Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia

•Office daylighting design has to take interior layout and porosity into consideration.•Daylight field measurement of two office spaces shows 53% and 41% lighting savings.•No significant difference in visual appraisal despite difference in Daylight Factor coverage.•Daylight Factor alone is not accur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Energy and buildings 2017-04, Vol.141, p.175-185
Hauptverfasser: Lim, Gene-Harn, Hirning, Michael Barry, Keumala, Nila, Ghafar, Norafida Ab
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 185
container_issue
container_start_page 175
container_title Energy and buildings
container_volume 141
creator Lim, Gene-Harn
Hirning, Michael Barry
Keumala, Nila
Ghafar, Norafida Ab
description •Office daylighting design has to take interior layout and porosity into consideration.•Daylight field measurement of two office spaces shows 53% and 41% lighting savings.•No significant difference in visual appraisal despite difference in Daylight Factor coverage.•Daylight Factor alone is not accurate and sufficient to justify daylight performance.•Visual Appraisal, Lighting Energy Savings and Discomfort Glare do not correlate with Daylight Factor. Lighting energy savings, as well as visual and non-visual user benefits have been widely attributed to daylighting. This paper explores daylight design strategy, visual appraisal, Daylight Factor (DF), lighting energy usage and discomfort glare using two green building offices in Malaysia, which have incorporated daylighting into both façade and interior design. Visual appraisal surveys were collected from 39 and 145 subjects in the open plan working space of the Energy Commission Building (ECB) and Public Works Department Block G (PWD), respectively. The survey focused on task brightness, colour appearance, uniformity and lighting preference. Discomfort glare assessed via occupant point-of-view luminance maps was juxtaposed here from a glare study involving the same buildings. Illuminance loggers were used to monitor artificial lighting usage as well as the DF on a selected floor of each building. There were no significant differences in occupant responses to the visual appraisal survey for both office spaces. Using MS1525:2014 and Green Building Index (GBI NRNC) tool as baselines, the DF performance of both offices differs significantly: PWD had a 45.5% daylit area, with ECB a 14.8% daylit area for DF >1%. However, lighting energy usage results show substantial savings of 53% and 41% occurred from daylighting. These findings of visual appraisal, DF, lighting energy savings and discomfort glare show a discrepancy in using only the DF to justify the daylight performance of an office space in a tropical climate such as Malaysia. The findings suggest that equivalent consideration should be given to interior design to facilitate daylighting, which is often beyond the control of designer, but in the hands of office end users.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.028
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1932176335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378778817304905</els_id><sourcerecordid>1932176335</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-3e727b42ba0c726e49d4fc21a0c79fee3c7c238c78e6634f5b5d325de5244ef73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUMtKxDAUDaLgOPoJQsB1x7zaZFYi4xNG3OjCVUjTmzGl09akFWbnb_h7fokZZ_bCgXsvnAf3IHROyYwSWlzWM2jL0TfVjBEqZ4QlqAM0oUqyrKBSHaIJ4VJlUip1jE5irAkhRS7pBL3dmE3jV-8D7iG4LqxNawGbtsJjhBB_vr7xp4-jabDp-2B8TFui4VUAaPFfqm9XuHPOW4jYt_jJNGYTvTlFR840Ec72c4pe725fFg_Z8vn-cXG9zKwQbMg4SCZLwUpDrGQFiHklnGV0e84dALfSMq6sVFAUXLi8zCvO8gpyJgQ4yafoYufbh-5jhDjouhtDmyI1nXNGZcF5nlj5jmVDF2MAp_vg1yZsNCV626Ku9b5FvW1RE5agku5qp4P0wqeHoKP1kDqqfAA76Krz_zj8AofKf54</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1932176335</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lim, Gene-Harn ; Hirning, Michael Barry ; Keumala, Nila ; Ghafar, Norafida Ab</creator><creatorcontrib>Lim, Gene-Harn ; Hirning, Michael Barry ; Keumala, Nila ; Ghafar, Norafida Ab</creatorcontrib><description>•Office daylighting design has to take interior layout and porosity into consideration.•Daylight field measurement of two office spaces shows 53% and 41% lighting savings.•No significant difference in visual appraisal despite difference in Daylight Factor coverage.•Daylight Factor alone is not accurate and sufficient to justify daylight performance.•Visual Appraisal, Lighting Energy Savings and Discomfort Glare do not correlate with Daylight Factor. Lighting energy savings, as well as visual and non-visual user benefits have been widely attributed to daylighting. This paper explores daylight design strategy, visual appraisal, Daylight Factor (DF), lighting energy usage and discomfort glare using two green building offices in Malaysia, which have incorporated daylighting into both façade and interior design. Visual appraisal surveys were collected from 39 and 145 subjects in the open plan working space of the Energy Commission Building (ECB) and Public Works Department Block G (PWD), respectively. The survey focused on task brightness, colour appearance, uniformity and lighting preference. Discomfort glare assessed via occupant point-of-view luminance maps was juxtaposed here from a glare study involving the same buildings. Illuminance loggers were used to monitor artificial lighting usage as well as the DF on a selected floor of each building. There were no significant differences in occupant responses to the visual appraisal survey for both office spaces. Using MS1525:2014 and Green Building Index (GBI NRNC) tool as baselines, the DF performance of both offices differs significantly: PWD had a 45.5% daylit area, with ECB a 14.8% daylit area for DF &gt;1%. However, lighting energy usage results show substantial savings of 53% and 41% occurred from daylighting. These findings of visual appraisal, DF, lighting energy savings and discomfort glare show a discrepancy in using only the DF to justify the daylight performance of an office space in a tropical climate such as Malaysia. The findings suggest that equivalent consideration should be given to interior design to facilitate daylighting, which is often beyond the control of designer, but in the hands of office end users.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-7788</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6178</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lausanne: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Brightness ; Daylight ; Daylight factor ; Daylighting ; Design ; Discomfort ; Discomfort glare ; End users ; Energy ; Energy conservation ; Energy consumption ; Energy usage ; Glare ; Green building ; Green buildings ; Green development ; Illuminance ; Illumination ; Interior design ; Lighting ; Luminance ; Office space ; Offices ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Public buildings ; Public works ; Studies ; Visual appraisal ; Visual aspects</subject><ispartof>Energy and buildings, 2017-04, Vol.141, p.175-185</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Apr 15, 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-3e727b42ba0c726e49d4fc21a0c79fee3c7c238c78e6634f5b5d325de5244ef73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-3e727b42ba0c726e49d4fc21a0c79fee3c7c238c78e6634f5b5d325de5244ef73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778817304905$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lim, Gene-Harn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirning, Michael Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keumala, Nila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghafar, Norafida Ab</creatorcontrib><title>Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia</title><title>Energy and buildings</title><description>•Office daylighting design has to take interior layout and porosity into consideration.•Daylight field measurement of two office spaces shows 53% and 41% lighting savings.•No significant difference in visual appraisal despite difference in Daylight Factor coverage.•Daylight Factor alone is not accurate and sufficient to justify daylight performance.•Visual Appraisal, Lighting Energy Savings and Discomfort Glare do not correlate with Daylight Factor. Lighting energy savings, as well as visual and non-visual user benefits have been widely attributed to daylighting. This paper explores daylight design strategy, visual appraisal, Daylight Factor (DF), lighting energy usage and discomfort glare using two green building offices in Malaysia, which have incorporated daylighting into both façade and interior design. Visual appraisal surveys were collected from 39 and 145 subjects in the open plan working space of the Energy Commission Building (ECB) and Public Works Department Block G (PWD), respectively. The survey focused on task brightness, colour appearance, uniformity and lighting preference. Discomfort glare assessed via occupant point-of-view luminance maps was juxtaposed here from a glare study involving the same buildings. Illuminance loggers were used to monitor artificial lighting usage as well as the DF on a selected floor of each building. There were no significant differences in occupant responses to the visual appraisal survey for both office spaces. Using MS1525:2014 and Green Building Index (GBI NRNC) tool as baselines, the DF performance of both offices differs significantly: PWD had a 45.5% daylit area, with ECB a 14.8% daylit area for DF &gt;1%. However, lighting energy usage results show substantial savings of 53% and 41% occurred from daylighting. These findings of visual appraisal, DF, lighting energy savings and discomfort glare show a discrepancy in using only the DF to justify the daylight performance of an office space in a tropical climate such as Malaysia. The findings suggest that equivalent consideration should be given to interior design to facilitate daylighting, which is often beyond the control of designer, but in the hands of office end users.</description><subject>Brightness</subject><subject>Daylight</subject><subject>Daylight factor</subject><subject>Daylighting</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Discomfort</subject><subject>Discomfort glare</subject><subject>End users</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy conservation</subject><subject>Energy consumption</subject><subject>Energy usage</subject><subject>Glare</subject><subject>Green building</subject><subject>Green buildings</subject><subject>Green development</subject><subject>Illuminance</subject><subject>Illumination</subject><subject>Interior design</subject><subject>Lighting</subject><subject>Luminance</subject><subject>Office space</subject><subject>Offices</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Public buildings</subject><subject>Public works</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Visual appraisal</subject><subject>Visual aspects</subject><issn>0378-7788</issn><issn>1872-6178</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUMtKxDAUDaLgOPoJQsB1x7zaZFYi4xNG3OjCVUjTmzGl09akFWbnb_h7fokZZ_bCgXsvnAf3IHROyYwSWlzWM2jL0TfVjBEqZ4QlqAM0oUqyrKBSHaIJ4VJlUip1jE5irAkhRS7pBL3dmE3jV-8D7iG4LqxNawGbtsJjhBB_vr7xp4-jabDp-2B8TFui4VUAaPFfqm9XuHPOW4jYt_jJNGYTvTlFR840Ec72c4pe725fFg_Z8vn-cXG9zKwQbMg4SCZLwUpDrGQFiHklnGV0e84dALfSMq6sVFAUXLi8zCvO8gpyJgQ4yafoYufbh-5jhDjouhtDmyI1nXNGZcF5nlj5jmVDF2MAp_vg1yZsNCV626Ku9b5FvW1RE5agku5qp4P0wqeHoKP1kDqqfAA76Krz_zj8AofKf54</recordid><startdate>20170415</startdate><enddate>20170415</enddate><creator>Lim, Gene-Harn</creator><creator>Hirning, Michael Barry</creator><creator>Keumala, Nila</creator><creator>Ghafar, Norafida Ab</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170415</creationdate><title>Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia</title><author>Lim, Gene-Harn ; Hirning, Michael Barry ; Keumala, Nila ; Ghafar, Norafida Ab</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-3e727b42ba0c726e49d4fc21a0c79fee3c7c238c78e6634f5b5d325de5244ef73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Brightness</topic><topic>Daylight</topic><topic>Daylight factor</topic><topic>Daylighting</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Discomfort</topic><topic>Discomfort glare</topic><topic>End users</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy conservation</topic><topic>Energy consumption</topic><topic>Energy usage</topic><topic>Glare</topic><topic>Green building</topic><topic>Green buildings</topic><topic>Green development</topic><topic>Illuminance</topic><topic>Illumination</topic><topic>Interior design</topic><topic>Lighting</topic><topic>Luminance</topic><topic>Office space</topic><topic>Offices</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Public buildings</topic><topic>Public works</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Visual appraisal</topic><topic>Visual aspects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lim, Gene-Harn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirning, Michael Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keumala, Nila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghafar, Norafida Ab</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Energy and buildings</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lim, Gene-Harn</au><au>Hirning, Michael Barry</au><au>Keumala, Nila</au><au>Ghafar, Norafida Ab</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia</atitle><jtitle>Energy and buildings</jtitle><date>2017-04-15</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>141</volume><spage>175</spage><epage>185</epage><pages>175-185</pages><issn>0378-7788</issn><eissn>1872-6178</eissn><abstract>•Office daylighting design has to take interior layout and porosity into consideration.•Daylight field measurement of two office spaces shows 53% and 41% lighting savings.•No significant difference in visual appraisal despite difference in Daylight Factor coverage.•Daylight Factor alone is not accurate and sufficient to justify daylight performance.•Visual Appraisal, Lighting Energy Savings and Discomfort Glare do not correlate with Daylight Factor. Lighting energy savings, as well as visual and non-visual user benefits have been widely attributed to daylighting. This paper explores daylight design strategy, visual appraisal, Daylight Factor (DF), lighting energy usage and discomfort glare using two green building offices in Malaysia, which have incorporated daylighting into both façade and interior design. Visual appraisal surveys were collected from 39 and 145 subjects in the open plan working space of the Energy Commission Building (ECB) and Public Works Department Block G (PWD), respectively. The survey focused on task brightness, colour appearance, uniformity and lighting preference. Discomfort glare assessed via occupant point-of-view luminance maps was juxtaposed here from a glare study involving the same buildings. Illuminance loggers were used to monitor artificial lighting usage as well as the DF on a selected floor of each building. There were no significant differences in occupant responses to the visual appraisal survey for both office spaces. Using MS1525:2014 and Green Building Index (GBI NRNC) tool as baselines, the DF performance of both offices differs significantly: PWD had a 45.5% daylit area, with ECB a 14.8% daylit area for DF &gt;1%. However, lighting energy usage results show substantial savings of 53% and 41% occurred from daylighting. These findings of visual appraisal, DF, lighting energy savings and discomfort glare show a discrepancy in using only the DF to justify the daylight performance of an office space in a tropical climate such as Malaysia. The findings suggest that equivalent consideration should be given to interior design to facilitate daylighting, which is often beyond the control of designer, but in the hands of office end users.</abstract><cop>Lausanne</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.028</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-7788
ispartof Energy and buildings, 2017-04, Vol.141, p.175-185
issn 0378-7788
1872-6178
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1932176335
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Brightness
Daylight
Daylight factor
Daylighting
Design
Discomfort
Discomfort glare
End users
Energy
Energy conservation
Energy consumption
Energy usage
Glare
Green building
Green buildings
Green development
Illuminance
Illumination
Interior design
Lighting
Luminance
Office space
Offices
Polls & surveys
Public buildings
Public works
Studies
Visual appraisal
Visual aspects
title Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T04%3A15%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Daylight%20performance%20and%20users%E2%80%99%20visual%20appraisal%20for%20green%20building%20offices%20in%20Malaysia&rft.jtitle=Energy%20and%20buildings&rft.au=Lim,%20Gene-Harn&rft.date=2017-04-15&rft.volume=141&rft.spage=175&rft.epage=185&rft.pages=175-185&rft.issn=0378-7788&rft.eissn=1872-6178&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1932176335%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1932176335&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378778817304905&rfr_iscdi=true