF:
Aw × t × e
DFm = (7)
A tot (1 − rm )
The value of the angle of the portion of the sky visible from the window is replaced by the co-
efficient ε, i.e. the window coefficient, obtainable from the appropriate table, while the weighted
average of the reflection coefficients of the interior surfaces is considered once only.
In 1998, Littlefair published his research on the measurements made in two identical rooms,
which showed a fenestrated front facing north and another facing south, analysing the results
of the cumulative values of the interior illumination.
The rooms he measured did not feature shading systems, and were not occupied by people.
The results of the tests showed that an illumination of about 200 lux could be reached in 58%
of the cases for the room facing north, and in 68% of the cases for the one with windows facing
south. The same was found for the threshold of illuminance of 400 lux, verifiable in 12% of the
measurements of the sample room facing north, and in 51% of those for the sample room facing
south.
This showed how the variability of the conditions related to the sky, the exposure and the qual-
ity of the shell considerably affected the DF percentage value, making the pre-set thresholds
difficult to reach and insignificant in terms of luminous comfort.
The surveys of Littelfair and numerous other direct assessments soon attested the ineffective-
ness of a static approach based on DF, i.e. based on the reaching of limits and thresholds of-
ten conflicting with the design criteria (e.g. thermal parameters and strategies relating to solar
gains), but inherent to the very nature of the parameter, unresponsive to the orientation and the
climatic conditions.
A further method to calculate DF, which uses an empirical formula, is the Lumen Method, elabo-
rated by Fruhling in 1928.
The decidedly innovative approach that the method employed was a system identical to that
used to calculate artificial light, but that was in this case used to determine the value of DF in
a room illuminated only with natural light. The formula developed by Fruhling introduced for
the first time the contribution of the Coefficient of Use CU, to quantify which the author defined
appropriate tabular values. In an initial formulation, the illumination was calculated as follows:
n × N × F × UF × LLF
E= (8)
A
where the terms represent: E is the average illuminance over the horizontal working plane; n is
the number of lamps in each luminaire; N is the number of luminaire; F is the lighting design
lumens per lamp; UF is the utilisation factor for the horizontal working plane; LLF is the light
loss factor; A in the area of the horizontal working plane.
The lumen method also has strong similarities with the zonal cavity method, used to assess elec-
tric light.
This suggests the system to predict interior illumination by natural light via skylights or win-
dows. The basic premise is that the environment is of a regular geometric shape and rectangu-
lar, featuring simple daylighting systems, but provided with shading devices [65].
The lumen method [66], also known as the total flux method, thus allows an evaluation of the dis-
tribution of light arriving from multiple sources and diversified entry points.
The lumen method, unlike its precedents, makes it possible to carry out more complex assess-
ment of illumination, that include the presence of sidelighting on several fronts, or in presence
of toplighting systems, with lightshelves. The method consists of certain fundamental steps:
Firstly, an assessment of the external illumination, measured in the vicinity of the windows
and skylights, and then a calculation of the level of reduction in the amount of natural light
through the apertures, in virtue of the transmission factor of glazing and other reductive ele-
ments, dependent on the optical properties of the finishing materials; the Coefficients of Use,
previously mentioned, therefore make it possible to count the average illumination on the work
surface. In this case it is necessary to distinguish between solutions of toplighting and sidelight-
ing, which employ different coefficients:
As
Ei = Ex > h × t × CU × (9)
Aw
in which: Ei represents the internal incident illumination on the work surface (in lux); Exh
represents the external illumination in lux calculated horizontally; τ represents the net factor of
light transmission of the glass, including loss of light transmission due to other elements pres-
ent in the room; CU represents the Coefficient of Use of the room, on the basis of the prevalent
visual task; As is the gross area of the aperture of the zenithal system in m2; Aw represents the
area of the work surface in m2.
In a similar way, in the presence of sidelighting solutions, standard values of reflection are as-
sumed for horizontal floor and ceiling surfaces: the distribution and levels of natural light in-
doors are evaluated in reference to five calculation points, arranged according to a regular grid
on a calculation plane perpendicular to the position of the windows.
In this case, a simplified formula applies that does not take into account either internal or exter-
nal shading solutions.
Ei = E X × V × τ × CU (10)
In this case Ei represents the horizontal illumination inside calculated for each of the five points
of reference, Exv represents the vertical external illumination measured near the fenestrated
front; τ represents the net transmission factor of the light transmission of the glass, including
loss of light transmission due to other elements present in the room; CU represents the Coef-
ficient of Use of the interior space, on the basis of the prevalent visual task.
The Daylight Coefficient (DC) parameter was instead introduced on the international scene
thanks to the studies of Tregenza and Water [67].
This method was born from the discovery, which took place from simultaneous measurements
of the levels of daylight in a room, that the relationship between the internal illumination Ein
and that outside Eout, underwent considerable changes if calculated in real sky conditions, due
to the meteorological changes in the sky.
The conventional method to calculate the DF gave, as a reference value, the percentage of il-
lumination relative to a given point, situated on a horizontal plane, on which the measurement
was made.
The concept on which DC is based, however, comes from the insightful idea of dividing the
celestial vault into a discrete number of smaller skies, to be precise, into 145 portions, with a
conical aperture of 10°15’, to cover 68% of the celestial dome.
This subdivision also made it possible to consider the lighting of a point as the sum of contribu-
tions arising from each portion of the sky.
The total illumination that can be precisely measured E(x) is thus obtained as a linear superim-
position of the contribution of each coefficient of DC natural light, together with the luminance
variable for the corresponding segment, according to the relationship:
N
E (x) = ∑ DC
n =1
n ( X ) × L n × ∆S n (11)
The advantage, in terms of calculation, from this subdivision of the sky is that it allows a
precise measurement of the illumination in any sky condition, considering only one spherical
segment.
Tregenza specified that the DC parameter could be divided into distinct components ERC, IRC
and SC, taking into account the dispersion of the light through the atmosphere.
According to Reinhart’s assessment of 2006, the definition of the DC parameter represents the
first attempt at characterising a dynamic approach to the issue of Daylight Assessment in a
confined environment.
2.4 Rules of thumb

According to studies conducted among professionals from the sector, in addition to the
previous methods, validated by analytical studies, direct experience in the field together
with the practical rules of good building seem to represent two of the design methods most
widely used to assess the distribution and quality of natural light in interiors [68].
The characteristic that makes these established methods of practice so attractive, even though
they have never been set up and formalised, is the ease inherent in the assessment approach, in-
dependent of specific considerations relating to the actual involvement of materials and visual
tasks present in the interior space being evaluated.
The formulation of these empirical, non-standardised rules is therefore bound to their simplic-
ity of use, particularly if compared to traditional graphic, geometric and analytical methods,
and even if they do not provide accurate or absolutely reliable data for each situation; they are
among the most widespread in architectural practice.
The study of Daylight Feasibility [69] offers, among other things, some practical directions
for a preliminary assessment concerning the availability and subsequent diffusion of natu-
ral light in a confined environment, by analysing the potential level of natural lighting.
The essential characteristics that are taken into consideration for an empirical calculation pri-
marily concern the geometric peculiarities of the building envelope, the presence of obstruc-
tions, and the orientation of the apertures.
The dissemination of this practical tool, especially in North America, has had the merit of
defining some specific parameters for preliminary assessments, such as, e.g. the AEA – Adjusted
Effective Aperture – i.e. the actual efficiency of an aperture and the DFF – Daylight Feasibility Factor
– which measures the effectiveness of illumination using natural light, according to a formula
that takes into account the presence of apertures and external obstructions, like in eqn (12).
In eqn (12) the term OF represents the Obstruction Factor, while the WWR is defined as the sum
of all the transparent or translucent surfaces present in the shell, including window frames and
any stanchions, broken down for the outer area of the façade concerned, while τvis indicates the
mean value of the light transmission coefficients of the transparent elements.
AEA = WWR × τ × OF ≥ DDF (12)
The Obstruction Factor (OF) therefore represents the best approximation of the effects produced
by external obstacles and is determined as a function of the percentage of free view, which
would be produced by a window in the absence of external obstructions.
Thus are distinguished four different percentages of OF which summarise some of the most
likely real situations: if the view is obstructed by 50%, OF = 1 (case a); if the view is obstructed
by a percentage ranging between 50% and 70%, OF = 0.85 (case b); if the view is obstructed from
Figure 54: Obstruction Factor types.
70% to 90%, OF = 0.65 (case c), while if external obstacles obstruct the view for more than 90%,
then OF = 0.4 (case d) (Fig. 54).
Despite eqn (12) never having been validated through specific studies, among designers it en-
joys considerable appreciation, thanks to its ease of use, and because it is able to offer differenti-
ated assessments in relation to the possible external configurations.
For the prediction of potential distribution of natural light in bright side-lit environments it is
also possible to use the uniformity of natural light method, which relates the latter to the depth
of the room under examination.
For these environments, the fundamental question is whether the quota of direct and diffused
radiation in the proximity of the fenestrated front does not cause overheating or irritating glare,
contributing, at the same time, to significantly raising the average DF value in the room.
To overcome this limitation, the formula introduced by Lynes proposes a rule of thumb to eas-
ily obtain the most suitable depth of the room, such that it is proportionate to the width of the
fenestrated front and the height of the aperture with respect to the plane of the floor.
2  1 1 
D Lynes = / +  (13)
1 − R mean  W h wind − head − height 
The terms that appear in eqn (13) are: W, the net interior width; h wind-head-height the dis-
tance between the floor and the highest height of the window; Rmean the average weighted
reflection coefficient of the interior finishing elements, including glazed parts. In this manner,
it is possible to calculate the maximum useful depth of the room, to ensure the uniform dis-
tribution of natural light, on the basis of the assumption that, if the ratio between the average
DF in the first half of the room – including the fenestrated front – and the average DF at the
rear exceeds three times the value of DLynes, then the geometry of the room is inadequate [70].
In this way, in the presence of external obstructions, the eqn (13) limits the depth of the room
at a pre-determined distance, beyond which it is impossible to see the horizon line from the
calculation plane:
Dnoskyline = (hwind-head-height − workplanheight) × tan(θ) (14)
This approximation is based on a calculation of the angle θ, or of the external angle formed
between the upper half of the window area and the angle generated by the external obstruction
(Fig. 55).
Figure 55: External obstruction angle.
The sequence of empirical rules and assessments arising out of planning experience analysed in
this section are in reality only a small part of the numerous rules of thumbs; although they may
appear easy to apply in any case, we must be aware of some substantial limitations, the most
important of which is the assumption of a standard overcast sky condition.
In addition, it is necessary to consider that, to calculate the DF, it is possible to carry out the as-
sessment only for regular morphological conformations for the most part rectangular, besides
the fact that the considerations presented are valid only for environments with side lighting on
only one front, while the external obstructions are represented by a single item within the for-
mula, thereby greatly simplifying the actual presence of obstacles on several fronts.
3 Limits of applicability of the static approach

To date, there have been no calculations, formulations or methods to assess the Daylight Factor
unless in the presence of a standard overcast, intermediate, or clear sky, according to the clas-
sification accepted and validated by the CIE: this means that the distributions of sky luminance
used to calculate the DF constitute simplifications that bear no relation to real sky conditions.
These images represent only a narrow range of possible sky conditions, from the completely
clear to overcast and allow, through a fish-eye vision, to capture the entire hemisphere with the
horizon marked on the edge of the sphere and the zenith at the centre of the image.
The Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage CIE, therefore developed a series of mathematical

models of ideal light distribution, that can describe the most likely sky conditions, of which the
three most common are overcast, uniform and clear, on which depend variations in the distribu-
tion of illumination and luminance (Fig. 56).
Figure 56: Some sky types.

Models of the sky therefore concern only the distribution of luminance values across the sky,
but not the total amount of light coming from it, i.e. the illumination coming from the sky, for
which it is also necessary to consider the geographic latitude.
The term standard overcast indicates a prevailing condition of the sky in which there is only the
quota of diffuse light and in which the maximum luminance is at the zenith, with luminance
that decreases until the horizon, in the vicinity of which it shows values equal to about one third
of those recorded at the zenith, regardless of the position of the sun, while an average value is
recorded at a solar height of around 42°.
Meanwhile, the equation for standard clear skies takes into consideration the actual conditions
of diffusion and refraction of the light in an atmosphere that is perfectly serene and cloudless:
Normally in this model of the sky there is maximum luminance at the sun and in the position
opposite to it, just as the maximum luminance is seen at the horizon with respect to the zenith.
In all the calculation methods previously analysed there is always reference to a particular condition
of the sky, considered as the one that occurs most frequently in our latitudes: This is the so-called
standard overcast sky in which the sky is considered completely covered by clouds; the passage of
the sun’s radiation through the overcast sky produces an effect of diffused white light, while the
sky itself may appear with a colour tending to yellow with perfectly symmetrical distribution.
The uniform sky, meanwhile, represents a simplified condition in which the celestial vault is as-
sumed to have a constant luminance equal to 1. In spite of the simplifications introduced, it is
very evident that in reality it is necessary to evaluate the distribution of luminance in the sky in
a timely manner over the entire hemispherical dome.
The aforementioned models of the sky provide a simple mapping of the distribution of lumi-
nance values across the sky, but not the total amount of light coming from the hemispherical
dome, i.e. that which defines sky illuminance.
DF is, in this sense, a parameter that is inaccurate and unreliable because the percentage value
of the DF cannot faithfully represent the changes in level of indoor illumination, since it does
not take into account the temporal variations in the sky’s luminance.
In addition, the DF value is totally insensitive to the orientation of the building, due to the sym-
metry of the simplified sky, and it is also independent of the orientation of the building’s sides.
In other words, the DF value is identical both where the building has a large glazed surface
exposed to the north (at a high latitude), or one that has a wide wall looking south (at a low
latitude).
In addition, since the sun is not being considered, any data concerning the different positions
of the sun, on its angle of incidence or intensity, or any other real variations in the light have no
influence on the calculation.
The main reason why there is recourse to a percentage value of DF rather than an absolute one
arises from the need to overcome the problem of the numerous and frequent fluctuations in
values and in the intensity of the amount of natural light.
The simplifications introduced by this system do not facilitate the task of the designer, who is
forced to forecast the multiple light reflections in the interior of the room, taking into consider-
ation the individual amounts due to the materials present internally and externally.
If on the one hand, these simplified methods give the designer some information regarding the
way in which light is distributed in the space in question, on the other, there is a need to perform
the calculation considering specifically the visual tasks that will be carried out there and includ-
ing the optical characteristics of the finishing materials that will be used. An intuitive summary
of the luminous performance of the lit area is therefore extremely inaccurate and risky, just as
an a priori assessment might appear too daring.
In the final analysis, the increasing number of types of software designed to calculate the DF has
further highlighted an intrinsic difficulty in comparing the output data of the programmes and
the results that can be obtained through direct survey or scale models.
For these reasons, the scientific debate now concentrates on an attempt to develop new dynamic
parameters, metrics, and unified criteria to assess the component of natural light. The ques-
tion on which the international community is now focussed therefore regards the possibility
of correctly employing new daylight metrics to adequately define the daylight in a confined
environment.
The inadequacy of the DF parameter arises, in addition to the previous methodological and
procedural inaccuracies, also from the self-evident inability to translate in a clear manner the
complexity of lighting levels and the overall degree of luminous comfort in a room.
Therefore, as long as the definition of a ‘naturally well-lit environment’ is delegated to an un-

specified number of units of measurement and geometric parameters in relation to the average
frequency of prevailing sky conditions, arriving at the formulation of a unique datum regardless
of surrounding conditions, any method will prove inadequate to describe daylight conditions.
4 The current status of the legislation on Daylighting: European and

international codes
The definition of a standard corpus at a European level that regulates the use of natural light
and that fixes the minimum limits to be satisfied is currently being outlined.
Codes and standards for building and national land-use regulations tend to define limits,
restrictions and requirements that govern the use of sunlight, in order to safeguard the health,
safety and comfort of occupants. Over the course of the last few decades the corpus has evolved
significantly, thanks also to the close correlation, by now well-known, between sunlight and the
benefits in terms of energy savings and improvement in luminous performance.
Despite the increasing attention to these issues, codes and standards for lighting design appear
to be significantly lagging behind, afflicted by serious deficiencies and excessive simplifications.
Among the issues of greatest importance is, first and foremost, the need to set up some param-
eters to evaluate light performance in a reliable and realistic way.
Despite the awareness that the possibility of performing a visual task is strongly influenced, not
only by the levels of illumination, but also by relationships of luminance, contrast and control
of glare, current assessments are essentially based on the analysis of compliance of illumination
levels compared to pre-determined thresholds, often determined superficially with respect to
the prevalent visual task.
4.1 Standards and requirements based on illuminance levels

The most widespread standards are those based on an assessment of illuminance levels, as
EN 12464-1:2011, Light and Lighting. Lighting of work places – part one, recommends, assumed as
substantial parameters for analysis of luminous performance in a confined environment [71].
Also in the United States, where the search for the definition of new parameters and units
of measurement is directed towards the validation of the so-called dynamic approach DDS,
the most widespread requirements come out of transposing the BOCA [72], which defines the
minimum guaranteed levels dwelling spaces, with the exclusion of environments with a high
concentration of users. It is not explicitly specified what the individual amount of natural light
should be, imagining as possible a constant integration with equipment for artificial light.
The ASHRAE 189.1 [73] standard provides some useful indications for the control and manage-
ment of Daylighting, inside of a very wide corpus of requirements designed to maximise the
effects and benefits of a sustainable energy approach for new constructions.
Although including design indications, from the preliminary phase to the phase of managing
the building, from site selection to the determination of the energy recovery systems using sus-
tainable and eco-compatible technologies, it does contain some guidelines regarding the use of
Daylighting strategies.
The ASHRAE standard includes – among the first to do so – Daylighting strategies within an
overall view of systems and methods of energy efficiency, by correlating the visual and thermal
performance of natural light in a wide range of sustainable solutions for the construction of
new buildings, as demonstrated by Article 7.4.2.9 Fenestration Orientation, which requires the
integration of natural light with occupancy sensors, in order to reduce the quota of artificial
light to be used, as well as to reduce solar gains from east and west, in different climate zones.
‘Lighting in daylight zones, including daylight zones under skylights and daylight zones adjacent to
vertical fenestration, where the combined daylight zones for enclosed space is greater than 250ft2 (25m2),
thereunder shall be provided with controls that automatically reduce lighting power in response to avail-
able daylight’.
The standard also specifies the illuminance levels to be ensured in a given environment, ASHRAE
8.3.4, Daylighting by Toplighting, in relation to the Daylighting system selected; in the presence of
light from above, it should be noted that: ‘There shall be a minimum fenestration area providing
daylighting by toplighting for large enclosed spaces. In buildings three stories and less above
grade, conditioned or unconditioned enclosed spaces that are greater than 20,000 ft2 (2000 m2)
directly under a roof with finished ceiling heights greater than 15 ft (4 m) and that have a lighting
power allowance for general lighting equal to or greater than 0.5 W/ft2 (5.5 W/m2)’.
Table 12: European Standard specifies Daylight Factors in indoor work places.
FLDm > 1% FLDm > 2% FLDm > 3%
Homes without dis- – All rooms regardless –
tinction of function of visual task
Schools Offices, stairs and spaces Gymnasiums and Classrooms and labo-
for connection and cafeterias ratories regardless
distribution of visual task
Hospitals Offices, stairs and spaces Wards Wards, laboratories,
for connection and spaces for diagnosis
distribution
Furthermore in ASHRAE 8.3.4.1, Minimum Daylight Zone by Toplighting: ‘A minimum of 50% of

the floor area directly under a roof in spaces with a W/m2) shall be in the daylight zone. Areas
that are daylit shall have a minimum toplighting area to daylight zone area ratio as shown in Table
8.3.4.1. For purposes of compliance with Table 8.3.4.1, the greater of the space lighting power
density and the space lighting power allowance shall be used’.
In a different manner, the Department of Public Works of Canada, recommends an average day-
light level to be guaranteed for work spaces, without establishing what type of room it is, or
what strategies are being used to promote Daylighting, with the sole purpose of offering some
guidelines for the management of the daylight.
The European situation presents considerable similarities, as in the case of the aforementioned
Italian legislation (Table 12).
In Germany, DIN 5034 [74] set out, for the first time, a set of definitions and calculation methods
specific to natural light only [75], providing limits and recommendations for Daylighting [76],
although it did not establish a precise distinction between visual tasks for each function.
Among the specific recommendations for the workplace, illuminance levels were fixed in France
through the Décret no.83-722-1983, where ample room is given to measures to ensure a proper
supply of artificial light, while more coherent is the Lettre-circulaire DRT 90/11-1990, concerning
Daylighting and possible strategies to promote visual comfort.
The first prescription fixed maximum limits for lighting levels to ensure a narrow range of four
types of confined space, although, even in this case, the average levels to be maintained in the
rooms are not legally binding, but are regarded as voluntary requirements and simple recom-
mendations to increase the value of the constructed space.
4.2 Standards and requirements based on the Daylight Factor

Starting from the ISO standard 15469: 2004 Spatial distribution of daylight – CIE standard general
sky, as defined by the CIE to circumscribe how to check the spatial distribution of natural light,
in the presence of standard clear and overcast skies, arrived the transposition by each national
legislation of specific EC directives.
None of the standards, codes, or legally binding or voluntary provisions that consider the DF as
a valid parameter, has determined a precise level to reach, but rather a percentage, derived from
application of the Sumpner equation, regardless of external lighting conditions.
The French method, in addition to the already mentioned recommendations, lists in the Cahier
des Recommendations Techniques de Construction (Ministère de l’Education, 1977) some observations
on the school environment to ensure compliance with a DF percentage higher than the 1.5% for
teaching premises, different to that stipulated for Italy in the Ministerial Decree of 18/12/75,
‘Updated technical regulations for school building, including the indexes of minimum functionality for
teaching, building and town planning to be observed in the execution of works of scholastic building’, in
which there is a distinction between classrooms (2%), laboratories (3%), connecting spaces and
gyms (1%), devoting much more attention to artificial lighting.
From this point of view, it is to be understood that UNI 10380: 1994 remains the most compre-
hensive Italian treatise on the lighting issue.
The Anglo-Saxon context appears to be equally backward as regards the specific definition of
a law for Daylighting: the current situation makes reference to a rich corpus of non-binding
requirements in compliance with the British Standard 8206 [77]: ‘If electric lighting is not nor-
mally to be used during daytime, the average Daylight Factor should not be less than 5%. If
electric lighting is to be used throughout daytime, the average Daylight Factor should be not
less than 2% if a predominantly daylit appearance is wanted’.
Unlike the approach based on calculation of the DF value by means of Sumpner’s formula,
British law recommends the achievement of a threshold not less than 27% for the Vertical Sky
Component for apertures to be created in a residential area, a value that has its origin in the
standard height of a single-family or terraced dwelling and the distances to be maintained on
the street front.
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America has defined with precision via document
IESNA RP-5-99 [78] the different technological solutions and the new tools to increase the
amount of daylight, through strategies that improve the calculation of the DF in interiors [79].
‘When an average Daylight Factor is 5% or greater an interior space will appear to be well light-
ed. When the average Daylight Factor is less than 2%, the interior space will seem dimly lighted’.
In the document are also stipulated the calculation rules linked to a definition of the heights of
the work surfaces, to carry out the assessments on, as well as specifying the visual tasks for each
interior space.
For the first time the regulatory corpus also decreed how to calculate the energy saving poten-
tial that can be obtained through the use of natural light as the sole lighting system, reserving
new attention to the containment of electric consumption and the preservation of the health and
comfort of occupants.
Also defined and promoted are the potentials related to the use of sidelighting and toplighting
techniques, in relation to variable inputs of available natural light.
4.3 Standards and requirements based on the sizing of windows

Another type of prescription regards the sizing of windows, which relates – albeit indirectly –
the amount of natural light with the geometric characteristics of the interior space. This type of
approach is born sooner with the objective of defining standards that are useful to ensure cor-
rect exchange of air and a view of the outside and only secondarily to ensure sufficient levels
of natural light.
These requirements are identified increasingly often among building regulations and national
laws to promote energy-saving policies: Appreciation for this type of approach derives from
notable ease of application that it allows, even at a preliminary stage, to have a good degree of
control over the sizing of apertures and the areas to be illuminated, of course.
Although the regulations may seem sufficiently detailed in defining relations between transpar-
ent areas and the variable percentages as a function of visual tasks, they disregard in reality any
type of assessment of the context, the external conditions, the climate, or the orientation of the
building.
The already mentioned ASHRAE 189.1 also provides, in addition to minimum levels of illumina-
tion in relation to the daylighting strategy chosen, interesting design suggestions on the adequate
sizing of fenestrated apertures, proposing limits and materials, as can be read at point 8.4.1.1 Min-
imum Effective Apertures, specifying which further screening and shading systems are allowed,
according to the characteristics of the interior space and its prevalent function [79] (Table 13).
‘Office spaces and classrooms shall comply with the following criteria: all north, south, and
east-facing facades for those spaces shall have a minimum effective aperture for vertical fenes-
tration (EAvf) as prescribed in Table 8.4.1.1; b. Opaque interior surfaces in daylight zones shall
have visible light reflectance greater than or equal to 80% for ceilings and 70% for partitions
higher than 56 in. (1.54 m) in daylight’.
In the Anglo-Saxon panorama we must also recall the British Code BR 8206 (Part 2), according
to which, in the case of premises that measure less than 8 meters in depth, the windows must
cover at least 20% of the outer area of the wall, while for greater depths up to 14 meters, the
levels of daylight illumination must be maintained through apertures that cover at least 35% of
the surface of the outer wall.
As regards buildings for the tertiary sector, in particular, office environments, British law as-
sumes that apertures should be 35% of the area of the wall exposed, in the case of public build-
ings, 25% in the case of private buildings, as Littlefair has reported [80].
Table 13: Minimum effective aperture for sidelighting by vertical

fenestration.
Climate zone Maximum effective aperture for
sidelighting by vertical fenestration
1, 2, 3A, 3B 0,10
3C, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 0,15
In Germany, the DIN 5034 standard reserves a specific section, part 4, Daylight in interiors, Sim-
plified regulation for minimum window sizes to discussion of possible strategies for daylighting to
be implemented in a confined environment, paying particular attention to the correct sizing of
the windows. The standard also sets dimensional limits for each type of environment, in rela-
tion to the prevalent visual task.
The Building Code of Australia [81] suggests preliminary criteria for the sizing, according to
which the area of a transparent fenestrated surface in the case of residential buildings must
constitute at least 10% of the floor area.
Specific dimensional rules are instead provided by Japanese building regulations, which estab-
lish different percentage values for areas to be reserved for transparent fenestrated apertures,
in relation to the function of the interior space, promoting, in residential buildings with the
continuous presence of people, the realisation of a transparent area of at least 14% of the floor
surface, and in any case not less than 1/7, while, in the case of public buildings, this ratio must
be around 20–40% in relation to the prevailing activity carried out [82].
The New Zealand Building Code (NZBC), Clause G7 Natural Light [83], recently revised and
valid form February 2014 assumes a formula to verify the minimum illuminance main-
tained, using the formula of the BRE method and suggesting some general guidelines for
preliminary sizing of the windows, as described in NSZ 6703.
In particular [84], it prescribes a sizing of vertical apertures greater than 10% of the surface they
are inserted in, to provide approximately a minimum level of 33 lux at floor level for 75% of
the duration of the standard year. The New Zealand standard also reserves special attention
to ensuring the possibility in the residential and tertiary sectors to enjoy a view of the outside,
by requiring that at least 50% of the fenestrated area is provided with transparent glass, to be
placed at a height of between 90 and 220 cm from the floor surface, defining fully, for the first
time in the civil area, so-called Visual Awareness Zone.
4.4 Standards and requirements based on solar zoning building regulations

Some interesting prescriptions can be found in so-called solar zoning legislation, with regard to
the management and control of solar radiation in areas with large buildings, especially in big
cities.
Requirements of this kind amass guidelines for the planning and control of natural light to be
respected in tall buildings and areas of high urban density. In this sense, many countries have
regulations that are designed to respond to the need to provide a proper amount of natural
light.
The most famous example of zoning for the urban environment dates back to 1916, with the
Zoning Ordinance of New York City: This is a corpus of regulations designed to preserve access
to direct light and ventilation in skyscrapers under construction, defining the principle of
setback, i.e. the progressive retraction of façades, which has become characteristic of the profile
of New York and many other US cities.
The principle of set back evolved further through the definition by Knowles in 1980 of the solar
envelope, according to which the profile and shape of the building had to be determined in rela-
tion to the possibility of the sun to filter through the tall buildings to reach the street.
In this way, the question of access to sunlight became an essential requirement, an inalienable
right to be guaranteed in every circumstance. Solar zoning solar and the related regulations
progressively spread to the various states, in agreement with local set back requirements, which
spread quickly even outside the United States.
In Japan, e.g. in addition to the above-mentioned requirements for individual interior spaces,
strict rules for constructions had already appeared around 1600, when they established charges
and fines for those who, by planting trees and building close to the border, obstructed the view
of the sky from neighbouring properties, and for this reason, had to pay compensation, the
kage-shiro or charge for the shadow procured.
Attention to the theme of natural light, as a tool not only of lighting, but guaranteeing well-
being for indoor environments, was even defined with a specific term in Japanese language,
Nissho-ken, the right to the sun.
5 The need for a new international paradigm

The static approach to the lighting issue is currently contaminated by numerous limitations,
deriving both from geometric simplifications, and simplified assumptions for the analysis of
external conditions, confined to the use of a model of the standard overcast sky.
Instead, a detailed analysis of the prevailing sky conditions for each region clearly shows the
need to adopt a different approach to the assessment of the prevailing sky condition.
Also an analysis at a European scale shows the high potential of illumination in relation to
the quota of reflected sunlight, which, for about 60% of the time, in the months from April to
August, can be used, as a source of predominant lighting for interior spaces. In the remainder
of the year those European countries situated on a latitude above 50° fail to exploit sufficiently
direct radiation or reflected sunlight, unlike the south of Europe, where the proportion of re-
flected light manages to ensure a significant contribution to ambient lighting for about 40% of
the working hours, calculated on an annual basis.
In-depth reading of distribution maps of illumination and direct and diffused radiation under-
lines the thesis that the Daylight Factor on its own is severely limiting in representing actual
dynamic changes in sky conditions, and to indicate light distribution in virtue of the geographic
location of the site; basic conditions to provide an effective reading of lighting conditions, mak-
ing it essential to introduce a new dynamic approach, based on the prevailing weather condi-
tions at a local level.
The definition of a new paradigm, according to the meaning suggested by Thomas Kuhn in this
regard, is ever more necessary.
Understanding the paradigm as ‘the practices that define a scientific discipline at certain
point in time’, research is the sector must be designed to highlight limits and shortcomings
of the well-established model now in use, in order to reach the definition of an innovative
approach to Daylight Assessment, so that we can achieve a true surpassing of the para-
digm in use, dictated ‘by the immense difficulties often encountered in developing points
of contact between theory and nature’ [85].
It is precisely from the emergence of mismatches between actual lighting conditions and energy
and environmental needs that emerge in tackling the luminance issue, that validation of the
CBDM model, according to the Dynamic Daylight Simulation, DDS method becomes the first
step towards a true methodological revolution.
The transition from the internationally known static system to the dynamic DDS system there-
fore constitutes the passage from one paradigm to another, i.e. a change towards a new policy.
It is possible to say that the current paradigm, which is the only one validated and accepted, as
well as still being in use, despite being born with the principal characteristics of a paradigm,
i.e. as a model that is functionally and universally valid, over the years has sown up weaknesses
and limitations, which were then taken as simplifications useful for calculation, by transform-
ing the fault into an average for the benefit of the assessment.
The obvious differences detectable today regarding the reliability of the static model are born
from the awareness that the simplifications implemented up until now produce, in the major-
ity of cases, simulations that are unreliable, if not downright wrong, that impose inconsistent
choices on designers and architects.
The application of and the subsequent changes to the static model that Daylight Assessment is
based on have helped to develop new technologies, from computer simulation to annual meteo-
rological knowledge, highlighting the so-called anomalies, which are an essential requirement
for the paradigm shift.
The current situation of Daylight Assessment and the methods of survey seems to lie today in
that interim period, in which, although the limitations of the approach in use are evident, the
corpus of new units of measurement and the new tools of inquiry is being subjected to verifica-
tion by the scientific community.
Today, the international panorama is seeing the emergence of a new orientation which, based
on differences in the static system, proposes a differentiated analysis based on geography and
meteorology: the term ‘dynamic’ therefore indicates, a datum that changes over time, on a daily
and annual basis in relation to climate datasets, which take into consideration the changes in
the sky conditions, in stark contrast to the concepts of static modelling and simulation, as in the
case of the Daylight Factor.
A uniform standard at a European level is currently in the process of being defined through
the Lighting Technology Standards Committee in cooperation with the German DIN (Deutsches
Institut für Normung), to develop a supranational standard for use in the assessment of natural
and artificial light, with particular attention to the definitions of methods of unitary analysis,
for the acquisition of a common terminology; elements that should facilitate the approach to a
conscious use of light, to facilitate the policies to achieve energy savings and to safeguard the
visual comfort of occupants.
In particular, the evaluating commission representing 10 countries responsible for the creation
of the new European standard CEN/TC 169/WG 11 [86] is currently working on the wording
of the paragraph 11 whose subject is daylight, to establish useful indications for the implemen-
tation and assessment of natural light in working environments, schools, residential buildings,
prisons, hospitals and for particular target groups.
The proposal will be based for the first time on the implementation of the dynamic method
known as Climate-Based Daylight Modelling (CBDM), but without completely excluding the static
DF parameter – still deeply rooted in common practice, but including correction factors to anal-
yse the availability of daylight. The complete adoption of systems and units of measurement
relating to the CBDM method would lead to the acquisition of some standard boundaries and
thresholds for all European countries, ignoring natural differences in terms of luminous avail-
ability that is extremely variable in relation to latitude. The ultimate goal of the Commission is
to integrate static and dynamic systems and provide general guidance that can be adapted by
individual countries in different geographic contexts.
The final objective is thus to establish a corpus of guidelines that are valid in a unique way for
all European countries, which includes appropriate simplifications for all the climatic zones and
can be adapted to national standards already in force.
Chapter 4
Daylight Assessment: definition of dynamic model
1 Introduction
The inefficiency of the methods currently used for Daylight Assessment comes from the obvi-
ous inadequacy of the current approach in quantifying absolute doses for natural light, as a
result using percentages to be compared with pre-established thresholds.
The most significant element that hinders the adoption of a shared approach to the assessment
of the proper amount of sunlight to be guaranteed in a confined environment comes from the
absence of a system that assesses the real surrounding conditions and that therefore leaves aside
preliminary assumptions and geometric simplifications.
This need becomes even more urgent in virtue of the potential use of natural light to optimise
energy-saving strategies, reduce polluting emissions and create comfortable visual environ-
ments.
The informed approach to an architectural project, whether it be a construction intervention

ex-novo, an intervention to retrofit or recover an existing edifice, must be directed to a practice
that maximises the use of natural light, allows the attainment of high levels of comfort for the
occupant from a thermal and visual point of view, making for a highly desirable integration
with other systems of the building.
The dynamic assessment of natural light, through the approach called Climate-Based Daylight
Modelling (CBDM), therefore relies on the possibility of predicting the continuous variations in
terms of quantity and quality of light radiation, analysing precisely the sky conditions and the
sun, taking them from the weather datasets on a daily, monthly and yearly basis.
The name CBDM Climate-Based Daylight Modelling has not yet been formally validated by the
international community, despite the obvious advantages associated with it, starting from its
first formulation in 2006 by Mardaljevic [87]: ‘The CBDM is the prediction of various radiant or
luminous quantities (e.g. irradiance, illuminance, radiance and luminance) using sun and sky
conditions that are derived from standard meteorological datasets.
CBDM delivers predictions of absolute quantities (e.g. illuminance) that are dependent both on
the locale (i.e. geographically-specific climate data is used) and the building orientation (i.e. the
illumination effect of the sun and non-overcast sky conditions are included), in addition to the
building’s composition and configuration’.
Climate modelling of natural light provides forecasts of absolute amounts of illumination in

real sun and sky conditions, via estimates on a geographic basis and on the basis of the actual
orientation of the apertures in building envelope.
Assessments using software simulations have in fact demonstrated that daylight can effectively
be analysed through an analysis of specific coefficients able to accurately calculate time series of
illumination and luminance in buildings [88].
The function of precisely defining the amount of solar radiation for each location is therefore
entrusted to the CBDM model, which uses models of real skies in the presence of the sun, bas-
ing the modelling on climate files that permit absolute forecasts of illuminance, through overall
light levels, considering the quotas of both diffused light and direct sunlight.
The CBDM model therefore considers both amounts, since it counts the actual days of overcast
and clear sky, enabling computation of the exact period in which light levels are sufficient to
carry out a particular visual task to predict the moments when it is appropriate to complement
natural light with the lighting fixtures.
In this way, the geometric limitations, the formal approximations and the forecast data on
climate data are replaced by articulated climate files on a base of 10 years, capable of providing
a fairly reliable datum for a precise location at a specific time of the year.
The Daylight Factor is therefore currently in the process of being revised, in order to define a
complete and comprehensive dynamic approach.
Under consideration of the international commissions therefore is the Dynamic Daylight Simu-
lation (DDS) system based on CBDM simulation, both based on the reading of an annual se-
ries of climate data that can easily be integrated with a more complex performance analysis to
include analysis of thermal and luminous comfort.
The dynamic model makes it possible to interface internal luminous analysis with the varying
performance of any internal and external shading systems, as well as evaluating the lighting
pattern in dense urban environments, in which the façades of buildings are directly affected by
the presence of shadows from the surrounding buildings, and can therefore finally evaluate the
most advantageous design solutions to prevent the ‘canyon effect’.
The methodological innovations, for the moment only proposals to the international com-
munity, are certainly innovative, while still awakening strong perplexity about what the
design phase is responsible for, not to mention the many barriers that still separate the pos-
sibility of seeing new metrics applied along with complex approaches to evaluate Daylight
Assessment.
The dynamic method involves the use of distinct simulation environments, specific software
with excessively complex interfaces, which make the approach laborious and time-consuming;
dynamic simulation requires long timelines to complete the calculation, especially where the
simulation environment relies on raytrace methods; the dynamic simulation approach is likely
to be burdened by procedural errors and defects of interpretation, in particular in the face of the
large amount of numerical data of a meteorological variety, which can lead an inexperienced
analyst into error.
Simultaneously, other obstacles that slow the change of paradigm can be identified in differ-
ent systems of environmental and energy assessment, which do not give sufficient weight to
Daylight Assessment: definition of dynamic model  123
the assessment of daylight as an added value to the building and, by still resorting to static
assessments, make any effort to promote the adoption of Dynamic Daylight Simulation meth-
ods ineffective.
Lastly, the inability to interpret the output data of the dynamic simulation in a synthetic manner
and translate it into graphic languages and architectural representations is a major obstacle to
the eventual adoption of the CBDM system.
2 Climate-Based Daylight Modelling

The term CBDM, although not yet accepted in a definitive way, means a simulation of the distri-
bution of natural light in a confined environment, considering the totality of the amount of di-
rect sunlight and reflected light from the sky, on the basis of a temporal series of the geographic
location in question.
This means that the data related to the individual amounts of daylight are calculated on an an-
nual basis, from climate datasets that contain at least 8,760 hourly observations for the entire
calendar year.
Unlike the static approach, the DDS method takes its cue from effective integration between the
artificial and natural lighting components, since it finds its definition of new criteria on verifi-
cation of a quite distinct luminous threshold and, where these are not completely or are only
partially achieved, it has been suggested to make progressive use of variable quotas of artificial
light.
The annual amount of natural light that spreads into a confined space is therefore evaluated in a
global manner by the CBDM simulation, which uses brand new parameters of a new definition
starting from annual illumination profiles, through statistical analysis of annual and historical
series, on a 10 years basis.
The first requirement is to make usable for the intended aim, a mass of climate data, which must
necessarily be converted into intuitive parameters, capable of interfacing with an architectural
and construction system that is already very complex.
Given the changing and dynamic nature of the seasonal model relative to the availability of
sunlight, an assessment extended throughout the year, is in reality the only possible option, in
order to have data that can be considered reliable.
The model of the hourly and sub-hourly values of illumination and luminance for each geo-
graphic location is for this reason deduced from meteorological datasets, according to a specific
data format.
The meteorological data needed for the creation of climate datasets have been obtained from
files known as Test Reference Years or Typical Meteorological Years.
The simulation that makes use of this set of complex files is able to provide hourly predictions
for each point it is desired to evaluate. For sub-hourly forecasts the reduced variability of irra-
diation conditions makes it necessary to resort to statistical models.
It has become clear that only through an hourly forecast it is possible to obtain a reliable and
realistic estimate of the actual illumination in variable sky conditions. A dataset with a number
of restricted hourly profiles can be considered valid for analysis using the dynamic method, in
spite of the fact that it risks introducing some inaccuracies into the calculations.
From these observations it has been assumed that the best method to prevent mistakes or exces-
sive simplification, similarly to what commonly happens with the static approach, is to consider
the climate files in their entirety.
Only in this way can the time variations found in the sky and luminous conditions be computed
over an entire year, allowing the inclusion in the calculation, of the entire range of climatic and
luminous conditions, in both the short and long term. The choice of the minimum number of il-
luminations to carry out the calculation is around 4,000 point surveys for each hourly threshold.
If, alternatively, it is desired to consider a calculation based on minutes, the number of neces-
sary data increases exponentially, arriving at about 2,4x105 precise observations.
These numbers can be reduced if an assessment is chosen that takes into account the sunshine
hours included in the arc of normal working hours, probably from 8 to 18, as is the case for most
dynamic analyses conducted with the new parameters.
2.1 Typical meteorological year climate data for the formulation of dynamic
parameters and methods of application
The procedure that is therefore best suited to the need to describe variations in light distribu-
tion hourly over the duration of the year, is based on local Typical Meteorological Year (TMY)
climate files [also known as Design Reference Year (DRY)], to determine which requires sequences
of 8,670 values, calculated for each hour of daylight. The methodology currently in use is based
on the first analytical assessments [89] and successive revisions and refinements [90].
The procedure that has helped define the specific climate datasets for each calendar year is
based on a selection of hourly data for each month of the year, in order to guarantee the calcula-
tion algorithm maximum reliability.
One of the first selection procedures was developed in North America, by Stamper in 1977,
in order to be able to carry out assessments on energy consumption in buildings and on their
energy-saving potential. The method for the definition of the reference year and for the climatic
assessments, known as TRY, Test Reference Year or TMY, Typical Meteorological Year, initially pro-
vided for the elimination of those months where anomalies were found within the series anal-
ysed, until the definition of the reference year.
The TRY method is therefore based on the aggregation of data relating to the 12 months that are
typical from a meteorological perspective, selected from the data collected in annual historical
series.
The selection of the TMM, Typical Meteorological Month, is based on statistical analysis of the
particularly significant variables for the overall representation of the standard year, including
direct solar radiation known as GSR, Global Solar Radiation [91].
The simple arithmetic average of the measured values throughout the year would appear,
therefore, not very representative of the real complexity and variable sky conditions’ bright-
ness. The data that refer to the month that best represents the monthly average of the measure-
ment period are then chosen as TMM values for that specific month of the year. An identical
process is then repeated for each monthly dataset in order to determine the most appropriate
value for each of the 12 months, to sample only one year.
The procedure for the selection of the most suitable daily and monthly data take place through
the choice of that calendar month, which proves to be more similar to the average polyennial
trend of the month in question. This may result in a set of TMY data for a given month being the
aggregation of data acquired by series pertaining to separate years.
We should point out that there is no strict criterion for the determination of TMY sample values,
for this reason, special databases with free access have been set up, that provide validated data
for each location, in order to ensure uniformity of input data at the start of light analysis using
the dynamic method.
Figure 57: Illuminances values according to a TRY file.

The graphic representation of these climate datasets (Fig. 57) must be made so that it ensures
comparisons between the enormous amount of hourly data, making analysis easier.
The graph therefore makes use of a field divided into 365 vertical rectangular sections to
represent the days of the year on the abscissa axis, while the ordinate axis shows the distribu-
tion of brightness over the 24 hours of the day. The matrix thus represented employs a vari-
able colour map to represent the thresholds of illumination expressed in lux, as illustrated
in Fig. 57.
The shading and colour variations allow a representation of the hourly, daily and monthly
fluctuations for a location over the entire course of the year, while the areas with a uniform grey
pattern indicate the hours of the night, with brightness close to or similar to zero.
The graphic representation therefore collects a set of raw data, grouped into a unique represen-
tation for each point of calculation: the advantage of this type of representation is that it allows
an appreciation of the variability in the pattern of light distribution throughout the year. In the
same way, the hourly and sub-hourly variations are immediately identifiable and easily compa-
rable with other datasets for different geographic locations.
Implementation carried out as part of Mardaljevic’s research into the coefficients of daylighting
and the definition of new inquiry parameters thus provides for separate computation of direct
and indirect lighting, so as to ensure an analysis of each amount according too absolute and
comparable quantities, in order to arrive at a design approach directed to mitigate or absolve
precise shading or diffusing needs for sunlight.
In purely architectural terms, this type of survey allows, for the first time, to perform an analy-
sis on an annual basis, in relation to the most likely condition of the sky, allowing designers to
make the choices and prepare specific solutions in response to predictable needs over the day
or on an hourly basis.
In the same way, a greater awareness of solar dynamics and climate is particularly convenient
for analysis of energy consumption and the real needs of each building shell. As is evident, the
approach on an hourly and sub-hourly basis, if on the one hand it requires the use of a large
amount of raw data, to be calculated using complex algorithms, on the other it makes it pos-
sible to simulate even before the executive or practical phases, the real behaviour of a building
or environment, from both the light and energy points of view.
The use of climate datasets through TMY data for each geographic location then allows the
adoption of two methodological approaches from which to choose: the cumulative method and
the series method.
Analysis of a cumulative type on an hourly basis (or on a fraction of an hour) is based on es-
timates of aggregate measurements of illumination, as occurs, e.g. for the parameter of Total
Annual Illuminance, i.e. a cumulative assessment of the luminance or irradiation of the sky.
The cumulative method usually prefers analysis on an annual, seasonal or monthly basis, while
recourse to intervals of calculation under one month are to be excluded, in as much as the re-
sults are not very significant if related on an annual basis, since they represent a pattern of light
distribution that is not statistically valid.
The cumulative system is usual used to assess micro-climate aspects or to assess solar access
in dense urban environments, as well as long-term assessment of the exposure to sunlight of
works of art to evaluate the effects it has caused, as well as qualitative and quantitative surveys
for the design of shielding or shading devices.
The series method offers instantaneous forecasts presences of precise measurements such as the
illumination values, based on values taken hourly or in fractions of an hour within the specific
annual TMY dataset for the location.
Unlike the previous one, this approach may be exploited to evaluate the potential of the Over-
all Daylighting Potential of a building or a room, or the occurrence of excessive illumination or
related phenomena.
The assessments made are therefore crucial in influencing the design of the building, the design
choices related to the treatment of the finishings and the glazed or transparent parts, and in the
choice of devices designed to control or manage the natural light.
Subsequent modifications to the TMY method have been made by various scholars and led to
the establishment of the so-called TMY2 model, which introduces, as a main novelty, the direct
solar radiation variable, resolutive for the processing of new units of measurement and of the
new parameters as formulated by Mardaljevic.
The TMY2 encompasses in its formulation a greater number of data on direct solar radiation
and illumination as compared with the previous formats TMY and TRY.
Recently further research has been conducted for the formulation of the TMY3 method, ac-
cording to which solar radiation should not be measured directly, but calculated on the basis of
statistical analysis from the data of historical stations on databases of 10 or 15 years. The TMY3
format collects climate data for localities solely in the USA, by means of measurements carried
out more recently [92].
Among the most widespread codes that must also be mentioned is the IWEC – International
Weather for Energy Calculation, a meteorological file that comes out of the results of the ASHRAE
Research Project 1015 [93], as climate data according to the ASCII format, which is better suited
to energy simulations for the buildings, but that provides data on sunny places in Canada and
the USA, thereby limiting its international use, with just 227 overseas locations. The IWEC for-
mat is based on a weather database listing 18 years of measurements, making data available on
solar radiation and temperatures. The files on solar radiation are estimated on an hourly basis,
according to the prevailing sky conditions. IWEC files also contain weather observations on an
hourly scale essential to make global energy assessments of a building, including information
such as the dry-bulb temperature, dew-point temperature, wind speed and direction of the
wind, as well as data on illumination.
The ESP-r code is a further example of a built-in tool for the multiscale energy assessment of
buildings, including also the luminous, acoustic and thermal analysis of a confined environ-
ment. The system is based on the use of codes supported by a number of platforms and oper-
ating systems, thanks to the interface, which allows non-stop implementation on the part of
users, taking into consideration also those factors that influence the energy and environmental
performance of buildings.
In order to make simulations easier by using software in recent years a further generalised
climate data format has been developed, which is very widespread and linked to the use of
programmes and systems for energy and environmental assessments.
The new format called EPW, Energy Plus Weather format, uses the ASCII format, today among
the most popular, almost to the extent of replacing the TMY2 format, and is used as input data
for simulations conducted with ESP-r.
The advantage of this special format derives from the fact that all data are expressed in SI units,
making it a relatively simple tool, text-based and with the data separated by commas. The
source data for the processing of the EPW type files are derived from the TMY2 format, suitably
re-managed to facilitate their use.
The EPW format also refers for the first time to the Infrared Sky model, which makes it possible
to calculate the actual temperature of the sky, in order to obtain data on nocturnal irradiation.
A further difference is that the file format in EPW has no need of complete data throughout the
year, therefore the number of hours evaluated, usually amounting to 8,760, is no longer neces-
sary, but is replaced by reduced subsets of selected years.
2.2 The project to define an Italian TRY and the last frontier of dynamic
calculation through Real-Time Weather Date
The ongoing renewal process is also reflected in Italy where the well-known advantages linked
to energy and environmental assessments according to the dynamic approach, have focused
attention on the need to develop a model of national reference, from which to create real and
reliable analysis models.
The first climate data to employ the coding system of the reference year type date back to a
project funded by the IFA the Institute of Atmosphere Physics of the CNR, in 1979.
The research program, for the creation of the Giovanni De Giorgio data bank for national climate
data attempted to encode the collected values in a vast time span, from 1951 to 1970, through
analysis of weather data collected from the Weather Service of the Italian Airforce via 68 stations
scattered across the country.
Among the measurements was therefore selected the most significant month type with mean
values and variances more readily comparable with the measured values, from which was to be
inferred the year of reference-type, by aggregating the more significant sample months.
The weather stations that the data were collected and analysed from, proved insufficient, since
the measurements contained numerous shortcomings and inaccuracies, as well as a substantial
overestimation in the amount of direct radiation.
In recent years, the most decisive contribution was provided by a project carried out in col-
laboration with the company NIER Engineering S.p.A., and by the Department of Energy and
Nuclear Engineering, and Environmental Control (DIENCA) of the University of Bologna, in the
context of the research programme ‘Environmental TRY for Innovative Dynamic Environmental
and Energetic Analyses’.
The project, which began at the end of 2010, is still being completed, and has the goal of imple-
menting the data bank on Test Reference Years for Italy, to support environmental and energy
analyses, for approximately 1,000 national locations.
The originality of the Italian approach lies in the creation of appropriate models of annual ref-
erence to respond to different applications, including environmental, photovoltaic and solar-
thermal TRYs, through a separate selection of data, based on meteorological variables relevant
to the specific application, and appropriately weighted.
The method of data selection, carried out on the findings of more than 1,000 Italian locations,
seeks to identify the most representative month from a historical series, thereby producing a year
of weather data consisting of significant monthly factors that can also belong to distinct years.
The lack highlighted, both in climate dataset of a few places in Italy, and in the backwardness
of the survey methodology, makes the project of considerable importance, an indispensable
step towards the adoption of a dynamic approach to energy and environmental assessments –
including Daylight Assessment.
In addition to the significant experiences designed to renew or to create datasets ex novo for TRY
or TMY climate models, the most evolved frontier as regards the dynamic simulation of lumi-
nous performance with natural light, is represented by Real-Time Weather Date.
All data can be freely consulted for the main geographic locations worldwide in a common
database that transforms the data collected according to GMT in different time zones, as well as
LST, to make the necessary data available for every fraction of an hour throughout the calendar
year, so that they can be used for precise assessment.
The main objective of the scientific research into natural light and the performance associated
with its use, is now concentrated in an attempt to provide conclusive definitions in the search
for a new series of parameters that surpass the current generic qualitative criteria.
The ultimate aim is therefore to move from generic assumptions to real units of measurement,
which are useful in analysing the energy performance of buildings and assessing the condition
of interior comfort for the occupants of naturally lit buildings.
Once the parameters relating to natural light, assessment criteria and limits of applicability
have been defined, approval at an international level needs to be sought.
3 New Metrics
3.1 Useful Daylight Illuminance
Among the new units of measurement proposed to meet the requirements dictated by the dy-
namic approach based on climate, in accordance with the procedures previously described of
the CBDM type, the best known is UDI, Useful Daylight Illuminance or Useful Daylight Index.
Natural illumination of a work surface involves continuous variations and consequently sig-
nificant differences, both from the spatial and temporal points of view, just as the levels of
illumination differ greatly when evaluated near a fenestrated front or with respect to the most
distant point, as happens from one instant to the next as a result of a change in external weather
conditions.
Precisely by virtue of this inhomogeneity and the impossibility to assuming the standard CIE
overcast sky as an unequivocal condition, a new metrics has been defined appropriately de-
signed for dynamic analysis, which provides data that can be used immediately and are valid
on more extended temporal arcs. Among the new parameters introduced with the advent of
the dynamic method based on CBDM, was the UDI paradigm, defined with the objective of
facilitating the interpretation and reading of illumination levels recorded in an interior space,
initially on an hourly basis and then extended to an annual basis.
The schema to assess the values of Useful Daylight Illuminance is designed to make it easy to
understand the absolute values of natural illumination in a confined environment and define
thresholds that would otherwise be difficult to compare.
The novelty of the approach lies in the fact that, for the first time, rather than analysing the large
amount of illuminance values through static geometric simulations, this relates the levels of
daylight in a room according to the prevalent visual task.
If the method based on the DF produces only a percentage value, valid for each point in space,
mediating between the different values calculated at the level of the surface of calculation, on
the contrary, the UDI metric, while maintaining simplicity in interpreting the DF, bases its anal-
ysis on a forecast of the lighting for every hour of the day throughout the year, and for each con-
sidered point. The main advantage linked to the introduction of this new parameter consists in
the huge reduction in volume of the output data, along with the ease of interpreting thresholds
in relation to the visual task to be assessed.
Instead of a minimum threshold, Nabil and Mardaljevic, responsible for defining the UDI value,
propose a parameter that indicates the attainment of levels of natural illumination considered
useful, abandoning the concept of target illumination, usually associated with 500 lux to base
their approach on verification of a series of pre-determined illuminations (Fig. 58).
According to this method, the UDI paradigm provides data, not only on the levels of useful
daylight illumination, but also with regard to a propensity to attain excessive levels of natural
light, mostly associated with forms of visual discomfort, irritating glare and overheating.
Figure 58: UDI scheme.

UDI is therefore based on an exact assessment of the frequency with which sunlight sits within
a range of pre-determined illuminance. Considering the enormous variability with which sun-
light can change in one day and throughout the duration of the year, the UDI approach reflects
these variations in a fairly realistic way, calculating the trend over the 12 months, in a much
more reliable way than the Daylight Factor.
From a practical point of view, UDI is defined as the set of those illuminations that lie within the
range from 100 to 2,500 lux [94]: in fact, it has been established that daily illuminations that fall
within the 100–2,500 lux interval can generically be defined as useful.
The UDI range is further subdivided into segments known as UDI supplementary and UDI
autonomous.
The former indicates the occurrence of situations in which the levels of natural illumination lie
in the range between 100 and 300–500 lux.
In the case of a level of annual average illuminance whose value falls in the first interval, it is
usually necessary to integrate it with artificial light, especially for activities requiring precision,
reading and writing.
Instead, UDI autonomous indicates the attainment of a threshold between 300–500 and 2,500 lux,
in the presence of which artificial light is almost never required, nor is necessary.
The UDI assessment scheme is applied to determine the illumination at each calculation
point present in the vicinity of the useful surface and to demonstrate the achievement of pre-
determined levels of daylight, according to the following breakdown:
• If the illumination is less than 100 lux, it is defined UDI fell-short (UDI-f), an insufficient value
to be used as the sole source of lighting, such as to require constant integration with artificial
light sources;
• If the illumination is higher than 100 lux, but lower than 300–500 lux, it is defined UDI supple-
mentary (UDI-s): this is judged as an adequate level of illumination and an effective source only
in certain circumstances, though requiring the contribution of artificial light in certain situations;
• If the illumination is greater than 300–500 lux but less than 2,500 lux, it is defined UDI autono-
mous (UDI-a), i.e. it is assumed to be a satisfactory target level for most circumstances;
• If the illumination is higher than 2,500 lux it is called UDI exceeded, i.e. one exceeds the useful
range and is the cause, with a reasonable approximation, of certain phenomena of glare and
overheating.
According to these definitions, the introduction of the UDI parameter allows the use of only
three indicators to effectively describe the daily, hourly and annual levels of fluctuations in il-
lumination in a confined environment and for each point of calculation.
Instead of a single threshold value, there is a distinct range of illuminations, calculated on an an-
nual basis in real sky conditions; this new approach should therefore check in which interval the
illumination point is established, leading to eventual integration with a quota of artificial light.
In particular, if the level calculated according to the dynamic approach is lower than necessary,
it cannot contribute in any way to the completion of the visual function and the correct percep-
tion of the environment, and therefore cannot be considered in the range of useful daylight
doses. On the contrary, if the annual levels, calculated in the period of time in question, are ex-
tremely high, these can be the cause of troublesome phenomena to occupants, both from visual
and heat points of view, involving the psycho-physical sphere in general.
The raw data on illuminance levels identified throughout the year in the daylight hours are
calculated as fundamental values to determine the percentage of the working year in which
there is actually UDI.
The most advantageous use for the raw data is on the horizontal plane to indicate the times of
the day when there is UDI, evaluating with what percentage a threshold limit is reached. The
value resulting from the calculation indicates how many times over the course of the working
year it will be necessary to resort to artificial light. The real computation, performed with the
aid of specific software, therefore offers an overview of the recurrence to natural and artificial
illumination needed on the working plane during the period of the entire working year, on an
hourly basis.
The UDI paradigm preserves therefore in its formulation efficacy an ease of interpretation that
belonged to the static approach of the Daylight Factor, in virtue of the introduction of just three
new units of measurement, representative of the illuminance levels achieved, which are at the
same time able to provide crucial information as regards a propensity to situations of visual
discomfort and overheating in the vicinity of a fenestrated front. In a different manner from DF,
the UDI parameter and the smaller ranges of illumination UDI-f, UDI-s and UDI-a, are based on
representation of absolute values of illumination for a period of one year.
Unlike the other recently proposed parameter, Daylight Autonomy, UDI for the first time also
gives a precise function to illuminance values lower than the usual threshold of 500 lux, bring-
ing significant benefits in terms of energy savings, since it shows that illuminance levels lower
than 500 lux are still sufficient for some specific visual tasks, without necessarily resorting to
integration with artificial light.
This aspect brings considerable results, especially in the daylight assessment of work spaces,
such as open space offices, schools, and large environments with systems of natural light.
The substantial facilitation of this new parameter therefore consists in the methodology itself,
which makes it possible to determine the intervals of the illumination UDI-s, UDI, and UDI-a,
through surveys carried out via multiple research on samples of naturally lit offices [95].
Although no examples are available in the literature that correlate in a determinant way the re-
lationship between natural light and the level of psychophysical satisfaction among occupants,
numerous experimental studies have shown that users prefer environments lit naturally, since
they aid concentration and productivity [96].
The more indicative surveys, such as those conducted on the levels of preference in terms of
natural light and the levels of attention and productivity found in US schools, derive from re-
ports by Heschong on K-12 schools in three areas of the United States [97].
The CISBE committee, after extensive surveys, found that the most appropriate levels of il-
lumination for workspaces should be around 500 lux in the case of both artificial and natural
light [98].
In a similar manner the IES and Canadian research institutes concluded that the majority of
the interviewees prefer illumination greater than or equal to 150 lux, significantly lowering
the threshold of the traditional 500 lux prescribed as an optimum threshold value: This means,
therefore, that it is possible to use levels of natural light suitable for the visual task well below
the requirements of the standards, as demonstrated by the transposition of a US regulation,
which stipulates precise illumination of 50–150 lux to be provided to improve the so-called
visual task area. In most of the tests conducted during the research campaigns it has been found
that, unexpectedly, most of the subjects claimed to feel a general sense of visual comfort if sub-
ject to levels of natural light around 100 lux, well below the levels usually recommended.
It has been demonstrated that subjects tend to adapt more easily to minimum levels of natural
illumination rather than levels of artificial light, especially in the second part of the workday,
when of course the brightness drops [99].
An aggregate reading of these assessments shows that the majority of subjects who work in
bright environments with devices for sidelighting declare themselves to be more satisfied and
productive in the presence of natural rather than artificial light, although some individuals do
demonstrate a propensity for lower light levels, even if it causes discomfort [100].
At the same time it has been found that illuminance levels higher than those usually prescribed
– around 500 lux – are well tolerated by subjects, even though they may be the cause of irritat-
ing glare.
It has also been observed that illumination that falls in the range between 700 and 1,800 lux,
apparently well above the standard, are however accepted in relation to special visual tasks,
including computer activity or reading.
Daylight Assessment therefore draws considerable benefits from the application of this new
parameter by virtue of the very nature of UDI, which makes it possible to assess the most appro-
priate solution to optimise strategies of solar shading. In the same way as the inverse relationship
between UDI and electricity is a crucial indicator for the energy-saving potential of a building
naturally lit.
The UDI therefore offers the means to communicate important characteristics in variations in
internal illumination through concise formulation for any type of Daylight Assessment.
3.2 Daylight Autonomy – DA and continuous Daylight Autonomy – cDA

The Daylight Autonomy was initially used to generically evaluate the availability of sunlight,
for a dynamic approach according to the CBDM method. Daylight Autonomy was in fact con-
ceived among the first metrics developed for the dynamic approach to assessing natural light,
and represents the percentage of daylight hours over the arc of the entire year in which illumi-
nations lie above a pre-determined threshold (Fig. 59).
Figure 59: DA scheme.
It was originally proposed by the Association Suisse des Electriciens in 1989 and, subsequently,
became the object of research by Reinhart between 2001 and 2004.
DA is a measurement of the annual percentage frequency at which a pre-determined minimum

level, usually 500 lux of illumination, can be maintained on the working plane thanks to only
natural light. Unlike what was previously described for the UDI parameter, which is based on
an assessment of the percentage frequency with which it is possible to reach a pre-determined
range of illumination, the DA metric seems more simplistic.
It must also be considered that Daylight Autonomy proves unsatisfactory in giving value and
meaning to those illuminations that fall below the threshold of 500 lux, despite the fact that
even in those circumstances the quota of sunlight is useful to carry out some activities, and is
nonetheless an appreciable amount in terms of reducing energy loads.
Secondly, DA does not take into account the overall amount of illumination over a pre-
determined threshold and how much this is exceeded for each instant of time: this want pro-
duces considerable impact, as does not give weight to the occurrence of possible phenomena of
visual discomfort or glare.
As is the case for the calculation of UDI, assessment on an annual scale of the parameter to be
obtained through joint analysis of the climate file of the locality in question, assuming standard
working hours from 9 am to 6 pm, on which range the calculation of values is made for a grid
of points placed at the workplane height.
Similarly to the distribution of the DF values, it is to be noted that the DA parameter progres-
sively decreases with a distancing from the fenestrated front but, unlike the uniform distribu-
tion of DF illuminations, Daylight Autonomy does not have a symmetrical distribution, since the
calculation also considers changes made by users, usually characterised by an absence of stable
or symmetrical patterns.
Calculation of DA is therefore proposed to quantify the daylight saturation in a room and to

determine the percentage of direct sunlight.
In this sense, two distinct methods have been proposed to calculate DA, both to be made
through calculation on an hourly basis for the entire duration of the year.
The incremental method, or method of the incremental summing, introduced in 2002 by

Reinhart [99], includes an assessment of only those points where illumination exceeds the refer-
ence threshold of 500 lux.
This implies that, in the case of a surface of calculation where the expected illumination level
has not been reached at a given instant of time, the surface is assigned a score equal to 0%, while
for the instants in which the target is achieved, and conceivably exceeded, a score of 100% is
given.
Instead, the continuous method, dating back to surveys from 2006, also considers the smaller
fractions of illumination available so that, in the case of an illuminance of 300 lux on the plane
of calculation, a score is given equal to the fraction 300/500, i.e. 60 percentage points. Accord-
ing to this criterion, thresholds of illumination below the target value are also counted and it is
possible to determine the variable amount of artificial light at specific moments of the day, only
for the hours the space is actually used (Fig. 60).
This calculation method is particularly useful in the event that assessments are necessary of
the energy-saving potential related to the electrical consumption of spaces, in order to jointly
determine aspects such as indoor comfort and the level of productivity.
To tackle a correct analysis of the DA parameter in a confined environment particular attention

must be paid to some of the variables essential for calculating, such as the time period, spatial
analysis, the choice of the target light and further estimates on the orientation of the apertures.
The choice of the interval of time within which to perform the survey is also crucial for the reli-
ability of the DA value.
In this sense, the night hours must be excluded from the count, so that the DA percentage score
is not distorted or mediated by excessively low values. For spaces occupied day and night it is
helpful to consider only the temporal arc with sunlight, in order to be able to provide a reliable
analysis; in the same way, in the morning the DA calculation may prove useful to arrange ac-
tions to optimise the incoming light, just as in the afternoon it is possible to accurately establish
how much artificial light will be required.
Figure 60: cDA scheme.

In 2006, Rogers [101] also defined a new parameter as a result of a survey campaign performed
on school spaces: the cDA, Continuous Daylight Autonomy, assigns partial credits thereby in-
troducing illumination thresholds lower than previous ones, useful to analyse specific visual
tasks, which do not necessarily require the attainment of the 500 lux foreseen traditionally by
DA (Fig. 59).
If, for example, a limit is fixed for the assessment at a value of DA500 and the point to be anal-
ysed is affected by a illumination of only 400 lux, the cDA will give a partial score given by the
ratio 400/500 = 0.8.
In other words, if a point in the space of calculation registers 150 lux at a given instant, accord-
ing to the DA method, a score of 0 will be given, while according to the cDA parameter, the score
to give is equal to the ratio between the illumination maintained and the threshold value, i.e.
150/300 = 0.5 points.
The most interesting outcome of the new metric lies in the fact that, rather than defining a
threshold that clearly differentiates between compliant and non-compliant results with respect
to the objective of the project, the limit becomes more transient and helps to establish variable
terms in relation to the needs of the user and lighting preferences.
The percentage values that are being used for the graphic representation of the cDA show the
percentage of points, measured at the workplane, in which the illumination exceeds 50% of the
limit value of 300 lux.
For the sake of completeness it is necessary to briefly mention the DAmax parameter, defined
by Rogers as Maximum Daylight Autonomy; this was born as the result of incremental sum-
ming method, mentioned previously, fixing the maximum value of the illumination reached as
a threshold limit.
On the basis of the actual period of occupation, it establishes the moment when illumination is
at a maximum, and this target sets a limiting condition in which phenomena such as irritating
glare and overheating of the environment are very likely to occur.
The threshold that it prescribes is, in this way, about 10 times greater than the average of the
normal values.
3.3 Other parameters: daylight saturation percentage, annual sunlight

exposure and spatial daylight autonomy
In addition to the earlier metrics defined for dynamic analysis, further parameters have recently
been developed, derived directly from UDI or defined to evaluate specific aspects in relation to
particular visual tasks.
Daylight Saturation Percentage DSP, e.g. can be understood as a change in the UDI parameter,
because it displaces the minimum limit of illumination that can be evaluated to 40 candles,
equivalent to 430 lux, simultaneously raising the upper limit to 400 candles, equal to 4,300 lux,
compared to the previous 2,500 lux (Fig. 61).
Figure 61: DSP scheme.
This parameter was developed with the specific purpose of carrying out surveys of maximum
precision for schools and classrooms. The calculation to determine DSP is frequently employed
in the field for studies on illumination levels maintained in school classrooms, from 8 in the
morning until 3 in the afternoon, from Monday to Friday, during the school year, from August
15 to June 15.
The Daylight Saturation Percentage DSP, comes from a combination of several calculation meth-
ods used to assess the DA, as defined in the mathematical relationship:
DSP = DSP40 – 2 ⋅ DSP400 (15)
Where the term DSP40 represents the saturation rate of natural light at 40 candles, the term
DSP400 indicates the incremental value of DA at 400 lux, considered to be the equivalent to 10
times the illumination obtainable from 40 candles, and therefore also definable as DAmax.
A parameter often mistakenly associated with the new unit of measurement, given that it con-
siders percentages concerning the risk of excessive exposure to sunlight occurring, is instead
the ASE Annual Sunlight Exposure, i.e. the annual amount of natural light to which an object,
by virtue of its characteristics, can be subject. In particular, ASE is defined as the percentage of
space affected by more than 250 hours of direct illumination per year, where ‘direct illumina-
tion’ means a quantity higher than 100 lux through the apertures, excluding secondary reflec-
tions and the quota intercepted by shading devices.
Therefore, this term usually indicates the annual amount of incident light visible at a detection
point, calculated for an entire year, in such a way as to provide a reliable estimate of the amount
of harmful radiation to which an object is subjected with reference to the presence of sources of
visual discomfort.
The definition of the metric was born in the lighting engineering context to define the most suit-
able illuminance threshold for specific materials, in the event that they are subject to artificial
radiation for long periods of time.
The IES commission has further refined the concept of ASE for museum displays, officially ap-
proving the definition in January 2013, through the criterion TC3.22 ‘Museum lighting and pro-
tection against radiation damage’, recommending the maximum permissible annual amounts
of radiation with regard to the objects exhibited.
Figure 62: DA scheme.
In October 2012, the IES definitively validated the effectiveness of a further unit of measurement
the sDA Spatial Daylight Autonomy, introduced by Lisa Heschong and her research team. This
parameter is defined as the percentage of the work area or the plane of calculation on which fall
300 lux for at least 50% of the year, basing the calculation on a working day of 10 hours.
The novelty of the parameter lies in the fact that for the first time it takes into account the spa-
tial component and the geometry of the area on which the limit value of 300 lux insists over a
pre-determined range of hours per year (usually equal to 50% of the time interval considered
for working, i.e. between 8 am and 6 pm); in this way, it is possible to define time zones and the
times of the year during which to intervene with a variable quota and supplementary artificial
light, in support of natural radiation.
As can be read in the diagram in Fig. 62, created as part of preparatory assessments performed
by Heschong for a series of naturally lit interior spaces, the term sDA300 followed by the per-
centage value indicates when, in the course of a year, the surface meets, at least, 300 lux.
The sDA therefore uses as reference threshold an illuminance of 300 lux on the horizontal sur-
face, evaluating the number of hours per year in which each point of analysis meets or exceeds
this limit value.
The complete wording to define the sDA uses more indices, which indicate whether the point
of analysis meets or exceeds the threshold of 300 lux for 50% of the time of calculation, as in the
wording for sDA300/50%.
Previous graphic representations of the different daylight metrics shows how daylight analysis
based on the sDA parameter allows a precise reading of varying conditions on the work sur-
face, creating micro areas that make it possible to distinguish the areas where the sDA has been
achieved and where the percentage is sufficient, acceptable or satisfactory.
In this way it is possible, especially for daylight assessment of work and study environments, to
distinguish between areas affected by a greater illumination in distinct periods, and to arrange
for an estimate of how much artificial light is necessary in order to compensate for the lack of
natural light and to forecast any dynamic movement of occupants within the environment, on
an annual scale. In accord with the assessments still undergoing definition, Heschong’s team of
researchers is still working to propose further clarifications of the parameter, through the dis-
tinction of two classes, marked by the letter A, in which the illuminance of 300 lux is adjustable
to 75% of the area, with extensive measurements on an annual basis while the normal working
hours, spread over 10 hours a day and by the letter B, in which the area involved in this illumi-
nation affects 55–75% of the time of calculation. The sDA metric was also recently introduced
among the requirements used by the LEED environmental assessment system, in the criteria
used to allocate scores relating to the quality of the indoor environment. At the same time as the
final arrangement of this new parameter, US research is also directed towards further methods
of measurement, which are essential to complete assessment of the level of indoor comfort at-
tainable in buildings in the presence of natural light.
3.4 Comparative analysis of the dynamic parameters

One of the first comparative studies, conducted by Nabil and Mardaljevic [95] was designed to
compare, from the point of view of graphic and architectural representation, the benefits and
potential of the new UDI dynamic parameters compared to the traditional DF (Fig. 63).
The simulation carried out for a sample building compares the full potential of the three daylight
metrics, Daylight Factor, Daylight Autonomy and Useful Daylight Illuminance, through analysis of
Figure 63: Daylight metrics comparison.

the respective sensitivity in determining the changes induced by the introduction of shading
devices or to encourage solar penetration.
The results of computer simulations on an office building in London (Fig. 64), use building
plans with falsified colour and graphs to represent the patterns of the three daylight metrics, to
investigate similarities and differences in behaviour with respect to the real situation, measured
in situ.
The reproduction of the prevailing trends of the three luminous parameters makes it possible to
grasp the most significant differences.
The campaign of simulations first consider the existing building through a simplified three-
dimensional model, to which changes are gradually introduced, through the inclusion of exter-
nal lugs, or central light wells, so as to verify how the individual parameters fit in depicting the
luminous variations following the inclusion of individual devices.
A comparative study performed using the software called Radiance, employs generic reflection
coefficients: 0.5 for walls, 0.7 for ceilings, 0.3 for floors and 0.7 for external horizontal projec-
tions, while for glazed façades an average coefficient of transmission medium equal to 81% is
used, as well as a single surface of calculation, equal to the floor quota.
On the surface of calculation is fixed a grid of 900 points and sensors, following a 30 × 30
square arrangement, which is indispensable to simulate the presence of virtual photometers,
and through which the survey is usually made; the data supplied by these sensors therefore
determines the light distribution dynamics, according to the three available parameters.
Starting from model [a], which represents the building free of shading devices, with a square
zenithal skylight, two variants are then proposed.
Figure 64: Building model and design variants.

Version [b] provides for the inclusion of horizontal slats and protection of windows on three of
the four fronts of the building, i.e. on the south, east and west, the north being excluded since
the simulation is performed in the northern hemisphere.
The horizontal slats form a projection of about 60 centimetres from the fenestrated front and are
located at a height of 2.7 meters from floor level.
The second variant [c] provides, in addition to horizontal slats, the inclusion of a lantern on the
roof of the building, corresponding to the skylight already present.
The simulation uses a dynamic analysis based on climate, using the specific weather file of
the city of London, both for the assessment of UDI and DA, while for analysis of DF a simpli-
fied standard overcast condition is considered. Comparison of the daylight data performed
makes it possible to appreciate the almost symmetrical trend between east and west for the
DF value, a result that derives from the insensitivity of the parameter to the orientation of
fenestrated fronts: in variants [a], [b] and [c] the distribution of the Daylight Factor appears
symmetrically identical with respect to the central core of the building, the axis of symmetry
of the model.
The target value is reached in about 80% of the measurements, considering only the working
day from 9 am to 6 pm. The areas near the corners instead showed a greater amount of illumina-
tion where the threshold of 500 lux is almost always guaranteed. The annual percentage of DA
decreases instead when moving away from the fenestrated front. The asymmetry characteristic
of the DA value highlights a considerable variation in the vicinity of the north-east quadrant in
which, in both variants [b] and [c], the threshold value of 500 lux is exceeded in 20% of the cases
and further decreases in case [c] in the presence of horizontal projections and the inclusion of
the zenithal lantern.
This therefore shows that the integration of fixed horizontal shades on three fronts can signifi-
cantly affect the DA value, as well as the inclusion of the lantern [c] is responsible for a decrease
of 85% to 50% of illumination values in the central area of the building.
Lastly, the same hourly data on illuminations were calculated in accordance with the pre-set
thresholds for UDI, further subdivided into UDI achieved, UDI exceeded and UDI fell short. Con-
trary to what happens with DA, in peripheral areas of the building there is a smaller percentage
(20%) that increases towards the central core.
This is because, in the absence of external shading devices, an UDI exceeded is found for about
60% of the year, whilst in variants [b] and [c] the inclusion of devices to control solar penetration
ensures a reduction in the UDI value, in particular in the vicinity of the east and west wings,
which reaches the optimal range for 50% of the year.
The variant [c] with the lantern in opaque glass shows a rise in the UDI percentage value to 75%,
approximately.
It is therefore possible to say that the spatial distribution of the UDI value follows an opposite
trend with respect to what happens to the DF and the DA, since the UDI is at a minimum, at
least in the vicinity of the fenestrated fronts where other parameters instead showed maximum
values.
In conclusion, therefore, the highest levels of illumination calculated for DA and DF are found
in variant [a], without shielding systems and central lantern, while UDI shows levels exceed-
ing the threshold of 2,500 lux for a major part of the working year. The DF, which would seem
then to prove the presence of optimal conditions of brightness, with values well above the re-
quired limits of 2–5%, does not meet the data provided by the UDI, according to which the un-
shaded solution [a] is the most disadvantageous configuration with illuminance levels higher
than those considered useful for 60% of the year, within a distance of about 5 meters from the
windows, a value which further increases below the skylight, where the UDI exceeded equals
50%, while opposite values are read according to the UDI achieved scale.
If these data are compared with the experimental findings concerning the degree of satisfaction
of the occupants, they denote high levels of overall discomfort, in particular discomfort related
to excessive brightness and glare, demonstrating once again the total inadequacy of the static
DF parameter in representing actual conditions of visual comfort.
3.5 Daylight Assessment and dynamic performance metrics: issues worthy to

be clarified
The different dynamic metrics according the CBDM approach offer many advantages. The UDI
has, e.g. a simple and exhaustive scheme in depicting energy-saving potential in relation to
actual luminous needs.
If compared with the traditional DF scheme, according to the static method, the dynamic
approach is more articulate and only apparently more complex, but is able to express a
comprehensive overview of the luminous dynamics on an hourly, daily and yearly basis.
In particular, it provides, for the first time, relevant information in terms of a propensity
to meet high levels of illumination that can be related to phenomena of thermal and visual
discomfort.
In a totally innovative way, the new dynamic approach is calibrated to the needs of the occu-
pants, resorting, as explains Mardaljevic himself, to ‘human-factor based daylight metric’ [102].
This type of practice integrated to the resolution of daylight assessment makes it possible to
define the confines of a genuine revolution in the system of assessing natural light.
The CBDM scheme, more generally, employs a variety of different means to take into account
the most significant features of the local climate firstly, and then to deploy these in a thermal
and luminous design for a building or a single interior space.
The question which the international scientific community is now occupied with, in addition to
the validation and final adoption of dynamic parameters, is the adoption of shared threshold
levels for the determination of UDI exceeded, UDI achieved and UDI fell short, in order to deter-
mine whether high levels of UDI exceeded are realistic indicators of an actual reduction in the
quota of electric lighting to be used.
The dynamic approach based on local climate allows for the first time to provide, prior to the
design and the actual usage phase of the building, a clear and realistic forecast of luminous
performance and electrical consumption that occur therein.
The persistence of certain uncertainties, together with a widespread scepticism regarding such
an innovative approach to the luminous question has allowed the static-geometric method
founded on DF to remain rooted in design practice, as the dominant assessment system, thanks
to its intrinsic simplicity, rather than because of its realism or the reliability of the results pro-
vided.
For the majority of professionals, the examination of any measurement relating to daylight
comes to an end with the verification of compliance with the average Daylight Factor.
Despite the obvious lack of effectiveness in the representation of luminous data, professionals
prefer to adopt the average Daylight Factor (Fig. 65), supported by the fact that most of the
systems of energy or environmental assessment still resort exclusively to this static parameter.
Daylight Assessment according to the dynamic model (Fig. 66) today appears as a real disci-
pline that is the bearer of necessary changes which, to focus attention on the anomaly inherent
in the static system, takes its inspiration to initiate reforms and radical changes, in order to set
up a scheme that is uniquely valid and applicable in a differentiated manner for every require-
ment.
The necessary step towards the definitive assumption of the new dynamic approach, therefore,
needs a process of systematisation at an international level.
The proposed metrics must be organised, compared with the real needs of designers, manufac-
turers and end-users, and made available to conclude efficient calculation on a local and climate
Figure 65: Diagram of the components that the static evaluation method considers.
Figure 66: Diagram of the components that the dynamic evaluation method considers.
basis that is able to provide as output data, easy-to-use information and graphic representa-
tions, and can generate spatial and temporal maps of the actual distribution of illumination for
a confined environment.
It is to be hoped therefore that an approach will be adopted that is unique but applicable to
different geographic locations, that can assess the physical and meteorological specificities of a
place and provide a concise parametric assessment for other energy quotas, as well as provid-
ing a link between their expressive and energy potential linked to indoor wellbeing obtainable
with natural light.
The drivers useful in raising awareness of the need to validate this new dynamic paradigm
must therefore be inspired by the knowledge that natural light, considered and controlled, can
firstly reduce the energy load within a building, ensure a pleasant and calming environment for
those who stop by or live there, that is healthy from luminous, visual and thermal standpoints,
increasing productivity and raising the levels of attention, ending by being curative in the pres-
ence of diseases and disorders of different kinds, through so-called non-visual effects on the
circadian system.
Chapter 5
A new paradigm for Daylight Assessment
1 Defining a protocol to optimise the Daylight Assessment procedure

The new approach to Daylight Assessment can be defined according to a ‘bottom up’ method-
ology, i.e. one based on the principle that, in accordance with the requirements to be pursued,
it is necessary to determine the limits and thresholds within which the brightness needs to be
established to satisfy not only visual task needs, but also the global wellbeing of users.
The search for conditions of indoor visual comfort usually includes a consecutive reading of
some of the parameters and the verification of pre-set conditions: sources of natural direct il-
lumination are identified, together with other factors that might influence the distribution of
light; the annual and daily quotas of natural light that users and objects will be subject to are
defined and, as a result, the threshold values to compare these with, in relation to the prescribed
amount.
Using this approach and considering the use of the conventional static method, through the
Daylight Factor (DF) parameter only, inevitably the complexity and vastness of the stimuli and
environmental parameters is disregarded, both inside and outside the confined environment,
making Daylight Assessment completely ineffective as a response to multiple requirements.
As a result, in the last 20 years new solutions for Daylight Assessment have been investigated
according to a holistic system that would surpass the above critical issues.
The first, and most obvious obstacle in addressing the question is the lack of a unique system
with regard to the choice of physical parameters to be considered: With respect to the first ap-
proach, based on simple rules of common sense or inferred from consolidated construction
practices, only recently have local guidelines made it compulsory to assume the geometric DF
parameter which, as has been analysed in the previous sections, is not only limiting and imper-
fect, but often provides values that are totally misleading and inadequate.
If we assume as valid other parameters of the static type, there is an equal risk of excessive sim-
plification, always leaving aside environmental assessment and the degree of user satisfaction.
The complex apportionment that binds together the different parameters of a new definition
must instead be supported by a genuine framework of analysis, suitable to describe in a com-
prehensive and comparable manner, different relationships that link aspects such as light dis-
tribution, visual comfort, the architectural quality of the environment, and respect of require-
ments that promote energy saving.
Resorting to simple indicators of a qualitative type, such as identifying the peculiarities of a

confined environment through quantitative indices to be compared with pre-set values has so
far been found unreliable.
From these considerations comes a proposal to set up a new verification protocol, which is re-
markable for its integrated approach, able to offer a reading simultaneously on multiple levels
of lighting conditions, environmental and visual comfort, and to assess the energy performance
of a confined environment lit by natural light.
The analysis proposed below will arrive at the formulation of a cascade analysis framework, which
is useful for the survey of existing edifices, and indispensable for a preliminary assessment at
the planning stage.
According to this type of method, the individual components under survey are evaluated
simultaneously, despite belonging to different systems or disciplines. In fact, the integrated
system should operate simultaneously, by establishing comparable common limits and pa-
rameters to link different subsystems, such as assessment of hourly and sub-hourly illu-
mination, analysis of dynamic parameters that combine natural and artificial light perfor-
mance, assessment of visual comfort and the general perception of the environment by the
occupants.
The analysis framework is undoubtedly more complex than the mono-disciplinary approach,
but it does work as a single system of assessment, through the aggregation of separate synergis-
tic subsystems, which relate to the different areas of inquiry.
The integrated approach seeks to define a practice that permits the taking into consideration of
the needs of the user, the regulatory requirements and energy-type needs all at the same time,
according to a method that provides for the adoption of the new CBDM system, tailored to the
needs of the context and in relation to energy-saving strategies.
In this way, it leads to the definition of a single verification system, applicable both in prelimi-
nary stages and in the case of energy retrofit, to test the potential of the distribution of natural
light in the interior spaces, from the point of view of quality and quantity.
The limitation of the integrated method proposed now regards essentially its range of applica-
bility, it is obvious that a system which evaluates on several levels subsystems that are different
from one another, in terms of indices to be respected and critical thresholds to be compared
with, is easier to use on large complex buildings, where the needs of the user are differentiated
and distinguishable.
In other words, the system will be proposed and better adapted to the daylight assessment of
public buildings, in particular offices, schools and large spaces, where the stay of the users is
prolonged in time and the visual tasks can be defined for specific areas, while the method is
more difficult to use for the daylight assessment of residential buildings where it is not possible
to actually differentiate the visual tasks among the interior spaces and application of the proto-
col would be more burdensome.
A new paradigm for Daylight Assessment  147
1.1 An integrated protocol for the dynamic assessment of natural light in

confined spaces: a cascade framework in line with qualitative and quantitative
aspects
Analysis of the environmental and energy performance of a confined environment can there-
fore benefit greatly from the introduction of the new dynamic parameters, which are able to
jointly express relationships between visual function, climate and microclimate aspects, and
performance and energy requirements.
The proper application of these new CBDM parameters within an integrated system of assess-
ment allows an overall comprehensive assessment that takes into account the particularities of
climatic context, of visual tasks, and in the interior space in question can be concluded, calibrat-
ing the variable amount of artificial light.
What remains excluded from the process of existing dynamic analysis is instead a comprehen-
sive assessment of the preferences of the occupant, which may vary not only in relation to the
target audiences, but also on the position that the subject occupies in the room.
The analysis procedure hitherto adopted (Fig. 69) essentially brings together data from the
static approach, comparing the average DF values together with the geometric peculiarities of
the interior space considered; only later on can the assessment be integrated with data relating
to the requirements of comfort and energy saving, complex relationships that are formalised
through the identification of certain limit values, in relation to which the compliance is assessed.
Figure 67: Analysis phases according to the currently valid approach.

The standard procedure (Fig. 67) that includes use of the static method is divided into two dis-
tinct parts: on the one hand it requires a precise description of the space in question, through
the determination of opaque and transparent areas, and considering any optical and reflective
peculiarities (step 1). Then from among the different methods to perform the luminous assess-
ment one must be chosen, through the DF, using the simplified formula of Sumpner or resorting
to calculation of the three components, DC, IRC and ERC (step 2).
In the case of existing buildings, the test can be performed in situ under the prescribed condi-
tions, i.e. in the presence of a standard overcast sky, measuring the internal and external illumi-
nation to verify any agreements or anomalies in the light distribution.
This step can thus be integrated with previous ones, just as it can be followed by an energy-type
assessment, for the determination of the integrative component of electricity.
As can be deduced from the scheme in Fig. 67, the major steps of assessment are mutually dis-
jointed and in particular, steps 2 and 3 do not provide any type of reciprocal relationship, i.e.
the amount of light required for artificial lighting is not directly dependent on the DF quota, this
being hardly comparable to the actual lighting situation.
The limitations inherent in this type of practice, already defined in the previous section, are
further increased by the absence of an assessment of comfort as perceived by the occupants.
Figure 68: Analysis phases according to dynamic model.

Daylight Assessment according to the dynamic approach (Fig. 68) is differently characterised by
a complex cascade process, which is divided into four phases, in which the flow of the project
is carried out at separate times.
Specific analysis of geometric, physical and optical requirements is preceded by the choice of a
climate file, which contains information relating to the average annual climate and the amount
of light radiation available for the location in question.
The adoption of a cascade process requires a precise order of execution in the analysis itself,
where each phase begins only when the previous one has been completed, making the flow
of information highly controllable and turning it into a reliable assessment. If the strictly geo-
metrical and defining phase of the model can be equated to the static method, the successive
steps turn to new dynamic parameters that can also be used at the same time to arrange for a
more comprehensive assessment in relation to the prevailing functions that take place in the
space.
The geometrical and physical analysis of the space is thus supplemented by observation of
precise hourly distributions in reference to pre-established limits, through identification of the
areas most affected by excessive illumination and areas that are under-lit. In this case a choice
is made from the dynamic parameters Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI), Daylight Autonomy
(DA) and continuous Daylight Autonomy (cDA) according to which is the most appropriate for
the survey (phase 3). This stage can be followed by a further survey to collect additional infor-
mation to correlate the presence of natural light with the subjective perception of the occupants
(phase 4).
Examination of the level of perceived comfort usually relies on an assessment of the POE, Post
Occupancy Evaluation type, which processes data on the level of comfort perceived by the oc-
cupants through the administration of standard questionnaires.
The inherent limitation in this phase of subjective analysis lies in the generic nature of the sur-
vey among users, who are interviewed in relation to general preferences without establishing a
real correlation between the questions on the form, the actual areas of light distribution, and the
relative position of the subject in the room.
A more correct approach to this type of survey must therefore relate the actual climatic and
meteorological conditions and physical environment with a precise analysis of the geometry of
the building, thus obtaining a unambiguous mapping of results over a complete year, data that
give a whole picture to compare with the results from the tests.
Daylight Assessment according to the integrated dynamic approach shown in Fig. 69 instead,
outlines a new paradigm, which includes in one single process, an assessment of the light distri-
bution of the interior space and an analysis of users’ preferences, in order to implement energy-
saving strategies by reducing consumption for artificial lighting, cooling and heating.
For the first time, the integrated framework applied through this procedure combines the
possibilities of the CBDM system on a large-scale, allowing a cascade reading on multiple
levels, i.e. a vertical reading of steps consequential to one another, depending on the choice
of reference parameter. The procedure that follows therefore collects in a single protocol a
Figure 69: Analysis phases according to the dynamic integrated system.
simultaneous qualitative and quantitative reading, thanks to the use of the newly defined
dynamic metrics.
As previously discussed, the potentialities expressed by the CBDM method are enhanced in this
scheme by readings made on the basis of maps of light distribution, which can be made to order
using the tests of users’ preferences, creating a comprehensive picture of the actual lighting
conditions, potentially harmful situations in terms of glare and local overheating, from which
to derive targeted actions to reduce or increase the amount of variable light.
For the first time, it is possible to disregard any in situ measurements, which in this context
appears simplistic and too tied to the specific measurement conditions, replaced instead by a
direct survey of the preferences of the occupants, which in this way provides a qualitative as-
sessment for the specific interior space.
The quantitative data, obtained from the distribution of light levels and the percentages of
DA and UDI recommended, can be compared to qualitative data through a reading of the
preferences expressed by the occupants themselves. The model of usage on which the quali-
tative survey is based can also be predicted, in the design or verification phases, to develop
distribution and movement patterns, by modelling some possible configurations, simulating
the individual amounts of direct control over diffusing, shielding or shading systems, upon
which users can intervene.
The specific analysis, starting from step 4 (Fig. 69), may proceed either with a cascade flow,
which provides a progressive reading of all the aggregated parameters, or on the basis of a
single parameter, in relation to the selected unit of measure, crossing the different parameters.
Vice versa, from step 5 onwards, it is possible to proceed with an aggregate reading of all the
dynamic parameters by grouping and comparing multiple units of measurement.
The method is thus based on the possibility of reading individual layers or aggregates of infor-
mation, on luminous and geometrical bases, independently of each other, without excluding the
possibility of re-associating the information obtained from each single phase, superimposing
the output data on it.
From an operational point of view, it is possible to use different software packages that are
interfaced in a precise manner, starting from Daysim, a freeware software, developed by the
Lighting Group of the National Research Council Canada and Solar Building Design Group, at
the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy System, under the supervision of Christoph Reinhart,
that can calculate illumination levels, thanks to local climate annual datasets and using the
dynamic parameters.
On the basis of the information provided by the annual illumination profile and the Annual
Light Exposure, Daysim can generate hourly distributions related to the usage patterns for both
electrical loads and the variable amounts from shading devices. The annual quota of light cal-
culated for a point in space corresponds to the sum of all the illuminance levels that affect a
calculation point in space throughout the year and measured in lux per year. The importance
of this type of parameter lies in the calculation method with which the data is obtained, since it
considers the contribution of variable direct and indirect light, as well as that filtered through
any screening devices.
These simulations must then be made system with other simulations to obtain additional
information to complete the survey energy. Usually surveys of this type can be carried out
using softwares like TRNSYS, EnergyPlus, eQuest and Esp-r which are able to collect the lumi-
nous results provided by the dynamic approach through simulations of thermal and electrical
loads.
The final phase of the integrated dynamic survey is completed with a simultaneous reading of
the results obtained from specific questionnaires, through the development of realistic lighting
profiles, so-called Occupancy Profiles.
In the same way, Ecotect software can be used for this type of assessment and to display the
results, with the limitation, however, of having to exclude multiple reflections from the calcula-
tion, as a result, underestimating the quota of indirect light
1.2 Quantitative analysis through simulation by software and the models in

use. Methods, algorithms and interoperability of resources
Carrying out a cascade survey like the one proposed here requires the use of a complex network
of software tools that ensure interoperability on multiple levels.
Daysim, created to operate based on climate, incorporates the new metrics of the CBDM dy-
namic system, basing its predictions of the annual availability of natural light on TMY files.
The initial stages of the assessment are the crucial moment for the simulation, passing first via
a choice of the correct climate file, in order to be able to include data relating to geographic co-
ordinates in the calculation, which are essential to describe the place where the building or the
interior space under survey are located.
The essential starting point for a system of holistic assessment, which includes the steps shown
in Fig. 69, must consequently be implemented through an effective collaboration between soft-
ware, units of measurement and dynamic policy.
The contribution of the software that allow you to study the potential for energy savings is
therefore linked to the expectations that they are able to provide regarding the actions of indi-
vidual users, who are free to choose to move or stand in a particular area of the space, as well
as being able to intervene manually or through automated mechanisms on the shading devices.
The quantitative analysis comes from a reading of the annual illumination profiles, from which
to calculate the dynamic UDI, DA and cDA metrics, together with prediction of possible situa-
tions of irritating glare.
Through a parallel and simultaneous reading of this information it is possible to analyse and
predict patterns of behaviour of the occupants, and to gauge interventions for the improvement
of indoor comfort.
Recent years have been marked by a proliferation of numerous software packages that have
enabled researchers to investigate more deeply relations of interdependence between the units
of measurement, and profiles of light and thermal distribution, related to the movements of end
users, while the global performance of naturally lit spaces still appear complex and difficult to
implement for the moment. These complex assessments have mainly involved theoretical stud-
ies, however, and remain for this reason disjoined from architectural practice and especially
distant from design applications.
The engineering community is reluctant to accept these tips, thereby opposing use of the inte-
grated dynamic method.
Considerable technical limitations still close the road to a full validation of the system: From the
lack of a user-friendly shared interface that allows designers, architects and engineers to learn
rapidly and move easily among the simulations, to the long time required between calculation
and graphic rendering, which makes the static approach preferable to the dynamic one, to the
complexity inherent in the step preceding the simulation, make this type of analysis framework
far from attractive, despite its obvious advantages [103].
From the eighties to the present day numerous software packages have been developed to per-
form joint analysis on the comfort of indoor confined interior spaces, paying attention to the
luminous aspects.
In the last 10 years, the potential of these instruments has been greatly increased, and they can
now offer a wide choice to sector professionals.
The reliability of the software has made it increasingly less common to use physical models that
require, on the contrary, an enormous effort to recreate the physical and optical conditions of the
interior space, in addition to a considerable amount of time and resources.
Some comparative assessments have shown quantitatively, and from an operational point of
view, the advantages and limitations of the main commercially available software packages,
such as Radiance, Superlite, Lumen Micro and Lightscape.
More recent surveys have instead developed more advanced versions of specific new software,
distinguishing the precise differences in the values found among the different DF thresholds in
a sample room, on which have been conducted simulations using Desktop Radiance 2.0, Light-
scape, Ecotect, Lumen Micro 7.5, Dialux 4.4 and Ecotect 5.5.
Additional considerations should be also reserved for the comparison between software simu-
lations and data observable from simulations performed on small-scale models, in of real or
simplified sky conditions [104].
The major contribution of this study lies also in the subsequent comparison between the results
of different simulations carried out on a real model, bringing attention to a debate long open on
the validity and reliability of the measurements, the comparability between illumination values
and other parameters, using both small-scale models and in the presence of an artificial sky.
From observation of the results of the software simulations it is possible to say that the most
obvious limitation of the scope of the integrated dynamic assessment according to the proposed
new approach derives, in large measure, from the difficulty of interpreting and properly using
the data produced by computer simulation, the only tool possible to approach Daylight Assess-
ment according to the new methodology.
1.3 Qualitative analysis through the subjective assessment component and

POEs
Assessment of a qualitative type, which we usually rely on, can now be carried out by direct de-
tection, using questionnaires of subjective assessment, whose precise purpose is to investigate the
real perception of light, levels of luminance, contrast and any visual discomfort among occupants.
In agreement with Daylight Assessment according to the dynamic model, the tool most widely
used consists of the assessment questionnaires known as POE, which measure the degree of satis-
faction of end-users after staying for a given period of time within the interior space under survey.
The POE method therefore implies a general assessment concerning opinions that the subjects
involved can express on the interior space, i.e. are arranged to represent the perceptions of users
on the performance offered by luminous and shading systems in an interior space.
The POE tests differ in many aspects compared to conventional surveys and market research:
in fact, they make use of direct surveys and observations with reference to an experience just
ended on which the subject expresses an immediate judgement.
The advantages of the critical reading of the results of these subjective survey tools are more
easily interpretable for large or public buildings, where the end-user stays for a long period.
By means of the POE it is possible to understand the as yet unexploited potential of a building,
increasing its receptive capacities and developing its different component, specifically, devices
for daylighting, appliances for artificial light and systems for shielding or shading.
In the same way, the results obtained from these assessments can be used to improve the design
of buildings or interior spaces that are designed from scratch, for the retrofit of existing interior
spaces and for the transformation of others.
The critical reading of the results is facilitated by the fact that the questions in the questionnaire
are compiled with the final goal in mind.
The preparation of the test usually takes place through three distinct phases: the initial phase of
preparation of the questionnaire, where the goals are identified and the field of survey is split
up; to follow the true fields of survey through the administration of the test to groups of users
who can then add to the format of the questionnaire, their own impressions and reflections;
finally, all the documentation is collected and compiled into a final report.
In the light of the system described, the traditional POE is used today to study the overall per-
ception of a building and to assess the degree of comfort reached in the interior space, without
distinguishing between the different aspects that contribute in defining the space, or the rela-
tions of interdependence between the technological, environmental and energy systems [105].
The standard questionnaires, all constructed in the same way, independent of the object and
subject of the assessment, feature a scale of values from 1 to 7, from the lowest degree of satisfac-
tion (1) to the highest level of appreciation (7).
The limit of these subjective assessments is the fact that the environmental parameters investi-
gated are too interconnected, so much so that it is difficult to separate the individual quotas to
relate them to strategies for precise interventions, even if directed to the improvement of only
one aspect be it environmental, thermo hygrometric or luminous comfort.
Even though, in some cases, the result deduced from a reading of the results is exhaustive as
regards the level of overall comfort reached, the results are difficult to compare never mind ap-
ply for specific strategies concerning individual technological systems.
In recent years, some of these limitations and inconsistencies have been partially remedied and
the forms adapted to the needs of Daylight Assessment in a confined environment [106].
In this context, with the arranging of the integrated assessment framework, a specific question-
naire has been compiled exclusively to assess natural light and other luminous parameters to
gauge the level of visual comfort achieved.
The reading of the questionnaire results will be much more comprehensive, the greater the de-
gree of freedom left to the users: in this way, the so-called model of adaptive comfort is analysed,
according to which subjects tend to adapt their preferences in relation to the prevailing condi-
tions of the interior space they find themselves in.
The adaptive model introduces for the evaluation of visual and luminous comfort, specific algo-
rithms of control and response, to improve the level of comfort, responding to the diverse needs
of the occupants, even becoming an indispensable tool to implement strategies for energy-
saving in buildings.
In the adaptive comfort model, the subject, consciously or unconsciously, plays an active role in
the achievement of a condition of satisfaction with respect to the microclimate in which he or
she is located. The same subject interacts in the process of individual adaptation, reducing his or
her individual reactions to environmental stimuli, so that it is possible to distinguish two types
of adaptation: physiological and behavioural.
2 Application of the new assessment protocol: dynamic simulation for a

case study
The definition of the integrated dynamic analysis model requires, after fine-tuning, a precise
verification of the feasibility and efficacy of the procedure thus defined.
To this end, it was chosen to conduct this verification on a case study that would allow the test-
ing of each step in a large interior space, with a considerable influx of users, and where natural
light plays a leading role to accomplish visual tasks.
The applicatory case verified concerned some classrooms at the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Parma.
These spaces demand a careful, well-gauged design both from an architectural point of view,
as regards the technological choice of daylighting devices, and for the arranging of strategies to
encourage the concentration and attention of those who sit in the classrooms.
Numerous studies have been carried out on school premises, through surveys and simulations
for kindergarten, primary, and secondary schools, as well as universities [107].
The continued presence of students in classrooms and study rooms has made it possible to
carry out accurate and reliable surveys on the dynamics that govern concentration and student
productivity, in relation to the amount of natural light present, variations in distribution of the
light, coming from daylighting devices, to develop strategies for energy-saving and improving
indoor comfort.
From the preliminary analysis carried out in the case of the premises of the Faculty of Engi-
neering (Fig. 70) the need emerged to define standard procedures that could integrate various
design interventions and any recovery.
The objective of the survey was to deduce, starting from analysis of objective luminous pa-
rameters and assessing the degree of comfort associated with them, the overall degree of envi-
ronmental acceptability of the interior spaces examined, starting from a direct comparison of
measured data of a subjective nature (distribution of questionnaires) and an objective nature
Figure 70: University of Parma, Faculty of Engineering, Classrooms plan.
(measurements and calculations according to the CBDM method), with the limits imposed by
the regulations on luminous wellbeing in buildings intended for education.
The preliminary analysis phase was carried out by choosing from among the classrooms ones
that exhibited distinct morphological and typological features and that housed different func-
tions. By way of example, only one classroom is presented here, as indicated in Fig. 70.
This is a classroom designed for workshops and design, and is equipped with special tables that
are not fixed, so that students can move freely among the workstations, in accordance with vari-
able positions. For this reason, the simulation does not take into account the drawing tables, but
considers a workplane that is located at a height of approximately 85 cm from the floor (Fig. 71).
The survey protocol initially envisaged a geometric survey of the classroom and the physical
and optical characteristics of the finishing materials present inside. The survey served to find
all relevant information relating to the interior space, to be inserted into a three-dimensional
model produced by software. The simulation makes use of climate files specific to the locality in
question, thereby incorporating prevailing climate data.
The next step is based instead on the choice of the parameter to be adopted and the limits within
which to establish thresholds of analysis for the new dynamic-type unit of measurement. In this
case it was considered interesting, in order to better understand the potential inherent in the
Figure 71: The classroom tested.
CBDM approach, for the sake of completeness to calculate also the static parameters, such as the
DF and illuminance levels, and then compare these with the new dynamic metrics.
The static simulation was carried out thanks to Ecotect software, whose three-dimensional mod-
el was then imported in Daysim to calculate the dynamic parameters, such as DA, cDA and
UDI, which were further considered in UDI fell-short, UDI achieved and UDI exceeded, in the
intervals respectively of 100 lux, 100–2,000 lux and 2,000+ lux.
In the graphic representation with false colours, through the use of isolux lines it is possible to
represent precise values according to the calculation grid used, set at the pre-determined height
of the calculation plane.
To compare precisely the real illumination conditions at certain hourly thresholds, with find-
ings from the questionnaires administered simultaneously, Dialux software was used, the only
one that makes it possible to obtain mappings concerning the DF values and illumination levels
for the date and locality concerned, so as to be able to compare quantitative data according to
the static model, with those relating to the annual climate base of the dynamic model and, fur-
thermore, with the aggregate results of qualitative surveys using questionnaires.
This is followed by a simultaneous reading of all the results obtained, using a comparison on
the basis of the individual parameters UDI, DA and cDA, or by comparing individual opinions
on single areas and sub-areas of the interior space, assuming as valid only one parameter at a
time.
This method of reading is made possible by the very nature of the dynamic metrics: It is pos-
sible to acquire useful information assuming as valid only one dynamic parameter, e.g. UDI or
DA, and aggregating the information that each of these provides with the values for the poten-
tial for energy savings, to meet pre-determined thresholds, considered acceptable or otherwise,
and therefore responsible for attaining situations of visual comfort.
Then there is a simultaneous analysis of the reviews of preference and visual satisfaction ob-
tainable from suitable questionnaires, after they have been grouped by sub-areas and separated
according to visual assessment indices.
The final phase is the implementation of more unfavourable and irritating visual and luminous
conditions, for which an intervention of mitigation is required.
Both through the graphic readout, which facilitates comparison of the entire layout of the room,
considering the individual zones into which the room is divided, it is possible to define the
areas that are effectively over- or under-lit, those at risk of glare, and those where there may be
overheating or areas of generalised discomfort from a visual point of view.
By interpreting the distribution preferences of interviewees with respect to different areas of

the interior space, it is possible to understand what lighting dynamics are preferred by users
in relation to the prevalent visual task, providing strategies for illumination or shielding. Sup-
ported by quantitative data and maps showing the distribution of both brightness and users,
the designer can now select devices for daylighting or for shading, specially calibrated for the
diverse demands of the space.
2.1 Results of quantitative analysis of the static parameters and the new
dynamic schemes
After completion of Phase 1 of the protocol, come Phases 2 and 3, as in Fig. 72. The results of
the quantitative analysis phase were obtained by integrating several reprocessing steps, using
two different software packages, Ecotect and Dialux. Numerical estimations performed with
the software made it possible to evaluate the quotas due to direct radiation from the sun and
the sky, starting from a study of the path of the sun, on a daily and annual basis, related to the
geographic location in question, from the climate type file.
Figure 72: DF values distribution in the classroom.

The first simulations carried out used, as a sole term of analysis, the DF and subsequently
Daylighting Levels, which are represented graphically through isolux lines. The assessment
carried out for the design classroom of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Parma
highlighted the following output data, related to four significant dates during which the calcu-
lation was performed (Tables 14 to 17). As can be understood from the results concerning the DF
parameter, the distribution of the percentage values is heavily inhomogeneous: in areas close to
the fenestrated fronts DF values are around 20%, and then start to decline significantly, reaching
Table 14: Average illumination values Em on the main calculation surfaces.

21st March at noon
Surface areas Average illumination Reflection Average
coefficient luminance
Direct Indirect Total Cd/sqm
Useful surface 427 60 497 – –
Calculation surface 1 419 79 48,338 – –
Floor 481 69 560 20 36
Ceiling 0 96 96 70 21
Wall 1 13 138 152 50 24
Wall 2 622 148 770 50 123
Wall 3 12 87 99 50 16
Wall 4 82 95 176 50 28
Wall 5 34 88 122 50 19
Wall 6 167 62 228 50 36
Wall 7 69 54 123 50 20
Wall 8 48 47 95 50 15
Wall 9 173 79 252 50 40

21st June at noon
Calculation surface 1 317 52 369 – –
Floor 364 60 424 20 27
Ceiling 0 72 72 70 16
Wall 1 10 105 115 50 18
Wall 2 470 112 583 50 93
Wall 3 9.01 66 75 50 12
Wall 4 62 72 134 50 21
Wall 5 26 66 134 50 15
Wall 6 126 47 173 50 28
Wall 7 52 41 93 50 15
Wall 8 37 35 72 50 11
Wall 9 131 60 190 50 30

21st September at noon
Floor 481 79 560 20 36
Ceiling 0 96 96 70 21
Wall 1 13 138 152 50 24
Wall 2 622 148 770 50 123
Wall 3 12 87 99 50 16
Wall 4 82 95 176 50 28
Wall 5 34 88 122 50 19
Wall 6 167 62 228 50 36
Wall 7 69 54 123 50 20
Wall 8 48 47 95 50 15
Wall 9 173 79 252 50 40

21st December at noon
Floor 479 79 558 20 36
Ceiling 0 95 95 70 21
Wall 1 13 138 151 50 24
Wall 2 620 148 768 50 122
Wall 3 12 87 99 50 16
Wall 4 82 94 176 50 28
Wall 5 34 87 121 50 19
Wall 6 166 62 228 50 36
Wall 7 69 54 122 50 19
Wall 8 48 47 95 50 15
Wall 9 172 79 251 50 40
an optimal value in a restricted area, located about two meters from the windows, until ending
around an almost homogeneous but insufficient value of 1–2%.
A similar pattern of light distribution is identifiable from a reading of the average DF values,
represented in plan (Fig. 72), while precise values on a workplane placed about 85 cm above the
floor, are legible in average amounts of illumination detected in the 4 time thresholds selected, as
well as from Dialux results (Tables 14 to 17), i.e. for the days of 21 March, 21 June, 21 September
and 21 December at noon.
Also in this case, it is clear that the interior space is subject to widespread over-lighting, par-
ticularly in areas adjacent to the two fenestrated fronts, while more distant areas are heavily
under-lit.
In this first phase of analysis there is a clear tendency to over-simplify the output data obtained
through the static approach.
The only possibility to precisely evaluate average illuminances (Em) is obtained by processing
maps of the distributions instantaneous presences that are not representative as compared to
the actual values, because they consider as a basic condition for the calculation a simplified situ-
ation of CIE standard overcast sky. The measurement of the mean values of DF also offers no
type of additional information useful to intervene in individual cases, in the case of screening or
shading solutions, due to the well-known shortcomings of the parameter. Having demonstrat-
ed the inadequacy of the data processed, the new metrics of the CBDM method were employed,
such as the DA, cDA UDI and the three sub-parameters UDI exceeded, UDI fell-short and UDI
achieved, according to step 3 of the protocol.
The three-dimensional model previously made by Ecotect must now be imported into Daysim,
which is able to compute, from WDF, Weather Data Files, for the chosen location, the actual
weather conditions on an annual basis. Daysim takes into account the quota of direct and re-
flected light from the sky and that coming directly from the sun, thanks to the calculation of
ambient bounces, i.e. the bounces the light is subjected to in the calculation of indirect lighting.
The advantage inherent in the calculation procedure derives from the fact that it is possible at
the same time to take into account the interaction of the light that filters from the outside to-
wards the inside, thanks to the DCs that combine these data with the values of insolation and
direct and diffused radiation.
The strong limitation connected to the use of software such as Daysim lies mainly in the dif-
ficulty of reading the output data.
In fact, these are raw data expressed in complex tables (Table 18), in which each row shows the
data collected in the room in the vicinity of virtual sensors that the calculation uses.
The table shows the numerical values for all luminous parameters, both static and dynamic,
calculated for each point in space.
Table 18: Excerpt of output data as supplied by Daysim software.

x y z DF % DA % CDA % DAmax% UDI100 % UDI100–2,000 % UDI2,000% DSP
1.23 5.88 0.09 14.8 93 96 16 3 35 62 62
1.29 5.88 0.09 10.8 91 95 11 3 50 47 81
1.35 5.88 0.09 7.8 88 94 6 3 65 32 87
1.40 5.88 0.09 5.3 83 92 3 4 76 21 86
1.46 5.88 0.09 3.6 75 88 2 5 82 14 79
1.51 5.88 0.09 2.5 66 84 2 6 85 9 71
1.57 5.88 0.09 2.2 62 82 2 7 87 5 58
1.57 5.88 0.09 1.8 53 78 2 8 87 2 54
1.63 5.88 0.09 1.6 49 76 0 9 89 1 52
The simulation of the sample classroom shows an average DF value of more than 2% on 45% of
the calculation area.
As regards analysis of DA (Fig. 73) it can be seen from an examination of the dedicated column
(Table 18) that the DA values change from a minimum of 0% to 96%, i.e. there are points in
which, over the course of the year, the prescribed presence of 500 lux is never reached, while at
other points in space the limit is reached in 96% of cases.
As regards analysis of Useful Daylight Illuminance, values are grouped according to three sub-
parameters: UDI < 100, recorded in about 51% of the area, while UDI 100–2,000 is almost never
Figure 73: DA values.
Figure 74: UDI 100 values.

reached in the room (0%), and finally UDI > 2,000 is found in 49% of the points, that is to say, in
their virtual sensors (Figs. 74 to 76).
This clearly shows that, given the environment of the workplace from Monday to Friday, from
9 am to about 6 pm, with three breaks lasting about half an hour, over the course of the year
the room has a deeply inhomogeneous pattern of light distribution, with some regions heavily
over-lit, with the likelihood of overheating and irritating glare, while the other half of the room
does not receive enough natural light.
This shows that, despite the DF value for 45% of the space, with a percentage taken that seem-
ingly reveals a proper quota of natural light, the dynamic analysis totally refutes the static one.
Figure 75: UDI 100–2,000 values.
Figure 76: UDI 2,000 values.

Figure 77: cDA values.
Finally the last dynamic parameter to be evaluated is the continuous Daylight Autonomy, to-
gether with the DAmax.
In this respect, it should be noted that 88% of the virtual sensors recorded cDA values higher
than 60% (Fig. 77), while 19% of the sensors detect a DAmax above 5% (Fig. 78).
In other words, this means that, in accordance with the provisions of the cDA definition, partial
credits can be given to areas with a cDA above the pre-determined limit of 500 lux, as in this
case, in which 88% of the points in space exceed the threshold of 500 lux by about 60%.
Similarly, having set 500 lux as a maximum limit of illumination, the DAmax shows that 19% of
the sensors exceed the limit of 500 lux with an average increase of 5%.
Finally, on the basis of the average occupation time considered for the simulation, the pro-
gramme stipulates that the amount of electricity required satisfying the quota of natural light in
the annual time band considered is approximately 2.9 kWh per unit area.
This hypothetical value refers to the use of electricity in an identical environment to the one
considered, in the event that it is occupied by two types of different users: on the one hand, it
is assumed that users have the chance to adjust the intensity of light on the basis of the external
light conditions, being able to act in the same way on any internal or external shading devices;
the second hypothesis takes into account users who use only artificial lighting, regardless of the
external lighting conditions for the entire duration of the day, in the presence of shading devices
that are always activated.
The aggregate read of these complexes parameters must necessarily find an easy-to-read graph-
ic illustration that makes the dynamic analysis easily comparable with the previous static analy-
sis. To this end, it is necessary to import, through a reverse process, the numerical data from
Daysim to Ecotect. Some graphic representations of three-dimensional simulations are given on
the following pages.
Figure 78: DAmax500 values.
Despite the ease of representing on the groundplan colours that correspond to the different lev-
els of DA (Fig. 78), examination of the individual cells that the surface of calculation is divided
into remains rather laborious.
As regards the colour coding, the blue areas represent areas where the pre-set illumination
target of 500 lux was not reached. This means, not so much that the hatched area was not illumi-
nated by sunlight, but that the quota of daylight was insufficient to accomplish the visual task.
Gradually the colours of the graphic scale shift towards yellow to indicate illuminance levels
approaching those pre-set. The percentage value associated with the colour of the cell indicates
the percentage of time during which it reaches the set point fixed, thanks only to the amount of
natural light and considering the hours of actual occupancy of the room during the year. It is
usual to consider a percentage of autonomy of natural light equal to 40–60% as a condition of
optimal illumination.
It is also to be considered that cells affected by a percentage greater than 70% are often subject
to dazzling phenomena and overheating, in the event that solar control glass or systems of ex-
ternal shading have not been arranged.
The colour reproduction for the distribution of DAmax (Fig. 78), used to analyse the areas af-
fected by an excessive presence of light during the hours of calculation, indicates in an indirect
manner the presence of zones of glare. In fact, this parameter shows areas subject to direct radia-
tion from the source, in this case the red and yellow cells will be, with great probability, over-lit.
The particular orientation of the interior space and the arrangement of the windows mean that
in a restricted area of the classroom, the windows should be screened for about 10% of the year,
to prevent the zone becoming unusable.
Bearing in mind that the term DAmax500 indicates the attainment of an illuminance equal to 10
times higher than that pre-set, it therefore highlights an annual percentage with illumination
greater than 5,000 lux.
For the sake of completeness, the cDA parameter was also calculated: among the units of a dy-
namic origin the latter can be defined as the most appropriate for analysis of spaces for teaching,
since this came precisely from studies by Rogers on some school classes. Unlike the data sup-
plied by the DA, it confers partial credits also to time intervals during which the illumination
point is below the threshold level.
Unlike the previous graphic representations, the cells that represent the distribution of cDA
(Fig. 77) are more easily read and interpreted. The yellow cells have obtained a credit, in other
words they indicate the points at which it is possible to reach 500 lux for 100% of the time of cal-
culation; using the cDA it is not, however, possible to recognise areas excessively illuminated,
i.e. 500 lux above the set point.
From a detailed reading of the parameter it can be observed that, up to about one third of the
depth of the room, there are partial cDA credits (80%), represented by the orange areas.
For the areas in which the partial credits are less than 90%, a designer who uses the cDA tool
has a precise indicator that shows, cell by cell and potentially for each point in space, the quota
of missing artificial light alongside the partial credit to reach 500 lux. This makes it possible to
intervene with a lighting design targeted to the real needs of the space and to install diversified
equipment with different power levels, without risking to unnecessarily exceed the illuminance
levels really needed.
Other considerations may be deduced from a reading of the graphic representations of the val-
ues of UDI and the sub-parameters UDI exceeded, UDI achieved and UDI fell-short (Figs. 74
to 76). The UDI is the most useful parameter to identify most of the times of the year when the
levels of natural light are considered useful, i.e. sufficient to accomplish the visual task.
UDI fell-short regards areas with an average illumination lower than 100 lux where the use of
artificial light is essential, while UDI exceeded regards the percentage of areas affected by an av-
erage illumination over 2,000 lux, around which precise dazzling phenomena are likely to occur.
The main purpose in identifying this threshold is to be able to determine when an excess of day-
light can generate conditions of visual discomfort and heat. Finally, we consider the percentage
time when illumination lies between 100 and 2,000 lux, i.e. UDI achieved.
From illustrations in false colours relating to the different UDI, it can be deduced that the area
near the door, that is to say, that most distant from both fenestrated fronts, has a 13% of possibil-
ity of being under-lit until reaching a point where the percentage increases to 26%.
Despite the average illumination always being higher than 100 lux, throughout the course of
the period in question, it should be understood that this does not ensure an optimum condition
from an illumination point of view.
The distribution of illumination levels that fall within the range considered useful, i.e. between
100 and 2,000 lux (Fig. 75), makes it possible to appreciate the cells, or sub-areas, where artificial
light is not needed.
These percentage values facilitate reading and thanks to these we can say that the central part of
the classroom can be illuminated using only natural light. On the other hand, this value makes
it difficult to understand the real light situation, thus it is preferable to use the information pro-
vided by the cDA and DAmax500 parameters.
Values that exceed the threshold value of 2,000 lux are represented through the parameter
UDI2,000 or UDI exceeded, which identifies in the space how many and which areas are over-lit
(Fig. 79).
For about a quarter of the depth of the room towards the eastern front, can be observed areas pro-
gressively affected for 50% of the time by excessive illumination, which wanes towards the centre
of the room. On the southern front, also because of the presence of a narrow passage between the
building and the obstacle in front of it, the distribution of illumination is homogeneous.
Ultimately, also precise values can be analysed for each point in space, in relation to the param-
eter DSP – Daylight Saturation Percentage.
The DSP changes the values of the UDI parameter, increasing the limit values in the range be-
tween 430 and 4,300 lux.
Figure 79: UDI values comparison.
Figure 80: DSP values.

The graphic representation of Fig. 80, obtainable from a numeric computation, indicates that
for at least 50% of the time, the pre-set values are achieved. In this case, a less homogeneous
distribution is evident compared to previous assessments, but at the same time, the areas where
there are percentages of high DSP are more extensive as a result of enlargement of the range of
useful illumination and the raising of the minimum threshold.
2.2 Results of qualitative analysis of visual comfort through subjective

assessments
This phase of the qualitative survey, in accordance with step 5 of the protocol (Fig. 69), includes,
at this point, a comparative reading of the luminous data previously acquired and information
on usership distribution obtained from a critical reading of questionnaires.
To analyse the case study specific questionnaires were drawn up in order to optimise the aggre-
gate read of the individual preferences of the subjects, with regard to their stay in the classroom
and, in particular, external conditions.
At the time of administering the questionnaires, tests were simultaneously performed to study
the main thermal, hygrometric and luminous parameters in the absence of artificial light.
The questionnaire suitably adapted for the purpose of the survey consisted of two distinct sec-
tions, one on the sensorial perception of each individual, and one on the so-called ‘emotional
quality of places’.
Based on ASHRAE 55/1992, in accordance with ISO 7730/1994, and referring to national tech-
nical standards requirements on luminous wellbeing, the anonymous test aimed to investigate
the differences between the situations perceived by users in their immediate surroundings com-
pared to the results of numerical simulation.
The first part of the questionnaire was drawn up on indications of the UNI EN ISO 10551, with
some useful additions to understand subjects’ degree of visual satisfaction.
Among the questions was a reference to the possibility of occupants being able to directly con-
trol the heating and lighting of their surroundings: from the scores obtained it was possible to
infer the level of satisfaction, and, as a result, assess corrective or mitigating actions to influence
users’ future behaviour.
In order to complete the survey from the point of view of the perception of the individual of the
thermal and visual environment, the second part of the questionnaire focussed on the so-called
emotional quality of places, something able to highlight a statistically non-indicative relationship,
although useful to the survey, in assessing the quality of the architectural, social and functional
aspects of the environments analysed [108].
The purpose of this complex survey is therefore to provide the technician with tools not only
for the environment and lighting fixtures, but also a likely pattern of distribution of the subjects
inside the room, on the basis of a sample of users expressing a subjective estimate on their level
of comfort in line with the model of adaptive comfort.
The research, hitherto carried out on a small number of interior spaces for teaching, was a first
attempt to combine traditional quantitative data with a review of the individual preferences
that guide users’ choices, integrating a cognitive-emotional assessment with a regular environ-
mental analysis.
Below is the model of the questionnaire, developed for the specific requirements to evaluate
each classroom.
This anonymous test includes a part on the demographics of the subject, as well as a graphic
part in which subjects have to indicate their position at the time of compilation on a simplified
plan of the room.
The latter proved extremely important to be able to provide a differentiated reading for certain
areas of the classrooms, aggregating the results in relation to the position the subject occupied.
The second part of the questionnaire is instead devoted to an assessment of the perception
of ‘emotional quality’, using a different scale from the one usually used in POEs, elaborated
through assessment of 48 adjectives referring to the possible range of emotions provoked by the
interior space on the mood of the occupants.
The questionnaire, adapted from the original model in English, contains a list of adjectives that
can be divided into four subgroups, relaxing vs. stressful, pleasant vs. unpleasant, exciting vs.
depressing, stimulating vs. boring, with a score from 1, do not agree at all to 5, agree totally.
The final analysis of the results from this second part gave results on different classrooms and
different subjects in the classroom taken as a representative example.
From the results, the main quality in describing the classroom is strongly negative more than
positive: the highest score was in fact attributed to the adjective soporific.
The comparative reading of the pairs of adjectives leads to the conclusion that even the adjec-
tive stimulating, the opposite of soporific achieved a higher average, inducing the thought that
the environment is perceived more in the direction of the adjective soporific rather than stimu-
lating, without a strong connotation towards one or the other, as can be read in the aggregate
outcomes in Table 19.
With respect to the reading the other two polarities of adjectives, relaxing vs. stressful and exciting
vs. depressing, the higher scores were recorded for ‘stressful’ and ‘exciting’, as if the dynamism
Table 19: Results of the questionnaire on the emotional quality of the places.
Positive qualities Average of the values Negative qualities Average of the values
Relaxing 1.14 Stressful 2.4
Exciting 2.16 Depressing 1.5
Stimulating 2.66 Soporific 2.81
Total positives 5.96 Total negatives 6.71
and movement which were perceived in the classroom as prevalent sensations were instead
identified as phenomena of disturbance and agitation by the students.
The administration of the questionnaire and the instrumental surveys began after a time in-
terval of about 30 minutes, to allow the occupants to adapt to the existing climatic conditions.
On the basis of this information, the aggregate read of data obtained for each classroom sur-
veyed was combined to obtain some significant parameters referring to three indices for specific
questions in the survey (Table 20).
In order to better understand significant data for the final goal of the survey, the questions fol-
lowed three indicators to assess the quality of the lighting:
• An Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting (%), assessed as the proportion of subjects who
responded to the questions: The lighting is too intense for the tasks that I have to perform;
the lighting is too low for the use I require in this environment; overall, the lighting is com-
fortable;
• An Index of Discomfort due to the lighting (%), assessed as the proportion of subjects who re-
sponded to the questions: the lighting is poorly distributed; the lighting creates shadows;
reflections from the windows hinder my work; direct glare from the windows hinders my
work; direct sunlight hinders my work; the flickering of the artificial light hinders my work;
comfortable environmental conditions allow me to learn in an efficient manner;
• An Index of Lighting preference (%), assessed as the proportion of subjects who responded to
the questions: I can change the conditions of the environment in which I find myself; other
people control the conditions of the environment in which I find myself; I have a certain
degree of control over the lighting; being able to modify the conditions of the environment in
which I find myself makes me feel better.
The preferences expressed by the interviewees show above all a strong variability in the results,
as can be deduced from the graphic representation on the plan of the classroom.
In the classroom taken as a sample for the purpose of the survey, as well as in other classrooms
part of an overall assessment, the questionnaires were administered to students of different
ages in such a way as to cover a wide range of interviewees.
Although the results from the experimental campaign of measurements detected some areas af-
fected by over illumination, such as to present the risk of glare for a large part of the year, many
of the interviewees stated a discrete appreciation for these levels of illumination, without com-
plaining of any kind of discomfort. Above all, the results of the experimental surveys demon-
strated strong discrepancies with respect to the experimental values calculated by the software,
as well as in the subjective preferences of the sample of occupants interviewed.
The results from the questionnaires were then aggregated in the three indices of Dissatisfaction
with the Lighting, Discomfort due to the Lighting and Lighting Preference, each of which was further
investigated in relation to the three areas in which the classroom was divided virtually (Fronts
1, 2 and Interior Wall), to allow easier reading of the percentage values with respect to the posi-
tion of each occupant with respect to the three areas.
Table 20: Questionnaire on the thermal and luminous quality of the classroom.
Demographic data of the subject
Age:
Sex: M F
Have you taken caffeine-containing beverages and/or protein in the last hour? S N
Indicate the position you occupy in the classroom at this moment:
Please indicate with a cross how much you agree with each statement, from 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
The classroom in which you are:
Is well-ventilated 1 2 3 4 5
Is aesthetically pleasing 1 2 3 4 5
In the classroom you are in:
It is cold 1 2 3 4 5
I have been able to choose where to sit 1 2 3 4 5
It is pleasant to stay there 1 2 3 4 5
The temperature is comfortable 1 2 3 4 5
The air is cool and pleasant 1 2 3 4 5
I can change the conditions of the environment where I am 1 2 3 4 5
I can feel irritating air currents 1 2 3 4 5
The air I am breathing is dry 1 2 3 4 5
I feel discomfort in the respiratory tract 1 2 3 4 5
Other people control the environmental conditions of the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5
Comfortable environmental conditions allow me to learn efficiently 1 2 3 4 5
Ability to change conditions around me makes you feel better 1 2 3 4 5
I have a certain degree of control over the lighting 1 2 3 4 5
My achievements in studying depend entirely on me 1 2 3 4 5
Overall, the lighting is comfortable 1 2 3 4 5
The lighting is too intense for the tasks I have to do 1 2 3 4 5
The lighting is too low for the tasks I have to do 1 2 3 4 5
The lighting is poorly distributed 1 2 3 4 5
The lighting creates shadows 1 2 3 4 5
Reflections from the windows hinder my work 1 2 3 4 5
Direct glare from the windows hinders my work 1 2 3 4 5
Direct sunlight hinders my work 1 2 3 4 5
The view outside is pleasant 1 2 3 4 5
The sunlight entering at this moment is pleasant 1 2 3 4 5
The sunlight distracts me 1 2 3 4 5
The flickering of the artificial light hinders my work 1 2 3 4 5
The flickering of the natural light obstructs my view of the whiteboard 1 2 3 4 5
How satisfied are you with the classroom you are in from a thermal 1 2 3 4 5
point of view?
How satisfied are you with the classroom you are in from a lighting 1 2 3 4 5
point of view?
How happy are you with the classroom you are in compared to the 1 2 3 4 5
other environments of the faculty of engineering and architecture?
How satisfied are you with the spaces for teaching in this building? 1 2 3 4 5
On the Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting (Table 21), referring to the aggregate values
of the questions about the sensation perceived by the occupants in respect of illumination lev-
els, to the possible presence of irritating dazzling phenomena, irritating reflections and other
manifestations of over- or under-illumination, it can be deduced that the majority of the interior
space is characterised by poorly lit areas.
Only a small number of interviewees, seated in the vicinity of the two fenestrated fronts ex-
pressed discomfort due to the presence of an excessive amount of incoming light (7% and 12%).
This result, if on the one hand it has to be assessed as the outcome of a questionnaire still need-
ing to be perfected, on the other it does show strong discrepancies between what the instru-
ments measured and what the occupants perceived.
Table 21: Results related to the Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting.
Quality of the lighting Fenestrated façade 1 Fenestrated façade 2 Inner wall
Excessive 7% 12% 12%
Bearable 31% 20% 20%
Agreeable 27% 15% 15%
Insufficient 31% 40% 40%
Almost absent 4% 13% 13%
Figure 81: Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting and DF values distribution.
It is immediately evident, despite the absence of sources of direct light, that for the wall op-
posite the fenestrated front, where DF values are equal to 0.5% (Fig. 72) a small share of inter-
viewees perceived excessive lighting (20% and 12%), while the values of dissatisfaction with the
lighting (Fig. 81) show general appreciation from those sitting in the vicinity of the windows.
In the same way, the close proximity of some subjects to Front 2 where the percentage of DF
medium is fairly high (12–18%) did not cause discomfort among the interviewees, expressing
instead favourable opinions, declaring an absence of discomfort despite a high value of illu-
mination, from 15% to 20%, i.e. appreciable. This discrepancy is made evident by the plans in
Fig. 81, in which are shown the results of the Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting in the
vicinity of the three areas, successively compared with the corresponding DF values calculated.
Table 22: Results related to the Index of Discomfort due to the lighting.
Optimal 8% 6% 15%
Pleasant 48% 60% 43%
Agreeable 19% 17% 14%
Irritating 4% 13% 21%
Unbearable 21% 4% 7%
Figure 82: Index of Discomfort with the lighting and DF values.

Aggregated values relating to visual discomfort (Table 22) are pointed up by a general propen-
sity of the subjects to express positive opinions, assessing the natural lighting in the vicinity of
Front 1 and Front 2 pleasant or appreciable (in blue), both in the areas immediately adjacent
to the windows where the DF exceeds the recommended threshold of 3%, and in the remoter
areas, where the lighting is virtually absent, as can be seen in Fig. 82.
A small percentage of votes testifies to the occurrence of irritating and unbearable lighting situ-
ations, especially for those seats behind the south front (Front 2), which seem, however, not to
suffer from excessively high levels of illumination.
Despite the absence of manual or automatic devices to control the illumination, the Index of
Lighting preference (Fig. 83) still seems far from reliable (Table 23). With respect to Front 1, 33%
Figure 83: Index of Lighting preference and DF values.
Table 23: Results related to the Index of Lighting preference.

Highly controllable 6% 3% 5%
Controllable 28% 37% 12%
Constant 33% 23% 28%
Not controllable 11% 27% 35%
Unmanageable 22% 10% 20%
and 28% of interviewees declared they could act with respect to the excessive brightness of the
fronts, while those subjects far from the fronts, declared that it was impossible to intervene on
the levels of illumination.
The outcome of the comparison between the values to calculate DF and the aggregated results
of the test of appreciation shows that most users prefer to remain in the over-lit areas facing
south, near Front 2, as is clear from a comparison between the plans in Fig. 83.
Similarly, positive votes and general appreciation were also expressed for those areas that, de-
spite not reaching the prescribed value of 500 lux or the 3% threshold for DF, and settling in-
stead on much lower levels, show again how the prescribed terms are not very reliable and are
very distant from the actual needs of those occupying the space.
The strip in the vicinity of the fenestrated fronts where the DF stood around a value of 1.5%
(insufficient for the legislation in force), was instead the area preferred by users, as is evident in
the comparison in Fig. 81, between the distribution of the values of DF and its representation in
colour of the Index of Dissatisfaction with the lighting.
The synchronous analysis of the data, subdivided by area and intervals of illumination, makes
it possible to provide timely and targeted interventions, differentiating specific strategies
aimed at enhancing the illumination or to screen areas that are excessively lit, revealing itself
Figure 84: DF values distribution and the users assessed and Dissatisfaction Index
with the lighting in the classroom.
as indispensable to provide integration with technological solutions designed to increase the

uniformity of the illumination or prepare specific solutions of artificial lighting, to contain both
electrical consumption and to help the overall energy saving of the confined environment. Such
a comparison makes it possible to ensure that, in agreement with what was described by the
interviewees regarding the central area of the room, the area between the fenestrated front 1
and the interior wall, seems to have illumination conditions that are welcomed by occupants.
Instead what came out of the comparison between DA500 and the index of dissatisfaction with
the lighting is that the threshold target of 500 lux, evaluated as optimal for visual tasks, is actu-
ally only reached 20–30% of the time (Fig. 84).
Therefore, it would seem useful to intervene to maximise the percentages relating to the DA500
and to ensure uniform light distribution in this area.
As demonstrated by this comparison, a reading combining dynamic metrics and values from
the subjective questionnaire can better disentangle information arising from a strictly qualita-
tive assessment from those of a quantitative variety to complete Daylight Assessment.
3 Considerations on implementation of the new paradigm

As has been demonstrated, implementation of the integrated cascade protocol makes it possible
to obtain a vast amount of data, first in raw form and then processed in a differentiated way, to
obtain a comprehensive range of information to be used for architectural and technological ends.
The potential inherent in the very nature of the new dynamic parameters are increased by com-
parison with data resulting from a thorough reading of the assessment questionnaires, thereby
obtaining a multi-level analysis that makes it possible to conduct an assessment of a diversified
type, but that encloses all the data necessary for a Daylight Assessment that can identify strate-
gies and systems to improve the shell or the building/plant system, to improve performance or
carry out a retrofit.
The data show that a classroom with a prescribed average illuminance of 500 lux can be deemed
acceptable by users even in the presence of a light level much lower than the target threshold.
Similarly, by using the dynamic CBDM metrics, it is possible to globally assess the real needs
for natural light and the variable quota in terms of time and space of artificial light, in order to
meet deficiencies of illumination, or to locate an appropriate shielding system, where necessary.
The dynamic assessment based on climate and has been precisely designed as a tool to ensure
realistic estimates of natural light and to be able to deal with the process of Daylight Assessment
through systematic and reliable criteria.
The subsequent categorisation proposed here makes it possible to assess individual zones of the
interior space being considered, in order to determine positive or negative aspects, in relation
to the parameters evaluated.
In this way, it is possible to provide a global retrofit of the building envelope, as well as ad
hoc solutions that ensure shielding or shading where required in the room, without incurring
irritating dazzling phenomena or overheating, at the same time evaluating the proportion of
artificial light to be ensured for each area or sub-area, in order to address the failure to reach a
comfortable level of uniform illumination, without unnecessary and unjustified electrical con-
sumption.
The approach of this type of simulation proved highly adaptable in virtue of the integrated
procedure, which enables a differentiation between the analysis phases: in fact, it is possible to
evaluate a diversified strategy that takes into account the evolution of the illumination over the
entire working year, examining only those hourly intervals in which the interior space is actu-
ally occupied and in which the subjects remain there, or by evaluating a single zone at a time,
up to a single cell on the floor of computation, in relation to a single parameter, from the precise
illumination to the indices of visual preference and visual satisfaction. The ability to perform
rigorous analysis area by area or through a survey of individual cells is feasible thanks to the
presence of an adjustable analysis grid, to better evaluate in detail the specific characteristics of
the individual cells, ensuring the ability to intervene more effectively in the event of requiring
screening and shading solutions, or to increase light levels at a precise point in space.
Since the precise management of daylight illumination is notoriously one of the most difficult
challenges the designer must face to improve overall energy performance and to enhance in-
door comfort, the codification of a protocol for Daylight Assessment makes it possible to obtain
direct control over the main aspects related to the question. In addition to proposing a valid
strategy to balance the growing demand for primary energy, the proper use of natural light
enables reduction in electrical consumption in larger spaces through effective use of daylight,
together with systems for shading and shielding.
A further peculiarity of the integrated approach on a climate base consists of the possibility to
choose the time interval and season to perform the calculation on. Although the calculation is
usually performed during the daytime hours over the course of the entire calendar year, it is
more appropriate, as in the simulation carried out in this chapter, to consider only the daytime
hours of actual occupation, to be able to compare the output data with those obtained by direct
observations, static calculations and a reading of the aggregate preference ratings from the sub-
jective questionnaires.
Another prerogative of the analysis framework is to be able to adapt easily to a stage of prelimi-
nary or final design, in addition to that of a retrofit on the extant buildings.
Although born and defined to meet the growing demand for tools to be used in retrofits and
functional recovery, it can be adapted to the verification phase of a project to certify compliance
of illumination parameters in a confined environment.
In case it is required to intervene on the classroom analysed with a specific retrofit intervention,
joint analysis of the criticalities shows that it is appropriate to proceed with the inclusion of cer-
tain devices that mitigate conditions of excessive illumination in the vicinity of the fenestrated
fronts, to avoid effects of overheating and irritating glare, and safeguarding, at the same time, a
homogeneous distribution of illumination at the end of the room.
Therefore, it would seem useful to intervene to maximise the percentages relating to the DA500
and to ensure uniform light distribution in this area.
Figure 85: Interior and exterior lighshelf inclusion in each classroom windows.
Figure 86: cDA500 and UDI100–2,000 values after the lightshelves intervention.
As demonstrated by this comparison, a reading combining dynamic parameters and values

from the subjective questionnaire can better disentangle information arising from a strictly
qualitative assessment from those of a quantitative variety to complete Daylight Assessment.
The reading of this information makes it possible to prepare both architectural and technologi-
cal differentiated strategies, to implement, e.g. interventions to reduce the illumination in the
vicinity of the fenestrated front 1, contextually facilitating the re-direction of a share of natural
light towards the end of the room, on the opposite wall.
On the basis of the need to make minimally invasive changes so as not to alter the existing build-
ing envelope, one of the feasible solutions could be the inclusion of some interior lightshelves,
as shown schematically (Fig. 85), with a variable overhang, equipped with external shelves and
directional slats, to limit the excessive radiation penetrating the immediate area around the win-
dows and that can address a large quota of light rays towards the back of the room, thanks to
reflections directed onto the ceiling and into the depths.
To demonstrate the efficacy of this mitigation intervention of a check was subsequently made
on the performance of an internal lightshelf, about 120 cm deep with adjustable external slats,
to be applied to the eastern wall, thanks to additional testing and simulations.
The simulation, according to the afore-described steps, produced some significant results that
demonstrate how it is possible to intervene precisely on sensitive areas of the interior space
(Fig. 86).
It is to be understood that additional processes of refinement are feasible, however, by look-

ing at the choice of appropriate shading or diffusing devices, as well as finishing materials
for the surfaces. Where satisfactory improvements have not been found, even following the
introduction of active or passive devices, the survey can be directed towards the development
of a lighting design using artificial devices, on the basis of the values supplied for each single
cell, and in relation to the values analysed; if cDA is taken as a survey parameter, it is possible
to determine the proportion of missing illumination to achieve the predetermined threshold
as a target value.
4 Extension of the field of the phenomenology of daylight

The careful use of light makes it possible to give a sense of unity and conclusion to the space.
Thanks to control of the light coming from different sources, able to define the boundaries be-
tween dark, light and shade, it is possible to achieve a computed size for a confined space, tak-
ing into account the necessary dynamic variables of shielding and shading.
Understanding the multiform possibilities offered by natural light in architecture means take a
cue from historical experience, whose roots lie in construction practices that are distant in time
and space, to reach a new orientation that cherishes the intuitive approach to develop a complex
discipline of spatial and formal research.
The question of Daylight Assessment treated so far demonstrates how the different strate-
gies and the analysis procedures available today need to fuse into a systematic method of
global and integrated survey, to take account of complex factors that include local, geo-
graphic and meteorological aspects, the optical and perceptive needs of users, and the dy-
namics resulting from processes of adaptive comfort. In particular, it must be considered
that the handling of the light as environmental performance of a space is inherent to the
nature of the location. This means that the designer can never have generic solutions to
apply to resolve special problems, and must therefore adapt to local needs, developing dif-
ferentiated solutions.
The formal experimentation of the recent past points up the incongruity of a universal approach
that concentrates exclusively on the geometric issue of the building, just as the development
of the technological systems to be applied to the shell has erroneously led to considering these
devices as the sole means of controlling, calibrating, and managing the light.
The inconsistencies arising from approaches of a static and geometric type are reflected accord-
ingly international regulatory scenario, which is not devoid of inaccuracies and inconsisten-
cies. These complexities have highlighted the need to radically alter the approach to analysis
and calculation, and at the same time, the design of daylighting, in particular in the case of an
energy retrofit.
On the other hand, natural light, filtered, screen and addressed, assumes a central role in the
design of any space, to the extent of being a fundamental factor for indoor comfort and energy-
saving strategies. The urgency to respond to these different needs, to provide a model of correct
analysis, appropriate to the physical reality of natural light and its distributions, has led to a
reformulation of the assessment process, through a dynamic model, based on local climate and
on the introduction of new measurement metrics.
In the light of the observations made, the designer can therefore manage the necessary tools
to make editing, mitigation and corrective actions on the levels of interior light distribution,
increasing visual comfort and avoiding the risk of disturbing phenomena, whether optical or
thermal.
The implementation of the protocol defined herein demonstrates that effective collaboration
between the numerical data resulting from a dynamic assessment of parameters such as DA,
cDA and UDI, together with a reading of preference ratings collected from evaluative question-
naires among users, make the process of analysis particularly effective, allowing targeted ac-
tions with respect to the highly variable needs of a confined space in relation to the prevailing
visual task.
The decisive contribution to the question lies in the first instance in the adoption of the new
integrated dynamic paradigm and the related new metrics that can further be implemented by
making each parameter suitable to meet the needs of lighting design, as well as definition of a
quota of supplementary electric lighting needed to satisfy the final requirements.
The discussion regarding the possible uses of new parameters of a climatic origin then suggests
that the dynamic system can become a valid alternative to static factors, gradually replacing
the DF.
The numerical results and graphs arising from the formulation of the verification protocol, thus
demonstrate the need for validation at an international level of the new CBDM metrics, to be
followed by a systematisation of verification tests and simulation, in order make them suitable
for a wide range of building types, and accessible to numerous professional figures.
Stimuli useful in raising awareness of the need to validate the new dynamic paradigm must
therefore come from the knowledge that natural light, properly weighted and controlled, can
reduce the energy load of a building to ensure a pleasant and calming environment for those
who visit and live there, that is healthy from luminous, visual and thermal points of view, and
can positively affect productivity and levels of attention.
Issues that remain to be defined include, among others, those relating to a definition of absolute
reference levels, through which to circumscribe the confines of the dynamic analysis and refer-
ence parameters.
The audit trail on some exemplary cases, as demonstrated by the case study presented, has al-
lowed critical testing of the analytical protocol, to which will be added repeated experimental
verifications to prove its efficacy in different contexts and improve the complex integrated
path.
The relationship of close dependency between the luminous phenomenon, various aspects of
energy and the perceptive questions allow a further broadening of the question, in order to ob-
tain maximum performance from the new approach and to enhance the studies relating to the
relationships between light/energy-saving, light/human health and light/perception.
Afterword
Agnese Ghini
Università degli Studi di Parma
The explanation given by the author demonstrates how the theme of daylighting opens the
way to important developments in design. The denial of natural light as a foundational aspect
of the architectural project and, in particular, lack of knowledge of the possibility that it can be
governed as a physical entity, that it can be calculated and predicted through simulations and
predictive analytics, has often produced buildings that are completely indifferent to this aspect.
Now, not only the prospect of containing energy consumption rather than the specific content
performance of the light, as well as the direct fallout that it exerts on the quality of indoor com-
fort are sufficient elements to elicit increasing interest. The aid of dedicated calculation tools,
moreover, defines natural light as a typical physical parameter of the confined space that can be
managed just like any other project datum.
Beyond the methodological issues and regulations, more or less legally binding and variously
articulated according to the national contexts, meticulously explained, the underlying message
from the work remains strong: the building/environment system, in particular in the relation-
ship between confined space and daylighting, between the closed dimension of architecture
and the open dimension par excellence, that of light, offers high design potential. Certainly, the
refined and refinable tools that are described here in their wide range of features and opportu-
nities make the work of architects extremely attractive, when they wish to use natural light as
an effective component of their work, indeed, constitute a stimulus to achieve as much control
as possible over the phenomenon of natural light – including the desired intensity, where, and
when.
One fundamental question remains open, perhaps inevitably – in addition to others properly
investigated by the author – relating to the quantification of energy-saving; estimation of the
increase in healthiness and effective user perception – and more exquisitely of a design nature:
the choice of a morpho-technological solution that the building must assume in order to ensure
the desired luminous performance, in response to local climatic conditions and the functions
provided for the confined spaces. In particular, which integrated systems between form and
technology can physically give rise to the desired light architecture? Which materials and which
combinations of surfaces to define spaces, which systems to control natural light and which
apertures, will ensure the planned quality of light?
The phenomenology of the light that the author outlines here in its founding aspects and that
with precision seeks to govern through the development of a detailed calculation protocol based
on a hypothesis of the dynamic type, leads us into a dimension of advanced architectural design
which we can no longer ignore. The issue of the environment, first and foremost, and the search
for increasingly sustainable indoor comfort, make this work an essential tool for the verification
and prediction of the luminous component of architecture design.
Glossary
The glossary of terms related to Daylight Assessment has the essential purpose of facilitating
understanding of the terminology commonly used in the architectural and technological fields,
providing for each term a concise and simple definition.
In view of the complexity of the terminology, this glossary is not intended to be comprehensive,
but rather seeks to provide a tool to understanding for those approaching the issue of the tech-
nology and methodology of daylighting in architecture for the first time.
Adaptive Comfort: complex system that covers different principles of adaptation to ambient
conditions, through behavioural, physiological and psychological adaptation. According to the
Adaptive Comfort model, the occupant of an environment is not simply intended as a pas-
sive person, but as an actor who interacts with the environment in which he or she is located,
through the aforementioned three levels. At the base of the model of Adaptive Comfort is the
firmly rooted belief that the subject personally determines the environmental, thermal and vi-
sual conditions that he or she prefers, through a process of adaptation and a gradual decrease
in individual reactions to environmental stimuli.
Angle of Incidence: angle between the ray of light that strikes a surface and the normal of the
same surface.
Anidolic Systems: systems for ceilings and apertures, consisting of special mirrors and reflec-
tive surfaces to facilitate the diffusion of light, produced on the basis of the principles of ‘non-
imaging optics’. The crucial element underlying these technologies is the so-called compound
parabolic concentrator, an efficient reflector commonly called an anidolic concentrator, from the
Greek an: without and eidolon: image. Among the systems are anidolic ceilings and blinds with
anidolic slats.
Artificial Sky: tool that makes it possible to simulate the luminance distribution of the celestial
vault, in accordance with the recommendations of the CIE, i.e. according to the most wide-
spread luminance distribution, and usually used for natural lighting design. The Artificial Sky
enables the study and evaluation of the amount of natural light in an architectural project in
scale models from 1:10 to 1:12.
Atrium: vast entrance space of private or public buildings, open or closed, usually used as the
focal point of a building or an area of connection, where public functions are concentrated.
Among the daylighting techniques, a glazed atrium is used when it is wished to convey the
maximum amount of light into the central areas of the building, according to the Corelighting
technique. The atrium is spoken of in terms of daylighting strategies in the presence of lateral
closed spaces where the roofing is made from a surface that is transparent or translucent and
allows light to filter down to the lowest floor.
Azimuth: the angle between the vertical plane that contains the sun, and a vertical plane facing
northwards.
Brightness: generic term, associated with the phenomena of visual perception, often misused
as a synonym of physical quantities such as luminance, luminance factor, brilliance and clar-
ity. Indicates a visual sensation that allows the observer to grasp the degree to which a surface
appears to emit or reflect light. Since this is an objective sensation, it does not define a charac-
teristic magnitude.
Brise Soleil: shading system to be mounted on a façade in the presence of large fenestrated
areas to check phenomena of over-lighting, glare, and undesirable solar gain, especially for
exposure southwards. These can be external or internal, and are realised using slats of varying
kinds and morphology, to be affixed to the façade.
Candle: unit of measurement for light intensity, indicated by CD. One candle is equal to the
luminous intensity in a given direction of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of a
frequency equal to 540–1,012 Hz.
CBDM: acronym for Climate-Based Daylight Modelling. Climate based daylight modelling is
the prediction of various radiant or luminous quantities, like irradiance, radiance, luminance
and illuminance, using sky and sun conditions. The prevailing conditions of sun and sky are
deducible from standard sets of meteorological data. Climate-Based Daylight Modelling thus
provides forecasts of absolute amounts for illumination, that depend on both the geographic
location and specific data on the local climate, taking into account the morphology of the build-
ing and its internal configuration. The CBDM does not yet have a formally accepted definition
and Mardaljevic first defined it in 2006.
CIE Standard Clear Sky: model of the sky defined by the Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
Conventionally, it defines a sky that is completely serene, clear of clouds. In this model, the low-
er luminances are located in the vicinity of a sector that forms an angle of 90° relative to the sun.
CIE Standard Overcast Sky: model of the sky defined by the Commission Internationale de
l’Eclairage. This is a model of sky completely covered by clouds. According to this model, the
luminance at the zenith is three times higher than that recorded on the horizon.
Clerestory: a high window. An aperture for daylight created in the highest part of the outer
wall.
Continuous Daylight Autonomy – cDA: proposed as a variation of Daylight Autonomy by

Zach Rogers in 2006, this assigns partial credits if the daylit environment reaches values less
than that imposed as a DA threshold, or is lower than 500 or 300 lux.
Contrast: visual difference between the colour or brightness of two surfaces if observed at the
same time. Excessive contrast levels can be the cause of glare.
Corelighting: among the systems for illuminating with natural light, corelighting includes the
use of a source of natural light that comes directly from the top and can penetrate the depths
of the building, in the central core. The light can be channelled through the use of ducts or by
resorting to atria and glazed courtyards.
Daylight Autonomy – DA: hourly or annual frequency during which natural light reaches a
certain threshold, such as to ensure illumination by exclusive use of natural light, and excluding
Glossary  187
artificial light. This was the first new unit of measure based on climatic and dynamic to be de-
fined. It represents the annual percentage of hours during the day in which, in a given point in
space, there are illumination values above a pre-set limit, usually equal to 500 lux.
Daylight Availability – DA: luminous flux coming from the sun and the celestial vault that ar-
rives at a specific location for a given time and sky condition.
Daylight Factor – DF: ratio, measured for a given point or on a given surface, between the
interior illumination, that directly or indirectly received from the sky, and the simultaneous
exterior illumination, calculated on a work surface. In this case, the amount of direct sunlight
is excluded.
Daylight Saturation Percentage – DSP: percentage of saturation of daylight. A further elabo-

ration of the UDI value, according to which the lower limit is raised to 40 candles per square
foot (precisely 430 lux), as well as the upper limit, which marks the useful range, raised to 400
candles per square foot (precisely 4,300 lux).
Daylight: a set of the entire global radiation visible, i.e. composed of direct and reflected sun-
light, plus light from the celestial vault. Part of global solar radiation capable of causing a visual
sensation.
Debilitating Glare: form of visual discomfort that may lead to a worsening of the functions of
the visual apparatus until a reduction of sensitivity in perceiving contrasts.
Diffused Light: secondary component of sunlight, or the light diffused by the earth’s atmo-
sphere.
Direct Light: sunlight, generated directly by the sun, which reaches the earth’s surface after
being filtered by the atmosphere.
Direct Solar Radiation: solar radiation which, after selective attenuation by the atmosphere,
reaches the earth.
Discomfort Glare: a type of glare usually to be found in indoor environments, which causes a
feeling of discomfort. According to the CIE definition, this is ‘glare that produces an unpleasant
sensation without necessarily impeding vision’.
External Reflected Component – ERC: ratio of that part of the illuminance at a point on a given
plane in an interior which is received directly from external reflecting surfaces illuminated di-
rectly or indirectly by a sky of assumed or known luminance distribution, to the illuminance
on a horizontal plane due to an unobstructed hemisphere of this sky, where the contribution of
direct sunlight to both illuminances is excluded.
External View: if available, this guarantees a high level of comfort for occupants, ensuring con-
stant contact with the outside, allowing them to perceive the effects of the flow of time. Fluctua-
tions in light levels throughout the day may turn out relaxing or stimulating for the observer.
Flickering Effect: rapid variation of light coming from download sources caused by the electri-
cal current, which can cause sensations of visual discomfort.
Glare: condition of vision in which there is discomfort or a reduction in the ability to see
details or objects, caused by an unsuitable distribution or range of luminance, or by extreme
contrasts. Irritating Glare is usually defined for artificial fixtures, and can be calculated using
the CIE tabular method of UGR (Unified Glare Rating), depending on the type of environ-
ment, the activity, and the visual task. It is possible to distinguish between direct glare, or glare
generated by unshaded sources that enters the visual field (the case of windows), and indirect
glare, caused by the presence of light rays in which the reflection falls directly on the eye of
the beholder.
Global Solar Radiation: amount of solar radiation that derives from a combination of direct
and diffuse solar radiation.
High Window: see Clerestory.
Illumination: amount of light that reaches a point on a given plane in an interior, or the flow
of light, measured in lumens, that strikes a unit surface area of one square metre. The unit of
measurement of illumination is the lux.
Indirect Light: proportion of natural light that reaches a surface after different paths of reflec-
tion, inner and outer, due to different types of obstructions and reflective surfaces.
Internal Reflected Component – IRC: ratio of that part of the illuminance at a point on a given
plane in an interior which is received directly from internal reflecting surfaces illuminated di-
rectly or indirectly by a sky of assumed or known luminance distribution, to the illuminance
on a horizontal plane due to an unobstructed hemisphere of this sky, where the contribution of
direct sunlight to both illuminances is excluded.
Isolux Lines: a set of curves or lines that connect points having the same illumination in lux.
Laser–cut Panel: panel used for daylight systems to redirect the light thanks to the presence of
variously inclined surfaces, made by laser on a thin panel in transparent acrylic material.
Light Pipe: physical structures used for transporting or distributing natural light for the pur-
pose of illumination, making use of a hemispherical transparent dome that picks up the light
and conveys it inside the tube through a complex path of reflection created with lenses of the
Fresnel type, reducing dispersion of light radiation to the maximum.
Light Transmission: percentage amount of sunlight that the glass allows to pass with respect
to the incident light hitting it. Therefore concerns the flow of light transmitted through a glass
window in relation to the incident light flux.
Light-guiding Shades: external shading system that redirects sunlight towards the ceiling and
into the depths of an environment.
Lightshelf: device, which can be likened to a shelf, to be installed within an environment in

the vicinity of the highest part of the window. In most applications, it must be combined with
other devices to avoid the glare of the sunlight that enters from the bottom of the window. The
lightshelf therefore avoids the glare problem, exploiting natural light that is conveyed towards
Glossary  189
the bottom of the environment. Can also be applied to the exterior, and submitted to different
finishing treatments.
Louvre: device that acts as a baffle against incident solar radiation. Created in the presence of a
window, through the use of horizontal slats, angled to allow the entry of natural light and air,
and offering protection from the rain and direct sunlight.
Lumen: unit of measurement of luminous flux. A lumen, indicated by the symbol lm, and equal
to a luminous flux emitted in a solid angle of one steradian, from a point source with the lumi-
nous intensity of one candle.
Luminance or Brightness: ratio between the emitted intensity in a certain direction from the
light source and the emitting surface normal to the direction considered. Measured in cd/sq m.
Luminous Efficiency: refers to light sources of an artificial type. Used to express the ratio be-
tween the total luminous flux emitted by a source and the total power input to the same source.
Expressed in lumens/watt.
Luminous Flux: luminous power emitted by a source or received by a surface, expressed in lu-
men (lm). Usually taken into consideration is the flux emitted by the solid angle of one steradian
(sr) from a point source, with the light intensity of one candle.
Luminous Intensity: light flow, measured in lumens, emitted by a point source in a particular
direction in a unitary solid angle.
Luminous Retrofit: any luminous revamping of a building or single environment to improve

lighting performance and, consequently, to increase visual comfort and more generally indoor
comfort, by rationalising all the energy flows. Actions of retrofitting may range from the simple
substitution of doors, windows or glazing, up to the installation of devices for shielding and
directing light.
Lux: unit of measurement of illumination. A lux, indicated with the symbol lx, is equal to the
illumination produced by a luminous flux of one lumen distributed over a unit area of one
square metre.
Obstruction: any natural or artificial object that prevents direct and indirect natural light from
entering an environment. The presence of any kind of obstruction generates shadows that affect
light distribution within the environment.
Partially Covered Sky: variable condition of the sky with a percentage of between 30% and 70%
cloud cover.
Prismatic Panel: thin flat panel, used for windows or skylights, which is made from clear
acrylic. Used in temperate climates to redirect and/or reflect natural light. Can also be used as a
shading system, since it can reflect sunlight and transmit diffused light into an interior.
Radiance: measures the intensity of a beam of light and is defined as the power per unitary
solid angle per projected area. The unit of measurement of radiance is W/sr m2.
Radiosity Method: physical lighting model that evaluates all the surfaces involved that reflect,
i.e. diffused light, assuming that the interactions between them can be solved using linear equa-
tions. A linear equation solution is the final output to produce a rendering of the surfaces of the
scene.
Raytracing Method: a method based on the observation that, among all the light rays that
spread from a source, only those that reach the observer actually help to form the image. The
Raytracing Method therefore only traces the path taken by the ray of light from the point of
view of the observer, by reversing its trajectory and considering only those rays that depart
from the position of the observer.
Roof Monitor: device for toplighting, used especially for large buildings, to provide uniform
illumination and eliminate glare.
Selective Glass: low-emissive glass that can filter part of the incident radiation, reducing the
transmission of heat by radiation.
Shading Coefficient: indicates the peculiar properties of heat transmission of glazed surface in
the presence of solar radiation (known as the total solar heat transmittance). The coefficients are
calculated by comparing the properties of the glass with those of a clear float glass with a total
transmission equal to 0.87.
Shading: any device or system designed to screen and create shading effects. Can be applied
both inside and outside a room, for solutions of sidelighting, toplighting and corelighting.
Sidelighting: natural lighting system where the light filters into the environment thanks to the
presence of lateral apertures made in a building’s shell. Sidelighting is defined as simple if there
are windows and other apertures on one side only, while bilateral sidelighting means the pres-
ence of apertures on two fronts.
Sky Component – SC: in the calculation of natural light, the Sky Component is usually the most
consistent between the reflected external component and the internal component. Its magni-
tude depends on the portion of sky visible from the point considered.
Sky lighting: light received from the entire celestial vault of the sky, on the basis of changes in
the sky, of the seasons and of the hour of the day, ignoring sunlight, and, by association, also
toplighting devices.
Skylight: device among the most common to bring sunlight into an environment in the absence
of windows or other apertures. Originally defined a simple aperture on a flat or inclined roof
that makes it possible to give light to rooms without windows.
Solar Chart: path of the sun on its orbit with reference to the changes and time and seasonal
variations linked to the position of the sun with respect to its path. Also spoken of are stereo-
metric solar charts or solar graphs, which can be identified for each location, to represent the
projection on a horizontal plane of the apparent path of the sun on the celestial vault.
Solar Control Glass: glass that reduces the transmission of input energy emitted by the sun,
thanks to the presence of surface deposits applied to its outer surface.
Glossary  191
Solar duct: see Light Pipe.
Solar Gain: achieved by means of passive solar systems and defined as the difference between
the amounts of solar energy that enters the building and the loss of heat from the same building.
Solar Protection: simple device or complex system that can provide variable protection from
direct sunlight, and that allows, again in a variable manner, shading and shielding the area im-
mediately surrounding the aperture to the outside.
Static and Dynamic Parameters: static parameters include Daylight Factor or DFm. Based on a
uniquely determined condition of the sky, that is independent of the geographic position and
the real sky conditions. To make static calculations only the geometric, morphological and opti-
cal parameters of the environment in question are considered. Dynamic parameters based on
climate consider instead the actual sky conditions, with recourse to complex meteorological
data on a statistical basis for each location, i.e. they consider all the possible sky conditions that
occur in a year-type for the given site.
Sun-directing Glass: concave acrylic elements stacked vertically inside double glass, to redirect
the sunlight coming from all angles of incidence towards the ceiling.
Task Lighting: natural or artificial light that is used to complete a given visual task; usually
refers to the lighting of offices, schools or environments that require particular concentrated
illumination, to increase the illumination in reading areas.
Test Reference Year – TRY: typical year of weather reference. The TRY is composed of a se-
quence of meteorological data schedules, measured in reality and selected within a historical
series of at least ten years, through a method of selection of a statistical nature. This leads to the
creation of a vast amount of hourly data that merge into a year-type, used for models of analysis
and the forecasting of complex phenomena including dynamic simulation of the distribution
of sunlight.
Toplighting: among the daylighting strategies, this offers significant opportunities to arrange
both simple and complex solutions. Toplighting systems can only be used on the top of the
buildings to illuminate the floor below, thanks to the use of skylights and other types of ze-
nithal area apertures, both flat and sloping. Traditionally, toplighting strategies are used in
areas where there is a predominantly overcast sky, to channel as much light as possible into
a room.
Typical Meteorological Year – TMY: Reference year for weather.
Uniformity of Illumination: correct distribution of the illumination in an area, given by the

ratio between illumination of the area in which activities take place and illumination of the sur-
rounding areas. Provided by calibrating in a manner consistent with the visual task, the task
area, and the surrounding area. It is possible to determine a correct ratio of uniformity by resort-
ing to the relationship between precise minimum illumination and the average illumination of
the surrounding area.
Useful Daylight Illuminance – UDI: unit of measurement designed to make easily under-
standable the output data of the dynamic simulations based on climate, without reducing the
many useful data contained in the results of the simulation. Defined as the percentage of annual
illumination that falls within the range considered useful, in relation to a given visual task.
Visible radiation: portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths of visible light
between 380 and 760 nm.
Visual Acuity: defines the visual dimension of the threshold, that is, the size of an object that
can be identified only 50% of the time, in certain conditions of observation. Also defined as the
reciprocal of the visual dimension.
Visual Comfort: optimum condition of lighting, whether natural or artificial, that must be en-
sured through the fulfilment of certain fundamental requirements, including an adequate level
of illumination, proper uniformity of illumination, and an efficient distribution of luminance
values, in order to prevent glare. In the context of strategies to maximise the visual comfort of
an environment by using natural light, the visual relationship between the inside and outside
must also be considered. The windows, and other types of apertures, not only have to procure
the light needed for an activity, but also allow the view of the outside.
Visual Performance: ability to carry out a visual task, which depends on the way in which the
eye can perceive the details of a task. Determinant factors for visibility of the details of the task
therefore include size, luminance, contrast and glare.
Visual Task: this defines observation of details and objects in relation to the performance of an
activity according the needs of the visual system to complete such a task, both in relation to a
view of the surrounding objects, and the immediate background comprised in the observer’s
visual field.
Workplane: for the calculation of natural light this is an ideal plane located at a height of 85 cm
above floor level.
References
[1] Teichmuller, J., Lichtarchitektur. Licht und Lampe, Union: Berlin, 1927.
[2] Kohler, W., Lighting in Architecture: Light and Color as Stereoplastic Elements, Van Nostrand
Reinholds: New York, 1959.
[3] Ando, T., Materials, Geometry and Nature, Academy Editions: London, 1990.
[4] Giedion, S., Space, Time and Architecture: the Growth of a New Tradition, Harvard University
Press: Cambridge, 1941.
[5] Kahn, L.I., Law and rule in architecture. Essential Texts, ed. R.C. Twombly, W.W. Norton
& Co: Princeton, 1961.
[6] Went, T., Light, shadow and form: the Koshino House. Architecture and Shadow, The Journal
of the Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, 1990.
[7] Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture, De Frea: Paris, 1930.
[8] Le Corbusier, Three Warnings to Architects – volume II. Vers une architecture, ed. Le
Corbusier, De Frea: Paris, 1930.
[9] Tanizaki, J., In Praise of Shadow, Leete’s Island Books: New Haven, p. 18, 1977.
[10] Pallasmaa, J., Tangible light. DA, (7), p. 13, 2008.
[11] Turrel, J., Personal communication, Interview magazine, 2013, http://www.interview-
magazine.com/art/james-turell/#_
[12] Boullée, E.L., Considérations sur l’importance et l’utilité de l’architecture, suivies de vues
tendant au progrès des beaux-arts, Bibliothèque Nationale de France: Paris, 1968.
[13] Boullée, E.L., Architecture, essay on art. Boullée & Visionary Architetcure, ed. H. Rosenau,
Academy Editions: London, 1976.
[14] Bettini, S., Ricerche sulla luce in architettura: Vitruvio e Alberti. Annali di architettura -
Magazine of the Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, (22), pp. 21–44,
2010.
[15] Barasch, M., Light and Color in the Italian Renaissance Theory of Art, New York University
press: New York, 1978.
[16] Alberti, L.B., L’Architettura, VII, 12: II, pp. 82–83 and 616–617, 1565.
[17] Serlio, S., Quinto libro d’architettura di Sebastiano Serlio bolognese nel quale se tratta de diverse
forme de Tempi sacri secondo il costume christiano, & al modo antico, M. de Vascosan: Paris,
pp. 5–6, 1547.
[18] Serlio, S., Settimo libro di Sebastiano Serlio bolognese nel qual si tratta di molti accidenti, che
possono occorrere al architetto, in diversi luoghi, e istrane forme dei siti, è nelle restauramenti, o
restituzioni di case, è come habiamo à far per servicij de gli altri edifici è simili cose, come nella
seguente pagina si lege. Nel fine vi sono aggiunti sei palazzo, con le sue piante è fazzate, in diversi
modi fatte per fabricar in villaper gran Principi, A. Wecheli: Frankfurt, pp. 2–6, 1575.
[19] Scamozzi, V., L’Idea dell’architettura universale, Valentino: Venice, 1615.
[20] Scamozzi, V., Effetti buoni e cattivi dell’aria; diversità dei lumi per gli edifici, orologi
solari. L’Idea dell’architettura universale, Vol. I, Book V, Chap. XII, ed. V. Scamozzi, Valen-
tino: Venice, 1615.
[21] Davis, C., Vincenzo Scamozzi architect of light. Vincenzo Scamozzi 1548–1616. Catalog of the
exhibition (Vicenza, 7 September 2003 to 11 January 2004), eds. F. Barbieri & G. Beltramini,
Marsilio: Venice, pp. 41–45, 2003.
[22] De Martino, R., L’utopia di Soane. Le dodici lezioni di architettura per la Royal Academy di
Londra, Bardi Editore: Rome, 2006.
[23] Kahn, L., Light Is the Theme: Louis I. Kahn and the Kimbell Art Museum, Yale University
Press: New Heaven, 1975.
[24] Bertelli, C., La luce e il progetto. Carlo Scarpa, Complete Work, eds. F. Dal Cò & G. Mazzariol,
Electa: Milan, pp. 191–194, 1984.
[25] Scarpa C., Furnishing. Carlo Scarpa, the complete work, eds. F. Dal Cò & G. Mazzariol,
Rizzoli: New York, 1984.
[26] Purini, F., La luce e l’architettura. Mete, (1), pp. 14–17, 2007.
[27] Portoghesi, P., Light as construction material. Materia, (59), pp. 40–45, 2008.
[28] Le Corbusier, Le Pavillion de l’Esprit Nouveau. Almanach d’architecture moderne, Éditions
Crès: Paris, 1925.
[29] Rogers, E.N., Il metodo di Le Corbusier e la forma della Chapelle de Ronchamp. Casabella-
Continuità, (207), pp. 2–6, 1955.
[30] Neumeyer, F., La costruzione come promessa d’arte: l’architettura allo stato grezzo.
Ludwig Mies van Der Rohe: le architetture, gli scritti, eds. M. Caja & M. De Benedetti, Skira:
Milan, 1996.
[31] Pallasmaa, J., Hapticity and time, notes on fragile architecture. The Architetcural Review,
(May 2000), pp. 78–84, 2000.
[32] Aalto, A., Alvar Aalto, Architettura per leggere – Architecture to Read. Catalogue of the exhibi-
tion Architettura per leggere, eds. A. Alici & G. Milelli, Gangemi: Rome, 2003.
[33] Reed, P., Alvar Aalto 1898–1976, Electa: Milan, 1999.
[34] Norberg-Schulz, C. & Postiglione, G., Sverre Fehn. Complete Works, Electa: Milan, pp. 20,
42–46 and 56, 1997.
[35] Rowe, C. & Slutzky, R., Transparency: literal and phenomenal. Perspecta, (8), pp. 45–54,
1963.
[36] Wright, F.L., The Living City, Horizon Press: New York, 1958.
[37] Kahn, L. & Latour, A., Louis I. Kahn: Writings, lectures, interviews, Rizzoli International
Publications: New York, 1991.
[38] Riggen Martinez, A., Luis Barragan (1902–1988), Electa: Milan, 1996.
[39] Campo Baeza, A., Alla luce del Palladio. Mete, (1), pp. 66–68, 2007.
[40] Campo Baeza, A., Alberto Campo Baeza. Progetti e costruzioni, Electa: Milan, 2004.
[41] Kepes, G., Language of Vision, Paul Theobald: Chicago, 1944.
[42] De Rosa, A., Un’alba nel vuoto. Luce, spazio e tempo nel Roden Crater Project, IUAV University
of Venice, Department of Architectural Design DPA, LAR Digital Architecture Labora-
tory: Venice, 2007.
[43] Lechner, N., Heating, Cooling and Lighting. Design Methods for Architects, Wiley: London,
2000.
[44] Bednar, M.J., New Atrium, Mc Grawhill Building Type Series, Mc Grawhill: New York,
1986.
[45] Saxon, R., Atrium Buildings Development and Design, The Architectural Press: London, 1896.
[46] Atif, M.R., Boyer, L.L. & Degelman, L.O., Development of atrium daylighting prediction.
From an algorithm to a design tool. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 24(1),
pp. 13–12, 2013.
[47] Vitruvius, M.P., De Architectura, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1914.
[48] Palladio, A., Of the measures of doors and windows (Chapter XXV). The Four Books of
Architecture, p. 55, London, 1715.
References  195
[49] Le Corbusier, Les techniques son l’assiette du même lyrisme: elle ouvrent a nouveau cycle
de architecture. Proc. of the 2nd Conf., Amis des Arts, Buenos Aires, 5 October, 1929, Paris,
1930.
[50] Johnsen, K. & Watkins. R. (eds), Daylighting Buildings, A Sourcebook on Daylighting Systems
and Components, a report of IEA SHC Task 21/ECBCS Annex 29, 2010.
[51] Gugliermetti, F. & Bisegna, F., Pros and cons of the lightshelf, daylighting with external
shading devices: design and simulation algorithms. Building and Environment, 41(2), 2006.
[52] Heim, D. & Kieszkowski, K., Shading devices designed to achieve the desired quality of
internal daylight environment, Proc. of PLEA 2006, the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low
Energy Architecture, Geneva, 2006.
[53] Wittkopf, S.T., Daylight performance of anidolic ceiling under different sky conditions.
Solar Energy, 81, pp. 151–161, 2006.
[54] Courret, G. & Scartezzini, J.L., Design and assessment of an anidolic light-duct, Energy
Building, 28, pp. 79–99, 1998.
[55] Hunt, D.R.G., Improved daylight data for predicting energy savings from photoelectric
controls. Lighting Research and Technology, 11, pp. 19–23, 1979.
[56] Hunt, D.R.G., Predicting artificial lighting use. A method based upon observed patterns
of behaviour. Lighting Research and Technology, 12, pp. 7–14, 1980.
[57] Carroll, W.L. & Hitchcock R.J., DElight2 daylighting analysis in energy plus: integration
and preliminary user results. International Building Performance Simulation Association, 2005.
[58] Walsh, J.W., The early years of illuminating engineering in Great Britain. Transactions of the
Illuminating Engineering Society: London, 16, pp. 49–60, 1951.
[59] Hopkinson, R.G., Petherbridge, P. & Longmore, J., Daylighting, Butterworth-Heinemann:
London, 1966.
[60] Murdoch, J.P., Illumination Engineering from Edison’s Lamp to the Laser, Macmillan Publish-
ing Company: New York, 1985.
[61] Pokrowski, G.I., Distribution of brightness in the sky. Phys. Z., (30), 1929.
[62] Waldram, J.P., Measuring Diagram for Daylight Illumination, B.T. Batsford Ltd: London,
1950.
[63] Baker, N.V. & Steemers K., Daylight Design of Buildings, James & James: London, 2002.
[64] Longmore, J., BRS Daylight protractors, HMSO: London, 1968.
[65] Siminovitch, M., Navvab, M. & Rubenstein, F., The effects of interior room cavity obstruc-
tions on the illuminance distribution characteristics in task-station applications. Proc. of
the Conference Record of the 1987 IEEE Industry Applications Society Meeting, Part II, Atlanta,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, 1987.
[66] Love, J.A., The vertical-to-horizontal illuminance ratio. Development of a new indicator
of daylighting performance, Dissertation: University of Michigan, 1990.
[67] Tregenza, P.R. & Water, I.M., Daylighting coefficients. Lighting Research and technology,
15(2), pp. 65–71, 1983.
[68] Reinhart, C.F., Bourgeois, D., Dubrous, F., Laouadi, A., Lopez, P. & Stelescu, O. Daylight
1-2-3--a state of the art daylighting energy analysis software for initial design investi-
gation, Proc. of Building Simulation 2007, International Building Performance Simulation
Association: Beijing, 2007.
[69] Reinhart, C.F. & Lo Verso, V., A rules of thumb-based design sequence for diffuse daylight.
Lighting Research and Technology, 42, pp. 17–31, 2010.
[70] Lynes, J.A., A sequence for daylighting design. Lighting Research & Technology, 11(2),
pp. 102–106, 1979.
[71] Boubekri, M., An overview of the current state of daylight legislation. Journal of the Human-
Environmental System, 7(2), 2004.
[72] The BOCA National Building Code/1999. Building Officials & Code Administrators
International Inc., pp. 26–127.
[73] BSR/ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA Standard 189.1P, Standard for the Design of High-
Performance Green Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 2009.
[74] DIN 5034-1:2011-07, Tageslicht in Innenräumen – Teil 1: Allgemeine Anforderungen, Daylight
in Interiors – Part 1: General Requirements, 2011.
[75] DIN 5034-3:2007-02, Tageslicht in Innenräumen – Teil 3: Berechnung, Daylight in Interiors –
Part 3: Calculation, 2007.
[76] DIN 5034-1:2010-11, Tageslicht in Innenräumen – Teil 5: Messung, Daylight in Interiors – Part
5: Measurement, 2010.
[77] BS 8206-2:2008, Lighting for Buildings. Code of Practice for Daylighting, 2008.
[78] IESNA Daylighting Committee, Daylighting: RP-5-99, Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America, The Society: New York, 1999.
[79] IESNA Daylighting Committee, Recommended Practice of Daylighting, Illuminating Engi-
neering Society of North America, The Society: New York, pp. 20–71, 1999.
[80] Littlefair, P.J., Daylighting and Solar Control in Building Regulations. Building Research
Establishment, CR398/99, pp. 1–27, 1999.
[81] Building and Construction Industry (Fair and Lawful Building Sites), Building Code of
Australia, 2014.
[82] Ministry of Labour, The Building Standard Law of Japan, Japanese Building Standard Law
Enforcement Order, articles 19, 20, 21, Institute of Labour Administration: Tokyo, 1995.
[83] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Building Code of Australia, Acceptable
Solutions and Verification Methods for New Zealand Building Code Clause, G7 Natural Light
(including amendment 2), 2014.
[84] Standards Association of New Zealand, NZS 6703: 1984 Code of practice for interior light-
ing design, amended in 1985.
[85] Khun, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1962.
[86] DIN, Subordinate Committees CEN/TC 169, CEN/TC 169/WG 1, Basic Terms and Criteria,
CEN/TC 169/WG 2, Lighting for Work Places, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.: Berlin
[87] Mardaljevic, J., Examples of climate-based daylight modelling, Proc. of CIBSE National
Conference 2006 - Engineering the Future, 21–22 March, Oval Cricket Ground, London, 2006.
[88] Mardaljevic, J., The simulation of annual daylighting profiles for internal illuminance.
Lighting Research and Technology, (32), 2002.
[89] Hall, I.J., Prairie, R.R., Anderson, H.E. & Boes, E., Generation of Typical Reference Years for 26
SOLMET Stations. Sandia Laboratories Report SAND 78-1601: Albuquerque, 1978.
[90] Marion, W. & Urban, K., User’s Manual for TMY2s Typical Meteorological Year, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, 1995.
[91] Mandurino, C., I dati meteorologici per applicazioni energetiche e ambientali, PhD thesis in
Energy and Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Control: University of Bologna,
2009.
[92] Wilcox, S. & Marion, W., User’s Manual for TMY3 Data Sets, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory: Golden, 2008.
[93] ASHRAE, International Weather for Energy Calculations (IWEC Weather Files) Users Manual
and CD-ROM, Atlanta, 2001.
[94] Nabil, A. & Mardaljevic, J., Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing
daylight in buildings. Lighting Research and Technology, 37(1), pp. 41–57, 2005.
References  197
[95] Nabil, A. & Mardaljevic, J., Useful daylight illuminances: a replacement for daylight
factors. Energy and Buildings, 38(7), pp. 905–913, 2006.
[96] Vine, E., Lee, E., Clear, R., Di Bartolomeo, D. & Selkowitz, S., Office workers response to
an automated venetian blind and electric lighting system – a pilot study. Energy and Build-
ings, 28, pp. 205–218, 1998.
[97] Heschong Mahone Group, Daylighting in Schools, Pacific Gas and Electric Company on
behalf of the California Board for Energy Efficiency Third Party Program, Sacramento,
2003.
[98] Heschong Mahone Group, Re-analysis Report: Daylighting in Schools, Additional Analysis,
California Energy Commission: Sacramento, 2003.
[99] Reinhart, C.F., Effects of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices,
Proc. of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficient Buildings, pp.1–12, 2002.
[100] Roache, L., Dewey, E. & Littlefair, P., Occupant reaction to daylight in offices. Lighting
Research and Technology, 32, pp. 119–126, 2000.
[101] Rogers, Z., Daylighting Metric Development Using Daylight Autonomy Calculations in the
Sensor Placement Optimization Tool, Architectural Energy Corporation: Boulder, 2006.
[102] Mardaljevic, J., Heschong, L. & Lee, E., Daylight metrics and energy savings. Lighting
Research and Technology, 41(3), pp. 261–283, 2009.
[103] Ibarra, D. & Reinhart C.F., Daylight factor simulations – how close do simulation begin-
ners really get? Proc. of Building Simulation 2009, Glasgow, 2009.
[104] Thanachareonkit, A., Scartezzini, J.L. & Andersen M., Comparing daylighting perfor-
mance assessment of buildings in scale models and test modules. Solar Energy, 79(2),
pp.168–182, 2005.
[105] Watson, C., Post occupancy evaluation of buildings and equipment for use in education.
Journal of the Program on Educational Building, OECD: Paris, 1979.
[106] Hygge, S. & Löfberg, H.A., User evaluation of visual comfort in some buildings of the
daylight Europe Project. Right light, 4(2), 1997.
[107] Heschong Mahone Group, Daylighting in Schools. A Survey into the Relationship between
Daylighting and Human Performance, Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Fair Oaks, 1999.
[108] Fornara F., Bonaiuto, M. & Bonnes, M., Soddisfazione ambientale e qualità affettive per-
cepite in relazione al grado di umanizzazione fisico - spaziale delle strutture ospedaliere.
Rassegna di Psicologia, 24, 2007.
Acknowledgements
The first concept of the book was the result of three years research carried out during a PhD
course on Forms and Structures of Architecture and later on at the DICATeA Department of the
University of Parma, Italy.
In bringing this early work up to date, I am indebted to valuable contributions from my col-
leagues at DICATeA and especially to my supervisor Agnese Ghini. I am also very grateful
for technical input and precious advices to Professor Carlos Brebbia and Professor Giovanni
Zannoni, whose advices were fundamental.
Also my thanks to Alex Gillan for his commitment to technical accuracy in this English version
and to the many photographers who have enthusiastically allowed their works to be used.
Finally I am very grateful to Giovanni for his support and dedication to my work during these
years and to all my family, Michele and my Dad.

Asesdayperfbui

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asesdayperfbui

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asesdayperfbui

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Daylight

Barbara Gherri, M. Arch, PhD in Architecture is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow in

For USA, Canada and Mexico

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2014952511

The texts of the papers in this volume were set

© WIT Press 2015

Printed in Great Britain by Lightning Source UK.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Foreword: Natural light, how to evaluate immateriality ............................................................. ix

PART 1: ARCHITECTURE AND DAYLIGHT .......................................................................... 1

PART 2: THE CALCULATION OF NATURAL LIGHT – FROM THE STATIC TO THE

Natural light, how to evaluate immateriality

Natural light in the architectural project

1 Natural light as a construction material

Figure 3: The Kimbell art Museum, Fort Worth, Louis Kahn.

2 The architectural meanings of natural light

Masters of contemporary architecture, like Ando, refer to shade as a fundamental perceptual

2.1.1 Symbiosis and mediation

Figure 5: Hagia Sophia, Istanbul.

Figure 6: The Pantheon Dome, Rome.

3 Natural light in architectural projects: written testimonies

3.1 The historical treatises

Figure 7: Interior of Sant’Andrea, Mantua, Leon Battista Alberti.

A lighting accent, focused on a detail or used to underscore is described by Scamozzi under

Figure 8: Venetian villa, Section and plan, Vincenzo Scamozzi.

3.2 The Italian experience

Daylight, as a spontaneous element of architectural expression, is also realised in complex

3.3 The experience of Central Europe

Figure 10: Unité d’Habitation, Marseille, Le Corbusier (credit Lisa Lorenzini).

Figure 11: Notre Dame du Haute, Ronchamp, Le Corbusier (credit elyullo).

It is therefore extremely simplistic and inaccurate to bring the architectural identity of Le

3.4 The experience of Northern Europe

The historical development of the techniques of representing space in Scandinavian, specifi-

The psychological potential of the light-diaphragm-shadow ratio in Fehn’s works of architec-

3.5 The U.S. experience

The city then seems living.

It lives as illusion lives’ [36].

3.6 The experience at low latitudes

‘Light is a material. It lets the constructed space and man relate.

4 Daylighting between the project and definition of space

Daylighting, architectural strategies compared

1 Daylighting techniques and other devices for daylighting

Figure 18: Daylight techniques: Sidelighting, Toplighting and Corelighting.

Figure 19: Different types of sidelight solutions.

Figure 21: Skylights.

So-called sawtooth skylights, or sawtooth roofs, consist of a succession of slanting zenithal

Figure 22: Saw tooth skylights.

Figure 23: Clerestory window scheme.

It is usual to distinguish between optical ducts, atria and internal courtyards.

Figure 24: Light Court scheme.

Figure 25: Light well scheme.

Figure 26: Litrium scheme.

2 A dichotomic question: solar penetration versus solar screens

The visual comfort challenge in a confined environment is therefore characterised by attempts

Figure 27: Scheme of daylighting penetration via toplighting devices.

2.1 Apertures and interior finish to facilitate solar penetration

Visual, architectural-spatial and thermal-energy performances linked to Daylighting for an en-

2.2 The role of shading in architectural design