Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: The Advantages and Limitations

REVIEW ARTICLE Journal of Daylighting 8 (2021) 181-203 doi:10.15627/jd.2021.
16
ISSN 2383-8701
Journal of Daylighting
Journal homepage: https://solarlits.com/jd
Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: the

Advantages and Limitations
Amir Tabadkani,∗,a Astrid Roetzel,a Hong Xian Li,a Aris Tsangrassoulisb
a
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Australia
b
Department of Architecture, University of Thessaly, Perion Areos, 38334 Volos, Greece
Article info
Article history: Keywords:
Received 24 March 2021 Building envelope
Revised 9 May 2021 Daylighting systems
Accepted 17 May 2021 Occupant comfort
Published online 3 July 2021 Quantitative metrics
Abstract
Exposure to daylight significantly affects the psychological well-being of occupants by diminishing headaches, eye tensions, or stress.
Daylight penetration is a matter of collaboration between building façade and perimeter zones that can be controlled through façade
design features. This study reviews available daylighting systems to block or redirect natural light inside the space and their overall
performance. Adaptation found to be the main key feature of daylighting systems to improve their effectiveness in indoor environments.
As the main implication of such systems on the visual comfort performance of occupants, a list of quantitative indices is studied based
on their mathematical equation to outline their advantages and limitations. Findings revealed a lack of agreement on acceptable indoor
illuminance thresholds for most of the indices and the absence of a reliable glare index in presence of sun within the view field of the
occupant. Similarly, many green building certifications propose a specific criterion to assess view out but remained a challenge for
future studies.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by solarlits.com. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Many researchers stated daylight as an optimal psychological fact office buildings, daylight is more important than other hosting
for living since first human beings identified Sun as the only factors, therefore implementing daylight concepts in the early
lighting source and lived under daylight conditions [1]. Beside stage of a design is beneficial in certain ways: (1) economic and
psychological effects, especially during a task, a pleasant lighting ecological effects by reducing energy consumption and
quality is always appreciated and linked to human’s comfort and greenhouse gas emission [4]; (2) supporting natural rhythm of the
performance, but it is beyond the bounds of possibility to build an human circadian system physiologically [5]; (3) ensure superior
objective relation between light and productivity [2], as many color rendering to improve health, visual system and supply high
other variables are taken into account such as noise, air quality and rate of flicker-free illumination dynamically which stimulate
temperature. People have an instinctive tendency to natural light human eye [6]; and (4) social behavior is usually improved within
rather than artificially lit spaces in a building and studies occupants who are closer to windows [7] or in a room with more
confirmed exposure to daylight can have a significant effect on apertures [8]. Since daylight is not accessible during the day
well-being by diminishing headaches, eye tensions, or stress [3]. permanently and its magnitude decreases in the deeper side of the
Daylight design in buildings is a subjective argument based on space, thus there should be always a proper combination with
the urban regulations, building typology, architectural planning artificial lighting and geometrical planning.
and limitations, aperture proportions, economic or occupant From global perspectives, the source of daylight (sun) in high-
desires and their reactions to the lighting condition. In some latitude regions is noticeable during summer and winter
buildings, daylighting strategy is unique like museums, while in conditions, while at lower latitudes the daylight variations are
reduced [9]. Therefore, at high latitudes where daylight levels are
*
Corresponding author.
quite low during winter, designers aim to redirect daylight into the
stabadkani@deakin.edu.au (A. Tabadkani) building from the brightest part of the sky, and maximize sunlight
astrid.roetzel@deakin.edu.au (A. Roetzel) penetration. On the contrary, in the regions where daylight levels
hong.li@deakin.edu.au (H. X. Li)
atsagras@arch.uth.gr (A. Tsangrassoulis) are considerably high over the year, the design strategy often
2383-8701/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by solarlits.com. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
182 A. Tabadkani et al. / Journal of Daylighting 8 (2021) 181–203
emphasizes on restricting amount of incoming light to prevent • Section 4 – Detailed mathematical explanation of the existing
overheating and discomfort glare [10]. visual comfort quantitative metrics, their dependencies and
A conventional window may be enough to let the daylight enter limitations.
the space, but providing more natural light into the depth of the • Section 5 – highlighting the research gaps and
space requires more advanced design alternatives such as recommendations based on findings of previous two sections.
daylighting systems. Daylight penetration is a matter of
collaboration between building façade and perimeter zones. Thus, 3. Daylighting systems
seeking integrated daylighting control strategies within an energy
Windows are not only apertures in building envelopes anymore
efficient process is a challenging task to manage various
since new innovations like double-skin facades changes the
performance objectives such as lighting, mechanical energy
underlying definition. Nonetheless, windows are used to mainly
demand and envelope thermal properties with human desires like
provide views to outdoors and daylighting. To this end, there are
visual comfort, or personal operational controls. This is a multi-
two main approaches to deliver more daylight to the interior, by
objective task and require extensive knowledge of daylighting
increasing the floor area fraction near to the fenestrations that
systems and quantitative indices to assess visual comfort. To date,
require architectural design strategies, or applying daylighting
many daylighting systems were introduced and used in buildings
optical structures to deliver light thoroughly beyond perimeter
that either could guide the light into the depth of a space or redirect
zones. In order to redirect light or prevent excessive sunlight
it into the space to improve visual comfort. Following the visual
penetration, advanced daylighting techniques can be helpful,
comfort evaluation, two fundamental quantitative indices are used
especially in cases where particular tasks are performed or a high
to as basis to develop new metrics; illuminance and luminance.
degree of visual control is essential. Substantially, selecting a
Illuminance refers to the received daylight on a horizontal task
proper system should take into consideration three main aspects
plane while luminance is the luminous intensity within a view
[13]: (1) window or other opening’s functionality (e.g. visual
direction of user. As a result, this paper aims to review two
connection and/or permit daylighting); (2) the responsibility of the
fundamental scopes that found to be absent in the literature: (1)
system (e.g. redirecting and/or blocking light); and (3) the
outlining the benefits and limitations of each daylighting system
interaction of the system with other available systems. As a result,
with respect to visual comfort and energy savings, and (2) the
a wide range of daylighting systems have been applied in different
implications of daylight penetration into the space on visual
researches and experiments that are either played a role as guiding
comfort that requires further attention for quantification from
the daylight into the space or as shading systems, in which the
different perspectives including daylight level or uniformity,
following section discusses the features of each system
glare, and view to outdoors. It should be noted that the latter
individually.
section of this research aims to update the literature provided in
[11] as some of the indices were introduced recently.
3.1. Prismatic panels
2. Methodology Prismatic panels are planar components including a flat surface
and a prismatic patterned side composed of transparent materials
This study aims to update the literature in terms of current
such as polymers [14]. These panels are usually consolidated
advantages and limitations of different daylighting systems and
within window panes for low maintenance. The basic function is
visual comfort quantitative indices. To this end, a critical review
to redirect diffused lights from the highest point of sky towards the
and analysis was conducted for this research according to its
deepest side of the room especially in highly obstructed sites and
definition [12] in four main steps: 1) an extensive research through
the second role is to reflect certain light angles while transmitting
cross-referencing to identify the key papers in the field, 2)
from other angles. As shown in Fig. 2, the panels can be applied
evaluating the literature based on their contributions to their
as a fixed light-guiding system or as an integrated adaptive system
respective functions, 3) outlining the key research gaps, and 4)
[15]. The former type usually used in glazed roofs aimed to
highlighting the potential recommendations for future
redirect the diffuse daylight within certain angles, while reflecting
investigations. As a result, following the research workflow
direct sunlight of other directions through a reflective coating
presented in Fig. 1 and the aim of this study, the structure of the
(aluminum), and the latter case is normally found as louver form
paper is divided into three main sections:
to reflect sunlight from a certain angle by entire inner reflection.
• Section 3 – An overview of available daylighting systems and However, if they are placed vertically to deliver daylight deeper
their implications on either visual comfort and energy
savings.
Fig. 1. Research workflow.
Fig. 2. Fixed and adaptive prismatic panels [15].
to sharp edges of the system, although glare can still happen

through direct sunlight when a substantial portion of light is sent
without any deflections. Thus, to reduce discomfort glare,
venetian blinds should be placed in front of the LCP.
3.3. Light shelf

Light shelf is designed to shade and redirect daylight through its
top surface onto the ceiling and provide a glare-free visual field by
dividing a window into a view zone and a clerestory zone above.
With regard to its position, external light shelves perform better in
terms of blocking direct sunlight and reflecting daylight towards
indoor that might cause unbalanced illuminance, while interior
ones maximize the sunlight flows into the indoors with high risk
of glare. According to a study [20], a comparison between four
scale model of light shelf and conventional overhang is conducted
in Madrid, Spain, in which the study showed that light shelf
performed more efficient than a classical overhang by 25%
Fig. 3. Light path through LCP system [19]. increment of redirecting light in terms of illuminance levels and it
is revealed that the system reduces the existing illuminance
into the interiors, they can play as an anti-glare system except contrast between areas near to window and back of the room by
when sunlight enters directly. enhancing the distribution levels [21].
In practice, prismatic panels are translucent and falsify the Further optical improvements on light shelves were suggested
outdoor view and preferably should be positioned vertically higher by [22]: (1) geometrical modification towards a curved and
than eye level to maintain the visual field for users. The system is fragmented light shelf for sunlight reflections due to certain solar
able to transmit light by 90%; however, under overcast sky altitudes passively, and (2) available semi-specular films in market
conditions, it decreases daylight factor imperceptibly comparing could increase the efficiency. Moreover, the same study tested
with clear glazing [16]. Moreover, the overall performance of the four light-shelf designs combined with light pipes in Los Angles
system highly depends on the deflecting angles and climate, as depicted in Fig. 4. The curved configurations coated by highly
although under sunny sky conditions has a potential in energy reflective films (88% reflectance) aimed to redirect sunlight while
savings. Besides, an integrated system was developed to increase the altitude changes, therefore the inclinations were calculated by
the indoor illuminance levels in University of Berlin, Germany by taking into account the window orientation and latitude, to ensure
Hüppe, including a layer of prismatic panel for sun shading and a an optimum design solution for narrow spread and specular
semi-perforated blinds to deflect the diffuse light; however, as reflections. As a result, using curved light shelves can increase
they are placed internally, the shading factor is quite low and the indoor illuminance in rear zones up to 10 m away from the window
visual connection to outside is extremely reduced [13]. for equinox sun angles and south faced facades (northern
hemisphere).
3.2. Laser-cut Panels (LCP) Furthermore, a conceptual tracking light shelf system was
proposed in Fig. 5 that reflects daylight into the space by utilizing
According to the inventor [17], LCP can be installed as the main
both diffuse and direct sunlight [24] called VALRA (Variable
glazing system or as a second internal glazing above eye level to
Area Light Reflecting Assembly). This system adjusted a
perform the same as light shelf or reflective blinds. Technically, it
reflective film made by plastic over a spring-loaded tracking
is produced by implementing parallel laser cuts with acrylic
roller, in which its efficiency is limited to maximum 9m distance
materials to act as small interior mirrors to redirect light in high
from window depending on sky changes and boarding limits.
portion especially in rear areas of the room [18] through passing
Following dynamic approach, a comparison between static and
the voids by ordinal process of refraction and reflection (Fig. 3),
active polished light shelf was conducted through computer-based
while preserving a good visual field. With regard to risk of glare,
simulations and physical examination in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where
there is an insignificant quantity of light scattered by the LCP due
Fig. 4. From left to right: Static horizontal shelf, one level curved light shelf, two levels, and multi-level light shelf [23].
Fig. 5. Seasonal operation of VALRA [13].
Fig. 6. Active sunlight redirection system (ASRS) [27].
the illuminance and solar energy were the main objectives [25]. study by [27] proposing a dynamic sunlight redirection system as
The study showed that static light shelf enhances daylight mirrors installed on a light shelf that revealed a significant
uniformity by sacrificing illuminance ranges under overcast skies, improvement of daily mean illuminance of non-day-lit spaces and
and performs better than dynamic one unless its tilt angle be uniformity up to 128% and 54% respectively in summer solstice.
optimized based on the sun’s position, where a method for Also, the system does not impose discomfort glare due to the sun
controlling the tilt angle of the exterior part of a mirror light shelf reflections on the ceiling except when the occupant has a direct
resulted in energy savings [26]. Figure 6 illustrates a research visual connection to the sun.
to upper quarter of the zone, and additional shades such as roller

blind is needed to prevent solar radiation [13].
Following light-directing louvers, ‘Okasolar’ and ‘Retrolux’
systems are proposed to deflect daylight in low sun angles in
winter, and reject it in higher altitudes to give the ability of shading
in summer. The main difference between these modified louvers,
is their position in the composition. Okasolar is asymmetrical
profile that positioned between the window panes that can be
adjusted into different states (Fig. 8), while Retrolux is a fixed
device and can be used in interior, exterior or within double-paned
window (Fig. 9) [16].
In respect to discomfort glare, blinds can create linear bright
patches along the slats resulting in glare in sunny skies [35].
Tiltable slats are more effective in controlling energy consumption
or glare problems comparing with fixed ones, in which the latter
system should be placed above eye level preferably to reduce the
possible glare effects. Another drawback of the system, depending
Fig. 7. The ‘Fish’ system. on the slat’s angles, louvers and blinds can significantly obstruct
the visual connection to outdoors, therefore in most cases the
Fig. 8. Light-directing louvers: Okasolar daylighting system [33].
3.4. Louvers and blinds system is completely or partially responsive to adjust the view
Louvers and blind systems are basically composed of multi-level field [16].
horizontal or vertical slats that have the ability to be fixed or
dynamically-operated [13]. The system may block the visual field, 3.5. Anidolic systems
deflect and/or transfer solar radiation directly or diffusely to the Anidolic systems are innovative light-guiding structures or
interiors, although the overall performance of the system can vary advanced light shelves [14] by taking the edge-ray principle of
significantly depending on several settings: (a) sun position [15]; non-imaging optics (Fig. 10) to achieve prominent strategies for
(b) system positon [28]; (c) slat’s tilt [29]; (d) slat’s reflectivity daylight harvesting and re-distribution. It follows a principle that
and transparency [30]; (e) system operation [31]; and (f) slats any ray transition through the input aperture with an incidence
configuration (flat or curved) [32]. angle between specific domain, emerges from the output aperture
Louvers and blinds are generally adjustable shading systems within the same range [36].
that can be applied in several applications in order to customize Consequently, three anidolic systems were developed to deliver
their performance. As the simplest form, upward-tilted slats permit acceptable performance: (a) anidolic ceiling; (b) integrated
light transition from sun and sky through the concave curvature anidolic system; and (c) anidolic solar blinds. The anidolic ceiling
towards the ceilings, while downward-tilted slats admits from incorporates with an integrated duct into a ceiling to send the light
light redirections ground surface primarily [16]. Similarly, an flux to the interiors due to highly reflective surfaces especially in
innovative system designed (Fig. 7) as ‘Fish’ system comprises locations where cloudy sky is dominant [13] as shown in Fig. 11.
fixed horizontal concaved slats with a triangular joint aligned As an experimental study by [37], daylight factor was improved
accurately to each louver itself within window panes. As respects, significantly especially in rear part the test room up to 100%, thus
the system is limited to glare control and redirecting diffuse light glare reduction was possible through homogenizing indoor
daylight levels [38]. Integrated anidolic system aims to respond to
roller shade for lower part and it is concluded that a deep sunlight
penetration and proper glare control is achievable by the system
[37].
3.6. Directional shading system with holographic optical element

(HOE)
The system reflects or redirects incident light through laminated
holographic film within two glazing layers and transmits the
diffuse light from other angles without altering visual connection
[41], especially in buildings with high glazing ratio where
overheating or glare are the main problems. HOE can be adjusted
in two different sun-tracking configurations: (1) a transparent
HOE to redirect incident sunlight onto the ceiling within small
angular range; (2) a sunlight-concentrating HOE to redirect
sunlight onto solid linear tabs for absorption and thermal energy
or electricity conversion by photovoltaic panel [42] (Fig. 14), thus
Fig. 9. Light-directing louvers: Retrolux daylighting system [34].
the visual field through panels can be reduced up to 50%.
3.7. Sun-directing glass

This technology is very effective in direct or diffuse daylight
redirection, although the interior luminance intensity must be kept
under control to avoid discomfort glare. The main element of the
system is a series of curved acrylic strips with high refractive index
(comparing with gas) which are placed within a double-paned
window as a sealed unit [16] and play as optical light elements by
total internal reflection to guide incoming daylight within 15° to
65° onto the ceiling especially at mid-latitudes in sunny skies. In
Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of non-imaging optical system [37]. practice, sun-directing system is translucent and reduces visible
light penetration in which it should be applied above eye height to
the daylighting requirements in building refurbishment where the avoid glare without distorting view. Figure 15 confirms the
building façade should remain unchanged. Figure 12 illustrates a possible combination of horizontal and vertical internal reflections
cross-section of an integrated anidolic system combined with of the system which leaded to a relatively glare-free uniform
micro-louvers for solar protection which was carried-out by ray- illumination onto the ceiling without any tracking parts except in
tracing simulations, and showed a considerable enhancement in overcast sky conditions, although according to [13] the possibility
diffuse light redirection [39] in addition to possible glare risk of discomfort glare still exists due to the bright illuminance of the
reduction [40]. Anidolic solar blinds consist of a three- system itself.
dimensional grid of hollow specular elements in small scale as an
innovative difference with other anidolic systems [13], that 3.8. Limitation and advantages of daylighting systems
enhances direct sunlight scattering. Figure 13 shows an outdoor Consequently, daylighting systems can be classified in different
view of the system mounted on a test room above eye level and a terms due to many possible decisions during a design process.
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. (a) and (b) Anidolic ceiling mechanism [37].
a) Redirecting diffuse light – blocking direct incident

sunlight while transferring diffuse daylight;
b) Using direct sunlight – scatter sunlight or redirect it onto
the ceiling or higher than eye level.
2. Daylighting systems without shading based on redirecting
daylight to deeper grids far from a window which may not
prevent direct sunlight, and are categorized into two systems:
a) Diffuse light-guiding systems – redirecting natural
light from brighter areas of sky vault around zenith
especially under overcast sky condition for sites with
dense surroundings;
b) Direct light-guiding systems – allowing direct sunlight
to indoors excluding glare and overheating.
According to Table 1, the potential performance criteria of
daylighting systems are followed by several subjective questions
adopted from [13]:
Fig. 12. Integrated anidolic system [39].
Fig. 13. Anidolic solar blind system [37].
Windows need to be protected from sun rays and possible glare to

provide a comfortable indoor environment, while daylight
redirection can result in energy savings and is not absolutely
necessary function. However, the visual connection to outside is
not a daylighting system’s purpose but a fundamental function of
the window itself, in which the impact of the system on user’s view
to outdoors needs to be studied.
All of these systems require different actions and performance Fig. 14. Applications of HOE [42].
criteria related to their characteristics [27] such as daylight
redirection to under-lit task area, daylight improvement for zone
illumination, visual comfort enhancement through glare control or
optimum solar protection and thermal control. All of these key
roles may change their prioritization significantly not only in real
design cases, but also due to time scales (e.g. minutes, hours) or
change of interior function. As shown in Table 1, limitations and
advantages of each daylighting system can give a clear perspective
to building professions of available daylighting systems that is
based on the capability of shading or light-guiding systems in
sending diffuse light to indoors by preventing or scattering
sunlight: Fig. 15. Sun-directing glass [16].
1. Daylighting systems with shading based on two strategies:
Table 1. Selection matrix of daylighting systems.

Daylighting system Location Performance criteria
Need Adjustments
Without Shading
Glare Protection
With Shading
Energy Saving
Light Guiding
Sun-tracking
View Outside
Potential
Fixed
Fixed prismatic panels a b Within window panes ✓ × D D ✓ × ×
(fixed)
Exterior
Interior
Movable prisms and blinds (Hüppe system) a - Interior × ✓ ✓ × ✓ × ✓
Directional shading system with Holographic Optical Element a - Exterior × ✓ D D (✓) ✓ ×
(HOE) Within window panes
Basic louvers and blinds b - Within window panes ✓ ✓ ✓ × D ✓ ✓
Exterior
Interior
Fish system (blinds) b - Within window panes ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓
Okasolar (blinds) b - Within window panes × ✓ D × D × D
Retrolux (blinds) b - Within window panes ✓ × D ✓ D × D
Exterior
Interior
Light Shelf b a Exterior ✓ × × ✓ D × D
Interior
VALRA b a Exterior × ✓ × ✓ D × ✓
Interior
Active sunlight redirection system (ASRS) b a Exterior × ✓ × ✓ D ✓ ✓
Anidolic Ceilings - a Ceiling ✓ × × ✓ ✓ × ✓
Laser-cut panel (LCP) - b Within window panes ✓ ✓ × D ✓ × ✓
Sun-directing glass - b Within window panes ✓ × D D ✓ × ✓
‘D’ means ‘Depends’ when the feature is relying on a specific application or technique of the system
(✓) can generate energy through PV cells
• Glare protection – Is system protecting the visual field from redirection capability is mostly available above eye level (e.g.
direct sun and veiling reflections? prismatic panels) to reflect the light onto the ceiling and depth of
• View outside – Is system transparent enough to permit a clear the room, which still remains the view window unshaded and thus,
view field with no obstructions? discomfort glare becomes a negative experience of such systems.
• Energy saving potential – Does the system minimize the need Moreover, architectural layout limitations might hinder the
for artificial lighting comparing with conventional system? Or applications of systems like anidolic ceilings which can potentially
alternatively, does the system allow to generate energy? decrease the floor height due to the light-duct. According to
• Need adjustments – Does the system need any extra passive findings in Table 1, in all systems, discomfort glare can be
or active adjustments to track daily or seasonal changes of sun expected for occupants in case of presence of sun in their view
position constantly while keeping the same effectiveness? field especially in lower sun altitudes. This finding emphasizes the
• Light guiding into the depth of the room – Is system able to high effectiveness of adaptive daylighting systems such as
provide more daylight in deeper areas comparing with venetian blinds could deliver a better multi-objective performance
conventional fenestration systems? under various daylighting and sky conditions than fixed systems,
although adaptations adds further complexity (e.g. finding an
As a result, the most critical part of the daylighting systems is optimum control strategy for automation).
their reaction to direct sunlight that is a challenging task for On other front, choosing the optimum daylighting system within
architects when offering highly glazed façade to use natural light a design process is not feasible only by knowing its characteristics
and resulting in glare, excessive illuminance ratio and solar gain since they are mainly designed based on guiding or redirecting
of interior areas. Using ceiling and specular materials with an light into the space, thus are not capable of maintaining view to
optimized form such as light shelves or reflective louvers are outdoors and protect occupants from discomfort glare
potentially more effective than interior LCP in terms of redirecting simultaneously. Therefore, visual comfort evaluation is a
diffuse light. However, in case of light shelves protecting user necessary step for designers to rate a working space against
from discomfort glare might be a challenging task especially in different aspects including daylight level, glare condition or view
winter season. Redirection capability of daylighting systems can to outdoors that is the focus of the next section.
diminish the problems and make benefits of direct sunlight while
keeping visual comfort in acceptable range. However, the
Fig. 16. Human Circadian Cycle [49].
4. Visual comfort influence occupants’ visual satisfaction [44,50]. On the other

Table 1 reveals that designing daylighting systems is not hand, poor visibility may cause visual discomfort and forcing the
necessarily limited to energy efficiency and electricity eye to adapt to brightness level quickly, while existing high
consumption; visual comfort performance is equally important in brightness contrasts or distracting light within the field of view
form of glare protection, view to outdoors or indoor illuminance. (FOV) can cause discomfort glare [51], or alternatively, non-
However, visual comfort is a subjective perception in a visual uniform illuminated task area results in disability glare or unclear
environment that is affected by several but coexisting variables. It visual perception. Therefore, keeping a balance between daylight
influences occupant’s well-being as defined by European standard penetration, view to outdoor and glare probability is an essential
[43] and similar to thermal comfort principles, these interrelated target in achieving efficient daylighting and comfort that is highly
variables can be classified into Psychological, Physiological and affected by physical (e.g. luminance) and non-physical parameters
Rational aspects, although the first two aspects are less measurable (e.g. user’s perception of daylight) that are used as basis to
[44] and therefore, are not discussed in detail in this study. quantify visual comfort. In particular, the evaluation of visual
Psychologically, visual comfort has major influences on comfort has been investigated for decades through a wide range of
productivity as well as circadian daily rhythm which is responsible metrics. This research updates the existing literature based on five
to synchronize human’s internal clock to 24 hours as shown in Fig. quantitative criteria: (1) quantifying daylight magnitude, (2)
16. Circadian regulation is a function of daylight exposure and daylight distribution, (3) direct sunlight penetration, (4)
duration, its intensity and pattern to understand the night-time discomfort glare sensation and (5) view to outdoors.
exposure and can be evaluated by physiological variables such as
timing of skin exposure, or alertness [44]. On the other hand, lack 4.1. Indices for evaluating daylight quantity
of proper light quantity results in a psychological illness called The majority of studies refer daylighting penetration into the space
Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) that is mostly related to as illuminance which is a physical measured in lux at a given point
climatic conditions and latitude [45]. In addition to lighting P of a surface (Ep) following by Eq. 1 that that returns the ratio
benefits through windows, interest in utilizing views for all users between incident luminous flux (φ) on a diminutive surface around
is emerged from a wide range of research studies in psychology P and the surface area (Arec). As can be derived from the equation,
and environment that supports the original concept of providing the main limitation is the difficulty of differentiating the source of
windows as significant element for improving individual well- incoming light onto the surface (natural or artificial).
being and performance [46,47]. A later research [6] confirmed the 𝑑𝑑Φ
importance of visual connection for users in windowless work 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = (1)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
stations by creating surrogate windows as posters of natural Illuminance metric indicates the daylight level at certain point
scenes, in which it showed the view content has a further at each hour that does not necessarily interpret the daylight
psychological impact on health, job satisfaction, user workability sufficiency of a space over a year. Therefore, Daylight Factor (DF)
or stress relieving [47,48]. A view mitigates stress particularly if was widely used to evaluate the daylight adequacy and defined as
the work requires doing details at close distances. From “the ratio of the internal illuminance at a point (Ep,obs) in a
physiological point of view, the human body reacts to light building to the unshaded, external horizontal illuminance (Ep,unobs)
through two sensors: human eye and the skin. The human eye under a CIE overcast sky” as the worst case scenario [52],
processes light signals in a wide range of magnitudes in a sunlit although it neglects the climatic dynamic changes, sun position,
day [9] and can adapt itself to bright or dark environment by building orientation or material reflectance which then reduces the
changing pupil’s size. While a turning point between visual and calculation time significantly. Therefore, several studies
thermal comfort is their impact on human thermal sensation which questioned the accuracy of DF for daylight studies [53,54] due to
depends on skin exposure in a given indoor environment, and both its static behavior [55]. Recently, researchers developed a
seemed to be pleasant when the light source was daylight [47]. modified DF metric, or namely, DFaverage in which orientation
As the main focus of this research, the rational aspect of visual factor is implemented in the calculation process.
comfort in a given work environment is a function of ideal 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸.𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
brightness for users by permitting enough light quantity, glare-free 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = (2)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸.𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
perspectives, providing a uniform indoor illuminance and
Furthermore, the ignorance of dynamic behavior of a climate
luminance and sufficient views to outdoor environment that
motivated researchers to develop metrics that consider unique
solar and weather conditions, or adaptive systems such as shading time fraction (ti) of analysis points over a year when the indoor
devices in a project. To this end, climate-based daylight modelling horizontal illuminance falls into a specific range [11]. The
(CBDM) were introduced to provide information of daylight proposed range converts UDI into a two-tailed metric that contains
sufficiency and exceedance of a design (Fig. 17). As the first index lower and upper thresholds and an acceptable range as UDIunderlit,
of CBDM approach, Daylight Autonomy is defined by [56] as “the UDIoverlit and UDIuseful respectively (Eq. 6). Thus, values above
percentage of the occupied hours (ti) of the year when a minimum upper threshold gives the frequency of excessive illuminance
illuminance threshold (Elimit) is met by the sole daylight (Edaylight)” levels that might lead to visual discomfort as glare and thermal
(Eq. 3). However, this metric is a one-tailed metric which cannot stress. Although in the literature different thresholds have been
predict the excessive daylight that might cause overheating or proposed [60-62]. Researchers also concluded a strong correlation
discomfort glare, and studies reported its poor correlation with between two CBDM metrics (UDI and sDA) and occupant’s
occupants’ satisfaction [57]. visual satisfaction that supports the CBDM adaptation in
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷=
∑𝑖𝑖 (𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ∙ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)
∈[0.1]
simulations [53].
∑𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 ≥𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (3) 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈=
∈ [0.1]
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= � ∑𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 <𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡>𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
⎧ 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 ≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Based on DA definition, Continuous Daylight Autonomy (cDA) ⎪
1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �
was proposed by [58] to implement partial changes related to time- ⎨ 0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 <𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∨ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 >𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
⎪ 1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡<𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
steps when daylight horizontal illuminance is below the limit as ⎩
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑔𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑡 ≥𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
shown in Eq. 4, and admits even a partial daylight contribution is (6)
still advantageous.
In addition to UDI, Reinhart and Wienold [63] combined DA
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐=
∈[0.1] and UDI into a single value as Daylight Availability (DAv) to
1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 ≥𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (4) overcome the absence of upper thresholds of DA and its modified
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 <𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 versions (Fig. 17). The metric divides the day-lit space into four
Following the existing limitations of DA and cDA, Illuminating zones: ‘fully daylit’ and ‘partially daylit’, which refers to
Engineering Society [59] improved DA correlation with occupants’ sDA300,50%, DA150,50% respectively, ‘overlit’ area when upper
satisfaction through an alternative modified version of DA called threshold (e.g. 2500 lux) reaches more than 5% of the occupied
spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and is defined as “the annual hours by analysis points, and the remaining area as ‘non-daylit’.
percentage of occupied hours (y) where at least 50% of the floor Therefore, despite the consideration of different ranges, it can be
area (Pi) reached to a certain illuminance threshold (x)” (Eq. 5). useful in shared spaces unlike sDA. Further in a simulation-based
This equation results in a single or zonal value, although reporting research [64], DAv metric could deliver a feasible proxy that
a single value might not be an applicable daylighting metric in showed a strong linear relation with total energy consumption.
shared working spaces. Similar to UDI concept, Frequency of Visual Comfort (FVC) is
the time fraction (ti) in percent over a given period that illuminance
∑𝑖𝑖 (𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ∙ 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷)
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠/𝑦𝑦%=
∑𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
∈[0.1] (Edaylight) values are within a specific range to ensure visual
(5)
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �
1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ≥𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 comfort regarding daylight only as shown in Eq. 7 [65]. This
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 <𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
means visual comfort is guaranteed when illuminance is not below
In order to define an upper threshold with a similar definition of EUnder or above EOver, while the main difference with UDI is the
DA (Fig. 17), Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) is defined as the
Fig. 17. Daylight quantity indices and their interrelations.
measuring approach of illuminance level, in which UDI counts on (UO) which is the ratio between minimum (Eminimum) and the
spatial rendering in each analysis point, while FVC proposed an average (Eaverage) illuminance intensity over a given task plane (Eq.
average daylight illuminance that hinders its applicability in shares 9). In addition, different uniformity ratios have been suggested by
zones. 0.8 [68] or 0.4 to 0.7 depending on the visual activity [43] that
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹=
∈[0.1]
outlines the inconsistency of recommended thresholds and more
1
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (7) importantly, there is no correlation between the proposed
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤= �
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 <𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∨ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝑡𝑡 >𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 calculation and occupancy-related factors.
The average daylight illuminance was not only the focus of FVC
𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(Fig. 17), but also Sicurella et al. [65] introduced Intensity of 𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂.𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = (9)
𝐸𝐸𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Visual Discomfort (IVD) as “the time integral of the difference
between the spatial average of the current daylight illuminance As a result, Table 2 outlines an overall view of individual visual
and the upper limit of visual comfort (Eover = 750 lux) as IVDover comfort metrics regarding daylight quantity and distribution
or the lower limit of visual comfort (Eunder = 150 lux) as IVDunder”. including their potential advantages and limitations, and their
As a result, IVD can assess both natural light penetration and mathematical correlation with occupants-related factors. Findings
visual discomfort simultaneously, while it is difficult to obtain reveal that UDI and DAv metrics are more accurate to quantify the
zero IVD during a long period. daylight penetration in a given space due to their range and area
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼= ∫𝑃𝑃 ∆𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 divisions that make them feasible to apply especially in shared
𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)−𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)≥𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (8) spaces. However, more investigations are required to assess DAv
⎧ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ ∆𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)= �
0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)<𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 against occupants’ satisfaction.
⎨𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ ∆𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)= �0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)≤𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
⎩ 𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)−𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡)>𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
4.3. Indices for direct sunlight
4.2. Daylight distribution indices In response to the sDA definition and the existing limitation
regarding DA due to absence of upper threshold, the IES
Light distribution ratio is as important as light amount to provide committee [59] proposed a complementary metric to evaluate
visual comfort mostly in office buildings [66], not only because it visual discomfort potential in a day-lit environment (not as a glare
reduces glare possibility but also it relates to the frequency of metric, but as a proxy for visual and thermal discomfort). Annual
occupants switching on lights. According to [67], it is confirmed Sun Exposure is an illuminance-based and dynamic metric that
that a uniform daylit space even with less light quantity appears gives the ability to assess direct sunlight penetration specifically.
more acceptable than an unbalanced light distribution with higher It is defined as the space fraction of illuminated analysis points by
illuminance. However, in the literature there is only one available direct daylight in percentage exceed at least 250 hours of
metric related to daylight distribution as Illuminance Uniformity occupation over a year above 1000lux (in short, ASE1000,250h).
Table 2. Visual comfort metrics to assess natural light quantity and distribution.
Metric Dependencies Limitation(s) Occupant-
centric index
Illuminance (Ep) Luminous flux, surface area - Not possible to divide the light source nature (natural vs. artificial light) ×
- Depends on surface orientation
- Time consuming for annual calculations
- Different comfortable thresholds in the literature
Daylight Factor (DF) Horizontal illuminance, - Does not consider dynamic behaviour of the climate ×
overcast sky - Not applicable in case of adaptive technologies (e.g. responsive facades)
- Not a reliable indicator to assess daylight performance [54]
- No upper threshold
- Not applicable for glare assessment [69]
- Excludes direct light from calculations [70]
Daylight Autonomy Occupancy profile, - No upper threshold, thus excessive values might cause visual discomfort due ✓
(DA) illuminance threshold to glare
- Poor correlation with occupant’s subjective satisfaction [57]
Continuous Daylight Occupancy profile, - No upper threshold, thus excessive values might cause visual discomfort due ✓
Autonomy (cDA) illuminance threshold to glare
Spatial Daylight Occupancy profile, - No upper threshold, thus excessive values might cause visual discomfort due ✓
Autonomy (sDA) illuminance threshold, floor to glare
area - Draws a single value for a zone, thus not applicable in shared spaces
Useful Daylight Illuminance threshold - No agreement on the thresholds ×
illuminance (UDI)
Daylight Availability Occupancy profile, - Impact on occupant’s satisfaction is unknown ✓
(DAv) illuminance threshold, floor - No agreement on the thresholds
area
Frequency of Visual Illuminance threshold - Draws a single value for a zone, thus not applicable in shared spaces ×
Comfort (FVC) - No agreement on the thresholds
Intensity of Visual Illuminance threshold - Focuses on upper and lower limits rather than desired range ×
Discomfort (IVD)
Illuminance Uniformity Horizontal illuminance - Setting a threshold depends on visual activity in the space ×
(Uo)
Fig. 18. Using fisheye camera to capture sunlight duration by overlaying stereographic sun path diagram [73].
According LEED v4, a maximum 10% ASE is assumed an 𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ∑γ𝑠𝑠 >0(𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐∆𝑡𝑡) (12)
acceptable threshold, while keeping sDA above 50% as a
standardized calculation for simulation-based modeling approach
to examine daylight performance. But currently, due to several 4.4. Glare indices
significant uncertainties such as the real representation of sun, and Psychological and physiological human well-being are the main
the impact of analysis grid resolution on results, ASE is not reasons of improving indoor environment and in regards to
powerful enough to be considered as a daylight metric for rational aspect of visual comfort, glare metrics play a significant
evaluation [53,71]. role as they involve occupant’s conditions and subjective
Recently, a new metric as ‘Sunlight duration’ introduced by [72] responses locally. It is still a challenge to identify an independent
to describe a day-lit environment and defined as the daily time standardized metric for glare assessment since each index assesses
fraction which incident sunlight penetrates into a space through visual perception individually, and the understanding of
fenestrations in hours or unit-less parameters. Sunlight duration discomfort glare is insufficiently discovered [11]. Glare is a
depends on surrounding obstructions in an urban context that can complex issue related to light sources and different approaches
block direct sun radiation. Eq. 10 evaluates sunlight duration (s) have been conducted to assess or predict potential visual
in sequence of sun azimuths based on sun altitude (γs) and height disabilities, and as stated by [75], they can be categorized in three
of obstructions (γ), in which for a given reference point on the main groups: (i) lighting factors; (ii) context factors; and (iii)
window pane if γs < γ, the reference point is shaded by buildings observer factors. The direct method of glare perception includes
and if γs > γ, the reference point is shaded from the zenith (e.g. in measuring the luminance of an existing light source seen by an
overhangs). Beside mathematical calculations, there are several observer’s eye (luminance-based), while other approaches are
ways to calculate sunlight duration such as sun path diagram, based on equations that rely on subjective opinions and limited
using diagrams (Waldram), or taking a photo from the reference degree of discomfort glare [76]. In principle, Eq. 13 combines
point through fisheye lens (Fig. 18). general factors that are influential in discomfort glare calculation
𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 [77]:
𝑡𝑡
𝑠𝑠 = ∫𝑡𝑡 𝑒𝑒.𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒.𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑒𝑒
𝐿𝐿 ∙𝜔𝜔
𝑓𝑓
𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐺𝐺= � 𝑔𝑔𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 �
𝐿𝐿 ∙𝑓𝑓(𝑃𝑃)
𝑏𝑏
(10) 𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤) (13)
𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑒
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � 𝑏𝑏
Sunlight duration gives an indication of a time-dependent 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒
exposure to sun, but without quantifying the intensity. To this end, 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
to answer “how much sunlight can enter a room?” another metric Based on the equation itself several results can be observed [78]:
is introduced by [74] which is the cross-sectional area of passing (i) the brighter the source, the more glare risk; (ii) the brighter
sunlight incident beam through a window (Eq. 11). Thus, it background luminance, the lower glare risk; and (iii) the further
depends on day-lit portion of the window, sunlight incident the light source from FOV, the lower glare risk. The background
duration and its cosine angle, that is highly scalable and can be luminance defines the adaptation level of the eye to the luminous
expressed on an annual basis as Annual Sunlight Beam Index (Stot) environment (mainly in the case of small glare sources) since in
(Fig. 19). all subjective measurements, subjects have time to adapt
𝑆𝑆∆𝑡𝑡 = 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐∆𝑡𝑡 = �𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 − 𝐴𝐴𝑢𝑢 � 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐∆𝑡𝑡 (11) themselves to ambient conditions [79]. The second physical
quantity for adaptation level is Vertical Eye Illuminance (Ev)
Substantially, Stot is the total SBI of all glazed apertures over a mainly for large glare sources.
year when the sun height γs is above zero (Table 3). As the main effective factor on glare, luminance is a
photometric measure that quantifies the luminous intensity of a
“reference point in a given angle (γ) per unit of visible area around included adaptation capability by computing direct and diffuse
the given point” in nit or cd/m2 [11] (Eq. 14). According to [80], illuminances as (Ed) and (Ei) respectively (Eq. 17), on a cross-
acceptable maximum luminance value of the source is still the sectional plane passing observer’s eyes. However, Iwata et al. [92]
most challenging issue. There are different upper limit values and examined CGI accuracy under large artificial source (screen) and
categories proposed by [81] by 2000, 4000, and 6000 cd/m2 as concluded CGI is overestimating glare, but according to [93],
‘acceptable’, ‘just uncomfortable’ and ‘intolerable’ thresholds, or could be an appropriate index for worst possible scenario to
Shin [82] recommended upper thresholds up to 3200, 5600 and overestimate glare. In other experimental research, similar results
10000 cd/m2. have been achieved for a roller blind scene [90]. Similar to other
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝛾𝛾 metrics, there are different interpreted thresholds for CGI as
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐿𝐿𝛾𝛾 = (14) recommended in Table 4.
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
Apart from measuring absolute luminance intensity, the contrast 𝐸𝐸

1+( 𝑑𝑑 ) 𝐿𝐿2𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
ratio among luminance values within FOV of an observer should 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 8 log10 �2 500
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 � �� (17)
𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑 +𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖2
remain in reasonable range to prevent glare on a task plane. To
take the advantage of this metric, Osterhaus [83] identified three A combination of BGI, VCP and CGI proposed by CIE [94] in
zones: (i) central zone – the visual task; (ii) adjacent zone – up to form of Unified Glare Rating (UGR) system where the adaptation
60° cone around visual task; and (iii) non-adjacent zone – up to parameter implemented in the CGI equation (Ed+Ei) is replaced by
120° cone around visual task, and proposed luminance ratios as background luminance (Lb) in Eq. 20. According to Table 4, UGR
1:3:10 respectively. Other recommendations have been proposed ranges from 10 ‘imperceptible’ to 34 ‘intolerable’ that 19 is
by the IES [84] as 1:20 between central zone and adjacent zone. recommended as a boundary between discomfort and comfort
Because of the nature of light and depending on the visual task glare. Similar to other glare metrics, UGR developed under
layout, the luminance ratios differ, for example, when people are experimental studies including very small uniform sources with a
exposed to excessive daylight near to windows, they prefer to limited solid angle between 3×10-4 and 10-1 sr, that is only suitable
tolerate rather than closing blinds [85]. Therefore, determining for artificial lighting rather than non-uniform large glare sources
potential glare problems only based on luminance ratios with no like curtain walls, although several studies used it for day-lit
certain agreement on the thresholds is still required more spaces without direct sun like DGI [90,95]. In addition, when the
investigation [80]. observer’s sight line is positioned below glare sources, UGR
To take the surrounding’s reflectance into glare quantification, cannot predict glare accurately. Further modifications applied to
British Glare Index (BGI) is derived from empirical studies of the metric for larger light sources greater than 1.5 m2 by CIE called
glare equation and introduced by [86] which is an efficient metric Great-room Glare Rating (GGR), while for smaller light sources
artificial small sources are causing glare (Eq. 15). Therefore, it is below 3×10-4 sr, UGRsmall can be used for surfaces lower than
not applicable when the source is natural light from non-uniform 0.005m2 [96]. However, UGR, GGR and UGRsmall are developed
sources like windows. Basically, BGI includes three ranges (Table for different evaluation purposes, but they have been used for the
4): 10 as ‘imperceptible glare’, 28 as ‘just intolerable’ and 30 as same level of discomfort glare.
‘intolerable glare’ [76,87]. 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈=8 log10 �
0.25 𝑛𝑛 𝐿𝐿2 ∙ 𝜔𝜔
∑𝑖𝑖=1� 𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 2 𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 ��
𝐿𝐿1.6 0.8
𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
(18)
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵=10 log10 �0.478 ∑𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1� 𝐿𝐿 ∙ 𝑃𝑃1.6 �� 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 ∈ [3∙10−4 . 10−1 ]
𝑏𝑏 𝑖𝑖
𝑠𝑠 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
⎧ 𝑖𝑖
⎪
𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ𝑡𝑡 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Moreover, a modified version of UGR as Unified Glare
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
⎨ 𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑡𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Probability (UGP) developed by Hirning [97] and Lim [54] for six
⎪𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 open-plan office buildings in a tropical climate, Malaysia, based
⎩ 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
on the initial methodology using a combination of luminance-
(15) based maps and post-occupancy evaluation (POE) conducted in
Similar to BGI, Visual Comfort Probability (VCP) emerged Brisbane, Australia [98]. The studies concluded the overall
from experimental case studies by [88] including typically-sized accuracy of the original formulation of UGP in all types of
uniform sources, and does not perform accurately under large non- discomfort glare predictions was 69% (better than DGI, CGI, VCP
uniform sources such as daylight and very small or large light and DGP) with two distinguished thresholds (UGP > 0.5 as
sources like halogens [89] and might overestimate glare [90]. The discomfort and UGP ≤ 0.5 as comfort) [98]. Thus, a further
main contribution of this metric is the admittance of a modification of UGP applied on the linear transformation of UGR
dimensionless index that evaluates the population of observers in to keep the output probabilities within 0 to 1 in Eq. 21, as the
a given artificially-lighted environment in percentage who feel optimum equation to assess glare from windows for both climates.
comfortable in a scale of 0 to 100 according to (Eq. 16). Table 4 Moreover, in respect to luminance ratio, the contrast between
suggests acceptable thresholds found in the literature. background and window identified as the most influential factor
on glare discomfort [97].
100 6.374−1.3227 ln(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) 1
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = � 𝑒𝑒 −𝑡𝑡
2 /2
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (16) 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 10 (19)
√2𝜋𝜋 −∞ 1
2 − (𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈+5)
�1+ �10 40 ��
7
where DGR=Discomfort Glare Rating.
To minimize the mathematical inconsistency imposed by BGI However, there are several limitations in terms of UGP
equation, Einhorn [91] proposed a new metric CIE Glare Index application [97]:
(CGI) based on empirical tests with uniform glare sources that
Table 3. Visual comfort metrics to assess sunlight penetration.

centric index
Annual Sun Occupancy profile, illuminance threshold, - Existing uncertainties such as real representing of sun position, ✓
Exposure (ASE) floor area, exposure time or the grid resolution of the floor area
Sunlight Duration Surrounding obstructions - No agreement on acceptable durations ×
- Independent of indoor environment
Sunlight Beam Surrounding obstructions, solar incident - Independent of indoor environment ×
Index (SBI) angle - No agreement on the thresholds
Table 4. Nine-point scale of glare sensation based on [11,104].

Glare sensation BGI VCP CGI DGI UGR
Intolerable 31 12 34 30 34
Just intolerable Uncomfortable 28 20 31 28 31
Just uncomfortable 25 28 28 26 28
Just Unacceptable Acceptable 22 36 25 24 25
Perceptible 19 43 22 22 22
Just perceptible Imperceptible 16 50 19 20 19
13 59 16 18 16
10 67 13 16 13
7 75 10 14 10
• The metric is developed only for tropical and subtropical ∑𝑛𝑛 𝐿𝐿2
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒.𝑖𝑖 ∙ Ω𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑁𝑁 =8 log10 �0.25 0.5 �
climates, and more investigation is required to test its 𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 +0.07 �∑𝑛𝑛 2
𝑖𝑖=1�𝜔𝜔𝑁𝑁.𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝐿𝐿𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤,𝑖𝑖��
validation across other climates, ⎧
𝜔𝜔𝑁𝑁.𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Ω𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
• UGP is not applicable in conditions with a low possibility of 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
⎪
𝐿𝐿𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
window glare and fits the most in open-plan spaces with ⎨
⎪
𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
access to windows in absence of direct sun within FOV. ⎩ 𝐿𝐿𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
(21)
The aforementioned glare metrics are only applicable when the
glare source is artificial lighting. To overcome this limitation, Covering the inconsistency of DGI was not only the aim of
Daylight Glare Index (DGI) as the first index for glare evaluation DGIN, but also another metric as Predicted Glare Sensation Vote
under non-uniform large sources (windows with considerable (PGSV) was introduced based on 120 various test conditions over
luminance level (Lwin)) proposed by [77] through an equation with 200 subjects including non-uniform luminance sources (windows)
a modification by [99] (Eq. 18). As can be seen from the equation, specifically for daylight [106]. The proposed equation of PGSV is
DGI is a CGI-based index for electric lighting with a modified adapted by connecting the background luminance (Lb) to the
solid angle including each source from the observer point of view average luminance and configuration factor of the source as (Lwp)
(ω), and proposed from experimental testing with placing and (ΦW) respectively (Eq. 25) in four absolute values varying
diffusive fabric in front of artificial sources [100,101]. This metric from 0 as imperceptible glare sensation to 3 as intolerable
associates with several thresholds as suggested by several authors sensation threshold.
in Table 5, while negative values are possible technically [102].
𝐿𝐿1.6 0.8
𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=3.2 log10 𝐿𝐿𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 −0.64 log10 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 +(0.79 log10 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 −0.61) log10 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 −8.2
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 10 log10 �0.478 ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 � �� (20) 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 (22)
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 +0.07𝜔𝜔0.5 ∙𝐿𝐿𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤∙ 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖1.6 − 𝐿𝐿𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝜙𝜙𝑊𝑊
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 = � 𝜋𝜋 � 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 𝜖𝜖 (0.0021)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Based on simulation and experimental-based studies [90,102], 1−𝜙𝜙𝑊𝑊
when dominant background luminance factor increases, DGI Following the contribution of daylight in glare evaluation,
drops, in which the study revealed DGI in brightly illuminated Discomfort Glare Probability (DGP) proposed by [107] and
environment never reports glare even when direct sun exists and validated by [81] with an equation as follows (Eq. 22). Although,
no apparent correlation found between subjective glare evaluation the main difference with DGI is adding a new factor called
and DGI. Second, DGI only works accurately under uniform light Vertical Eye Illuminance (Ev) to construct a better relation with
sources and excludes direct sun and non-uniform sources when glare sensation [108,109] and improve the level of illuminance
positioned directly to the view field [102]. Third, DGI results are received by observer’s responses [110]. The DGP equation is
almost inconceivable when background and source luminance are based on statistical analysis in full-scaled office mock-ups in
equal [79,100]. And lastly, few dissimilarities were observed Copenhagen and Freiburg with over 70 participants, and the
between real sky conditions and DGI values that questioned the formula is valid between 0.2 and 0.8, [11] and Ev above 380lux,
accuracy of DGI [100,103]. although in [102] reported DGP values up to 1. Wienold and
To modify the inaccuracy of background luminance factor in Christoffersen suggested the following glare comfort criteria for
DGI, Nazzal [105] proposed a new metric called New Daylight DGP (Table 5): DGP < 0.35 is meant to represent ‘imperceptible’
Glare Index (DGIN) which replaced background luminance Lb glare, 0.35 < DGP < 0.40 is perceived as ‘perceptible’, 0.40 < DGP
with a stronger component that take into account surrounding < 0.45 is meant to represent ‘disturbing’, lastly DGP > 0.45 is
luminance Ladaptation (Eq. 19) which showed a strong correlation considered as ‘intolerable’ [81].
with vertical illuminance and glare values in bright conditions.
5.87 ∙ 10−5 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 +

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = �� corresponding to Ev [121], although higher thresholds were also
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) reported by [122].
𝐿𝐿2 ∙ 𝜔𝜔 Similar to DGPs, in order to shorten the simulation time, the
0.0918 ∙ log10 �1 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 � 𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
�� + 0.16 (23)
�� 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣1.87 ∙ 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖2 enhanced simplified Discomfort Glare Probability (eDGPs) was
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) introduced and validated over two years by [109] (Eq. 24):
According to [80,90], DGP is the most accurate metric 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = ��
5.87 10−5��∙��
��∙�� 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 +
especially in absolute glare conditions (‘imperceptible’ and 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 1
‘intolerable’), but unlike UGR, is a poor indicative index in 9.18 ∙ 10 ∙ log10 �1 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 � 𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
−2 𝐿𝐿2 ∙ 𝜔𝜔
𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
�� + 0.16 (25)
intermediate levels of discomfort glare (‘perceptible’ and �� 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣1.87 ∙ 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖2
‘disturbing’). Moreover, McNeil and Burrell [102] revealed a 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2
strong correlation between DGP and horizontal illuminance unlike Conceptually, DGP is based on two terms as shown in Eq. 22:
DGI in a brightly day-lit space in line with a simulation-based (1) term 1 that depends on the vertical eye illuminance, and term
analysis and questioned if any DGP threshold is applicable 2 that compute the glare source properties with regard to
globally. While individual point-in-time simulation of glare is observer’s view point. Therefore, as an illustration of eDGPs
worthful for static assessments, but might not be an optimum calculation method (Fig. 19), term 1 can be conducted quickly by
solution for time-varying visual comfort evaluation including the DAYSIM [56], while the second term is an image-based
impact of interior conditions such as dynamic shading. Recent calculation depending on local quantities of the main glare source
efforts have reveled the possibility of DGP application throughout through Evalglare software. This approach leads to a more
the year with reliable results under dynamic conditions [111]. accurate result than DGPs, since it takes into account the peak
Nonetheless, DGP has some limitations: glare sources without calculating the exact luminance distribution
• DGP is a time consuming metric for computation in of the space, and minimizes the computation time due to
comparison to other available metrics [112,113], in which two neglecting indirect ambient bounces [107].
further simplified modifications aimed at reducing the The common main limitation among proposed glare metrics is
simulation time (DGPs and eDGPs), their inaccurate predictions when sun is visible within user’s view
• For a comprehensive study, several observer’s key FOVs field. A particular experimental research with 41 participants [117]
need to be assessed in a space through available software such improved the numerical coefficients of the original form of DGP
as RADIANCE [114] and Evalglare [107], equation through a new metric called “modified DGP” DGPmod
while using 14 window roller shades composed of different visual
• DGP predictions are less accurate under direct sunlight
transmissivity and openness factor (Eq. 26). However, this
[115,116], which then a new modified version (DGPmod)
specific environmental conditions limits its applicability in other
was developed to overcome this issue [117].
setups and require further investigations with other daylighting
• Evaluation of DGP metric in early design stages is very
systems. Additionally, when the experiments subjected to high
difficult to be adjusted due to the well-defined requests such
openness factor of shadings, the results overestimated glare risk
as materials, furniture or observer’s FOV.
compared to real conditions.
• Based on the computational results [118], the contrast term
needs more analysis, especially in low illuminated task area. 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 8.40 ∙ 10−5 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 + 11.97 ∙ 10−2 log10 �1 +
A simplified version of DGP (DGPs) proposed by [119] to 𝐿𝐿2𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠.𝑖𝑖
reduce the computation time by neglecting the contrast term (solid ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 � �� + 0.16 (26)
𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣2.12 ∙ 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖2
angle and luminance of the source within FOV) of DGP equation
The second part of the research introduced an illuminance-based
as follows (Eq. 23):
metric based on DGPs for discomfort glare evaluation in presence
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷|𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 = 6.22 ∙ 10−5 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 + 0.184 (24) of sun within FOV, called GlareEv. Thus, a combination of two
The simplification was justified according to the importance of factors that one collects the impact of the sun only, as direct
linear function of Ev which was stronger than other factors [81]. vertical illuminance (Ev,dir(sun)), and another captures the whole
DGPs ignores the contribution of individual glare sources, thus brightness sensation, as total vertical illuminance (Ev) (Eq. 27),
using this metric in presence of any direct sun or specular can result in an adequate concept for cases including the sun within
reflections within observer’s scene is not recommended and could
potentially mislead inaccurate glare risks [120]. However, in
situations with shadings such as roller shades or venetian blinds
that block the direct sunlight, DGPs declared more reliable results
than DGP [108,109,117].
Recently, researchers introduced a new dynamic metric [120]
called ‘Annual Visual Discomfort Frequency’ and defined it as the
percentage of occupied hours that must meet two criteria: (i) the
direct vertical eye illuminance of sun disk (Ev,beam) should be lower
than 1000lux; (ii) the total vertical eye illuminance (Ev,total) should Fig. 19. Enhanced simplified calculation method of DGP.
be below 2670lux. Obviously, both conditions emerged from
illuminance-based metrics, ASE and DGPs respectively. Also, in
terms of DGPs thresholds, a recent study suggested three ranges
FOV, since authors assumed other minor specular reflections are silver certified buildings over a year, and used DGPs and Ev
negligible compared to sun. GlareEv allows faster annual domains within a new space-discretized metric called sDGPexceed
calculation due to elimination of image-based luminance as “the percent of space where the vertical eye illuminance at the
processing of DGPs; however, it is only investigated for the height of 1.2m, is more than 4276 lux in more than 5% of the
studied case study in [117] and requires more investigations in occupation time” (Eq. 29), where N is number of analysis points.
other setups. The study presented stronger correlation between sDGPexceed and
0.84 individual’s level of discomfort glare than horizontal illuminance-
0.27 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 =0.13∙ 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣.𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠) +0.04 ∙ �
𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣.𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)
� −0.48
(27) based metric (ASE) by 84.2% and 71.1% respectively.
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 119<𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣.𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠) <2228𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 588<𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 <5940𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒= ∑𝑁𝑁
𝐾𝐾=𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑘𝑘 ×1/𝑁𝑁
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘=1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖≥5% 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘=0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖<5%
Furthermore, European daylighting standard [123] derived
Time-dependent DGP (DGPt) to control the upper limit of (29)
illuminance in DGP equation, in which authors identified the From another point of view, existing glare metrics evaluate the
critical glare situation that exceeds 5% with a DGP equal to 0.45 glare magnitude with certain limitations in predictions especially
over a year (Eq. 28). when the task area is exposed to direct sunlight [80,120] rather
𝑡𝑡𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 than identifying the actual cause. This gap motivated researchers
𝑓𝑓𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷.𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 [80,124] to introduce Glare Sensation Vote (GSV). Studies argued
𝑡𝑡𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 0.45(28) that in any discomfort glare experience two glare factors coexist:
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �
𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (8 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 18−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)
Absolute Glare Factor (AGF) and Relative Glare Factor (RGF),
Following the given upper threshold in DGPt, a recent study [53] but the main objective is identifying the dominant factor to resolve
conducted 842 subjective surveys in four classrooms of two LEED especially when sun is present in view field of users. To this end,
Fig. 20. Glare indices and their interrelations.
Table 5. Visual comfort metrics to assess glare.

centric index
Luminance and luminance Observer view direction, area of the - No agreement on upper limit, thus difficult to assess glare ✓
Ratio view field - Depends on visual task
British Glare Index (BGI) Observer view direction, background - Not an accurate indicator when light sources are large surfaces ✓
luminance such as windows
- Evaluates small sources within angles below 0.027sr [99]
- Cannot adapt itself with respect to diffuse and direct illuminance
- Only applicable when sources are artificial
Visual Comfort Probability Discomfort glare rating - Not an accurate indicator under large non-uniform sources such ✓
(VCP) as windows and very small or large light sources like halogens
[89]
- Overestimates glare [90]
CIE Glare Index (CGI) Observer view direction, diffuse/direct - Low accuracy under large artificial source (screen) and might ✓
illuminance overestimate glare [92]
Daylight Glare Index (DGI) Observer view direction, background ✓
luminance - In brightly illuminated environment never reports glare even
when direct sun exists
- DGI only works accurately under uniform light sources and
excludes direct sun and non-uniform sources when positioned
directly to the view field [102]
- DGI results are almost inconceivable when background and
source luminance are equal [79,100]
- Existing dissimilarities between real sky conditions and DGI
values [100,103]
- Inverse relation between DGI and vertical illuminance
- Inconsistent DGI values makes it difficult to adjust to daylighting
control systems
New Daylight Glare Index Observer view direction, surrounding - No agreement on thresholds ✓
(DGIN) luminance - No correlation between DGIN and occupant satisfaction is
reported
Unified Glare Rating Observer view direction, background - Can be uses under very small uniform sources like artificial ✓
(UGR) luminance lightings rather than large uniform sources like curtain walls
- Less accurate results when observer’s view is below glare
sources
Unified Glare Probability Observer view direction, luminance - Developed only for tropical and subtropical climates, and more ✓
(UGP) ratio investigation is required to test its validation across other
climates [98]
- Fits the most in open-plan spaces with access to windows in
absence of direct sun within FOV
Predicted Glare Sensation Observer view direction, background - Less accurate outputs due to assuming window luminance as an ✓
Vote (PGSV) luminance, average luminance average value
- The equation affects the discomfort glare level more than its
source size, thus underestimates glare [126]
Discomfort Glare Observer view direction, vertical eye - Requires adjustment for assessing glare due to artificial lighting ✓
Probability (DGP) illuminance - Time-consuming in case of annual glare calculations
- Less accurate under direct sunlight [117]
- Less accurate in intermediate glare sensations (perceptible and
disturbing)
- Requires detailed information such as envelope material,
furniture layout, thus is difficult to use at early stages of design
Simplified Discomfort Vertical eye illuminance - Ignores the contribution of individual glare sources, thus not ✓
Glare Probability (DGPs) accurate when direct sun exists within view field
Enhanced Simplified Observer view direction, vertical eye - Neglecting indirect ambient bounces ✓
Daylight Glare Probability illuminance
(eDGPs)
Modified Daylight Glare Observer view direction, vertical eye - Only investigated in case of roller shades [117] and requires ✓
Probability (DGPmod) illuminance further investigations with other daylighting systems
- Overestimates glare in case of high openness factor of shading
Glare Ev Observer view direction, vertical eye - Only investigated in case of roller shades [117] ✓
illuminance, direct vertical illuminance
of sun
Time-dependent DGP DGP - Focuses only on the upper limit of DGP threshold (DGP > 0.45) ✓
(DGPt) over a year
- Due to its dependency on DGP, it is time-consuming in case of
annual glare calculations
Annual Visual Discomfort Occupied hours, occupant position, - Significant impact on results due to occupant’s position ✓
Frequency vertical eye illuminance
Glare Sensation Vote Absolute Glare Factor (AGF), Relative - Needs more validation studies ✓
(GSV) Glare Factor (RGF)
a subjective-based research conducted experiments over 26 office developed metrics such as CGI to refine the adaptation feature of
spaces in Argentina with presence of direct sunlight and the only BGI, or DGPs and eDGPs to enable faster calculations instead of
glare source; window, between a limited time period where sun DGP. The most common limitation among glare indices is their
penetration was dominant [116]. As a result of experiment, Glare inaccuracy when sun is present within occupant’s view field;
Sensation Vote (GSV) scale as recommended by [125] includes however, two metrics attempted to fulfil this gap (Glare Ev and
AGF and RGF as coefficients (Eq. 30). The equation simplified GSV), but their applications in other setups is still not clear as they
the glare evaluation when the observer experiences direct sunlight are developed within specific circumstances. Therefore, more
within the center and adjacent zones of FOV. Also, it revealed the studies are needed to validate their effectiveness.
most dominant factor is the absolute glare factor (Ls_%2000C)
which underlined the importance of glare source position in FOV; 4.5. View out
the closer the glare source, the more negative impact on glare View means a visual connection to outdoors through an opening
sensation [116]. in the building that provides information about surrounding
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺=1.61+0.152 ×𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿%2000𝐶𝐶+0.019 ×𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 /𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 landscape, orientation and weather changes. From psychological
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿%2000𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 2000 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐/𝑚𝑚2
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 point of view, both daylight and view out are responsible for
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑛𝑛 balancing the circadian rhythm that has impacts on user’s visual
(30) perception. Having an outdoor view changed conventional
In summary, Table 5 highlights the high dependency of the practices of architectural planning especially in office buildings
entire glare indices to occupants within calculations mainly where designers aimed at locating open-plan offices along the
through their positions and view directions in the space, although outer edge of the floor area and resulted in more longitudinal
there is only one metric (Annual Visual Discomfort Frequency) building forms to answer visual demands. On the other side,
that integrates occupied hours and position together. The research quantified metrics have been introduced by building rating
progress in the literature as shown in Fig. 20 reveals many indices organizations like LEED (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design)
are developed to cover the main limitations of previously protocol [127] or WELL building standard [128] that resulted in
Table 6. View assessment based on European standard [127].

View Factor View angle
Min–max (degrees) Gray-zone range (degrees)
1 (ideal scenario) 1-4
1 or 2 4–5
2 5–9
2 or 3 9–11
3 11–15
3 or 4 15–20
4 20–40
4 or 5 40–30
5 (worst scenario) 50–90
Table 7. View assessment based on European standard [132].

τv,n-n τv,n-dif
0 < τv,n-dif ≤ 0.04 0.04 < τv,n-dif ≤ 0.15 τv,n-dif >0.15
τv,n-n > 0.10 (ideal scenario) 4 3 2
0.05 < τv,n-n ≤ 0.1 3 2 1
τv,n-n ≤ 0.05 2 1 0
τv,n-n = 0.0 (worst scenario) 0 0 0
applying full-glazed facades to maintain view for deep floor plans not be located more than 10m from a window in a
while it requires considerable technical strategies to control visual workstation, while in BREAM rating system [134] the
and thermal comfort within the perimeter zones. Therefore, to maximum allowable distance depends on the window-to-wall
evaluate view several factors affect its performance ratio.
[48,110,129,130]: 3) Multiple views
1) Fenestration and daylighting systems Providing multiple lines of sight can be evaluated through the
According to standards on daylighting like ‘DIN 5034, Part total number of distinct view windows and the total available
1’ or ‘EN-17037’, window size specifications require a view angles over a horizontal FOV for a given location. In
minimum 55% of the room width (approximately equals to LEED v4, the compliance is agreed on having multiple view
30% window-to-wall ratio (WWR)) is required. Furthermore, sights in different directions of at least 90 degrees difference
the latest version of LEED v4 [127], adapted the proposed (e.g. south and east windows) is highly recommended
evaluation metric by [131], the ‘view factor’ ranging from 1 especially for open-plan office buildings [127].
to 5 (Table 6). The metric can be evaluated based on a view- 4) View content
point’s grid that takes into account lateral and vertical view The view content can significantly affect the view quality and
angles. Alternatively, the earlier version of European human psychological well-being by including natural
Standard [132] defined visual contact as the capacity of the elements such as trees, sky, people presence, movement
daylighting system to permit view out when it is fully objects (e.g. water), or a distant view [135]. The European
deployed based on two parameters: (a) normal/normal Standard [136] assessed view content based on four-scale
transmittance (τv,n-n), and (b) diffuse transmittance (τv,n-dif). criteria (insufficient, minimum, medium, and high) based on
This standard represents a condition that a person and an the content that can be seen by occupants.
object should be distinguishable within 1m and 5m away from 5) Visual transparency and clarity
the external daylighting system, in which high values of τv,n-n It is common that windows with exterior or interior solar
are desired for better shape recognition (Table 7). screen and shadings that are responsible for controlling glare
2) View access and thermal load obstruct the view quality through their
Another effective factor in visual connection assessment is openness factor properties. Besides, a clear view to outdoors
the portion of the outdoor content that can be seen by the is considered as a necessary design considerati on by [133] or
occupant through window. According to the report [130], similarly LEED v4. With respect to the essential needs to
providing suitable view access to occupants especially in a shading devices utilization, providing a clear visual
shared environment is a challenging task that can be connection to outdoors affect the shading type and its
calculated through view angle to the window, distance from properties significantly. The view can be distorted easily by
the window, alternative design features (e.g. courtyards) or daylighting systems such as prismatic panels, LCP or roller
spatial assessment of a floor (e.g. certification systems). With shades [110]. To this end, a study by [137] developed a View
As required by [133] or LEED v4, all the task equipment must Clarity Index (VCI) based on roller shade and its openness
factor (OF) and visible transmittance (Tv) (Eq. 31). However,
the evaluation of view clarity is still not clear and requires design techniques to control daylight and visual discomfort
more studies under different design scenarios and daylighting are not fully considered during glare evaluation and on the
systems. other side, there is no dynamic glare metrics that can reflect
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 the dynamic behaviour of a shading system.
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 1.43(𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂)0.48 + 0.64 ( ) 1.1 − 0.22 (31)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 • To date, there are very few studies investigated the
The evaluation criteria mentioned above helped researchers to relationship between thermal comfort and discomfort glare
introduce a new generic metric called View Quality Index (VQI) [140] that revealed subjects have different tolerance due to
[130] which is a combination of view content, view access and discomfort glare when they are exposed to thermal discomfort.
view clarity as formulated in Eq. 32 and is applicable for single • Regarding metrics limitations, besides psychological and
windows. Each variable assumed to be equally important, while physiological aspects, there are many observed factors that
allowing different weighting factors depending on the design have different impacts on discomfort glare, in which mostly
features, but there is no recommendation which parameter is more this is the reason of high discrepancy between numerical and
important and requires more investigations. subjective evaluations. Also, their interaction and intensity is
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 × 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (32) still not precisely understood. Personal factors such as gender
[141] had no influence on discomfort glare, while other
factors like culture [121], time of the day [142], fatigue or
5. Discussion on the findings contrast ratio [97] still need substantial exploration. Besides,
Facades have significant role to control energy consumption in several studied factors such as the age [98], view direction and
buildings especially through windows that are more prone to waste position [143] or view to outdoors [135] were inconclusive
energy. Therefore, different daylighting systems are developed to due to their impact on glare perception, therefore more effort
block or redirect the light to control energy waste and indoor is needed to clarify the individual’s relation with glare
environment. Studies highlight that adaptation is the key term to perception.
choose the proper daylighting system and is a good indicator to • As suggested by [79], due to present issues with existing
evaluate the accuracy of visual comfort quantitative metrics. metrics, an appropriate method to rate subjective discomfort
Among daylighting systems, venetian blinds and light shelves glare perception is a “percentage of people who would be
have more capability to address visual comfort demands along disturbed” rather than a sole mathematical evaluation.
enhancing energy efficiency due to their physical adaptation As a result of existing indicators discussed in section 4, the main
comparing to fixed systems [55,138]; however, maintaining evaluation metrics of visual comfort are investigated based on a
sufficient view to outdoors while minimizing the risk of logical structure, and their features and limitations are summarized
discomfort glare found to be the main limitation of all systems. in Tables 5-7. In overall, 38 visual indices recollected from
Moreover, different studies developed many visual comfort literature that are mostly related to day-lit environments and were
indices in presence of adaptive systems like venetian blinds or categorized in two main bases: illuminance-based and luminance-
roller shades that could be adjusted by users. As far as glare and based metrics. The greatest shortcoming among them is that all of
its quantifiable metrics are the major concern, several gaps and the indices were developed in offices, or working task planes
points within literature are outlined as follows: which limit their predictions in residential. From occupant
• A general agreement exists on the glare agents, but there are perspective, all luminance-based indices take occupant into their
many evolved dependent metrics and none of them could calculation through occupant’s view direction and position,
evaluate glare comprehensively. Each glare metric has its own occupancy profile, and area of user’s field of view, while limited
disability and limited to a specific indoor environmental number of illuminance-based metrics consider occupants as part
conditions. This is because the position and the size of the of the equation like illuminance. This finding shows the evolution
glare source is not static during time intervals. trend of proposing occupant-centric mathematical equations to
• None of the indices consider psychological aspects of visual cover the existing real challenges that occupants face in a built
comfort completely into their subjective evaluations, although environment; however, their applications are either limited to
in a recent study [66], authors proposed a new visual comfort specific circumstances or require more validation.
index (VQI) based on two glare metrics (sDGP and UGR) to Illuminance maps or DF would be very useful for static analysis,
cover qualitative aspects of visual comfort, but is applicable but, if annual simulation is the main interest, computation time
only in residential spaces without considering specific would increase drastically. Thus, in order to employ the concept,
shading devices. this massive data needs to be transformed into some intuitive
• There is a significant challenge in terms of their reliability metrics or namely, CBDM, in which they all should be based on
when direct sun is present within FOV. two common features: first, concentrating on a specific time scale
• Most of the metrics were proposed based on empirical studies of investigation, and second, a threshold to identify ‘adequate’
in office-like mock ups in a specific climate, thus they need daylight level. CBDM provides a complete year-round evaluation,
more validation case studies to be generalized in other and in particular, indices that are performed as a single value over
climates and building types. a year such as Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) has an acceptable
performance overall. Among CBDM metrics, DAv and Useful
• As supported by [139], different shading systems such as
Daylight Illuminance (UDI) can be recommended for long-term
roller shades and venetian blinds were tested to identify glare
daylight evaluation specifically since they define upper and lower
using DGI and DGP, in which results could not show any
thresholds to avoid potential visual discomfort due to glare and
relation to observations. Therefore, the different
overheating problems.
characteristics of daylighting systems as one of the main
Among luminance-based metrics, Daylight Glare Probability Alternatively, to quantify visual comfort through daylight level
(DGP) has been widely used within recent field studies and and distribution, direct sunlight, and glare, 38 metrics are collected
researchers aimed at optimizing its coefficients or combining from literature with their specific mathematical formulation.
multiple metrics in one equation with different interior and Recent developments show higher contribution to glare evaluation
exterior building conditions. However it is inaccurate when dim through fulfilling the existing shortcomings of previously-
lighting or direct sun is available within FOV [144]. In addition to developed metrics. The main common feature among glare indices
DGP, Unified Glare Probability (UGP) development based on is their dependency on occupant, although there are two main
UGR, showed a remarkable correlation within subjective limitations: (1) some of the metrics are developed in presence of
assessment, although it has been only tested in open-office plans daylighting systems that could be manually changed by the user
in tropical climates. during experiments, thus applying these metric in other setups
In terms of long-term glare evaluation, DGP has the ability to might not end with similar results, (2) most of the luminance-
be adjusted to annual evaluations including its modified versions based metrics are not accurate enough when sun is present within
DGPs, eDGPs or DGPmod, in case of using shading systems, and FOV of the user, except two metrics DGPmod and GSV that are
sDGPexceed, which seems to be a suitable replacement of ASE as it limited to certain climate and setups. Within illuminance-based
deals with vertical eye illuminance (Ev) rather than horizontal metrics, CBDMs revealed more reliable results to calculate the
illuminance which showed a determinative role in glare evaluation. magnitude of indoor illuminance over a year considering; however,
Alternatively, in case of presence of direct sunlight in a day-lit in most cases there is no agreement on their acceptable thresholds
environment, none of the metrics can accurately assess glare which caused using inconsistent assumptions by researchers in
except GSV model that introduced a new method to evaluate glare their studies. Similarly, existing standards and metrics to quantify
sensation in real conditions, but requires more validation view to outdoors and its quality are still insufficient to represent
investigations. user experiences in real built environment.
Therefore, when sun is visible within FOV more than one glare However, the following limitations can be addressed in future
metric would be necessary to evaluate. Furthermore, in terms of investigations: (1) the comparison of daylighting systems are
filtering certain hours that may have a greater potential of limited to their own functionality and technical characteristics
experiencing visual discomfort over a year, Annual Sunlight Beam towards improving either visual comfort or energy efficiency;
Index (Stot) is an appropriate limiting factor to extract problematic however, future researches can analyse the potential of daylighting
hours due to incident beam penetration through selected systems through simulations and compare their performance
fenestrations by considering the existing building obstructions. against each other which found to be absent in the literature, (2)
Few studies investigated the influence of both daylight and the second part of the paper focuses on updating the state-of-art of
outdoor view on visual performance [145,146]. For example, in a the literature to quantify visual comfort, although there are
survey-based research [147] authors concluded that students psychological or physiological parameters that potentially affect
prefer ‘views’ as the second priority before daylight availability in the proposed numerical-based metrics’ performance which are
choosing seats. Other research conducted by [148,149] revealed often ignored or assumed fixed within experiments.
people have a tendency to tolerate glare from windows if they have
sufficient outdoor views especially when the source is a natural Contributions
scene. Consequently, outlining the existing parameters to evaluate A. Tabadkani: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing –
view to outdoor and preserving a proper interrelation between a Original Draft; A. Roetzel: Supervision, Writing – Review and
pleasant view connection to outside, visual and thermal comfort, Editing; H. Xian Li: Writing – Review and Editing; A.
requires an integrated approach towards adaptive technologies and Tsangrassoulis: Writing – Review and Editing.
operational control strategies based on indoor demands, but also
highlights the present limitations of quantifying view [110,150]: Declaration of competing interest
Firstly, dynamic view-based indices are missing, and secondly, it
is still unclear how to prioritize the view parameters based on None of the authors have any direct or indirect conflict of interests
occupant’s satisfaction explicitly. to this research study.
6. Conclusion References
This study reviewed the state-of-art through two research areas: (1) [1] R.J. Wurtman, The effects of light on the human body, Sci Am 233 (1975)
69-77.
highlighting the typical daylighting systems for windows along [2] M. De Carli, V. De Giuli, R. Zecchin, Review on visual comfort in office
with their technical aspects and their potentials and limitations to buildings and influence of daylight in productivity.in: Indoor Air, (2008).
control user’s visual comfort and energy efficiency, and (2) [3] M. Rashid, C. Zimring, A Review of the Empirical Literature on the
quantifying visual comfort through a series of proposed metrics Relationships Between Indoor Environment and Stress in Health Care and
Office Settings: Problems and Prospects of Sharing Evidence, Environment
available in the literature. Regarding the former scope, one and Behavior 40 (2008) 151-190.
common limitation among typical daylighting systems is their [4] M. Bodart, A. De Herde, Global energy savings in offices buildings by the
inability of controlling view to outdoors and glare simultaneously. use of daylighting, Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 421-429.
To this end, adaptive daylighting systems such as blinds or sun- [5] A.R. Webb, Considerations for lighting in the built environment: Non-
visual effects of light, Energy and Buildings 38 (2006) 721-727.
tracking light shelves are likely performing more efficient due to [6] J.H. Heerwagen, G.H. Orians, Adaptations to Windowlessness: A Study of
dynamic climatic changes and user visual comfort criteria. This is the Use of Visual Decor in Windowed and Windowless Offices,
mainly the reason of the high interest of recent studies focusing on Environment and Behavior 18 (1986) 623-639.
proposing different adaptive facades typologies [10]. [7] S.R. Kellert, E.O. Wilson, The biophilia hypothesis, Island Press,
(1995)1559631473.
[8] P. Boyce, Why daylight?in: International conference on daylighting [35] A.A. Freewan, L. Shao, S. Riffat, Interactions between louvers and ceiling
technologies for energy efficiency in buildings, (1998). geometry for maximum daylighting performance, Renewable Energy 34
[9] C. Reinhart, Daylighting Handbook I first ed., Building Technology Press, (2009) 223-232.
(2014) 978-0692203637. [36] W.T. Welford, R. Winston, High Collection Nonimaging Optics, Academic
[10] A. Tabadkani, A. Roetzel, H.X. Li, A. Tsangrassoulis, Design approaches Pr, (1989) 9780127428857.
and typologies of adaptive facades: A review, Automation in Construction [37] J.-L. Scartezzini, G. Courret, Anidolic daylighting systems, Solar Energy
121 (2021) 103450. 73 (2002) 123-135.
[11] S. Carlucci, F. Causone, F. De Rosa, L. Pagliano, A review of indices for [38] S.K. Wittkopf, Daylight performance of anidolic ceiling under different sky
assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes conditions, Solar Energy 81 (2007) 151-161.
to support building integrated design, Renewable and Sustainable Energy [39] F.M. Rubinstein, A New Technique for Computer Simulation of
Reviews 47 (2015) 1016-1033. Illuminated Spaces AU - Ward, Gregory J, Journal of the Illuminating
[12] M.J. Grant, A. Booth, A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types Engineering Society 17 (1988) 80-91.
and associated methodologies, Health Information & Libraries Journal 26 [40] G. Courret, Anidolic Daylighting Systems, Department of Architecture,
(2009) 91-108. EPFL, (1999).
[13] N. Ruck, S. Selkowitz, Q. Aschehoug, J. Christoffersen, R. Jakobiak, K. [41] M.V. Collados, D. Chemisana, J. Atencia, Holographic solar energy
Johnsen, E. Lee, Daylight in Buildings: A Source Book on Daylighting systems: The role of optical elements, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Systems and Components, LBNL Report ed., Lawrence Berkeley National Reviews 59 (2016) 130-140.
Laboratory, (2000). [42] D. Zhang, J.M. Castro, R.K. Kostuk, One-axis tracking holographic planar
[14] N. Baker, K. Steemers, Daylight design of buildings, James & James, concentrator systems, Journal of Photonics for Energy 1 (2011) 015505.
(2002). [43] BS-EN12665, Light and Lighting-Basic terms and criteria for specifying
[15] A. Eltaweel, M.A. Mandour, Q. Lv, Y. Su, Daylight Distribution lighting requirements, British-Adopted European Standard, 2018.
Improvement Using Automated Prismatic Louvre, Journal of Daylighting 7 [44] L. Edwards, P. Torcellini, Literature review of the effects of natural light on
(2020) 84-92. building occupants, (2002).
[16] H. Arnesen, T. Kolås, B. Matusiak, A guide to dayligthting and solar [45] C. Sapia, Daylighting in buildings: Developments of sunlight addressing by
shading systems at high latitude, SINTEF Academic Press, (2011). optical fiber, Solar Energy 89 (2013) 113-121.
[17] I. Edmonds, Performance of laser cut light deflecting panels in daylighting [46] B.L. Collins, Windows and people : a literature survey : psychological
applications, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 29 (1993) 1-26. reaction to environments with and without windows, Washington : U.S.
[18] M.B. Hirning, V.R. Garcia-Hansen, J.M. Bell, Theoretical comparison of Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1975.
innovative window daylighting devices for a subtropical climate using [47] J.A. Veitch, A.D. Galasiu, The Physiological and Psychological Effects of
radiance.in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Energy Windows, Daylight, and View at Home: Review and Research Agenda,
Efficiency in Commercial Buildings, Luxembourg, 2010, 279-285. Research Report (National Research Council Canada. Institute for Research
[19] P.J. Greenup, Development of Novel Technologies for Improved Natural in Construction); no. IRC-RR-325, 2012.
Illumination of High Rise Office Buildings, Queensland University of [48] K.M.J. Farley, J.A. Veitch, A Room with a View: A Review of the Effects
Technolgy, (2002). of Windows on Work and Well-Being, National Research Council of
[20] S. Claros, A. Soler, Indoor daylight climate-comparison between light Canada (NRCC) technical report IRC-RR-136, 2001.
shelves and overhang performances in Madrid for hours with unit sunshine [49] M. Andersen, J. Mardaljevic, S.W. Lockley, A framework for predicting the
fraction and realistic values of model reflectance, Solar Energy 71 (2001) non-visual effects of daylight – Part I: photobiology- based model, Lighting
233-239. Research & Technology 44 (2012) 37-53.
[21] C.E. Ochoa, I.G. Capeluto, Evaluating visual comfort and performance of [50] IESNA, IES lighting handbook, 8th ed., New York : Illuminating
three natural lighting systems for deep office buildings in highly luminous Engineering Society of North America, 1993, 9780879951023.
climates, Building and Environment 41 (2006) 1128-1135. [51] J.Y. Suk, M. Schiler, K. Kensek, Discomfort glare metrics: Investigating
[22] L.O. Beltran, E.S. Lee, S.E. Selkowitz, Advanced Optical Daylighting their accuracy and consistency in daylight glare evaluation by using human
Systems: Light Shelves and Light Pipes, Journal of the Illuminating subject study data.in: Facade Tectonics World Congress, Los Angeles,
Engineering Society 26 (1997) 91-106. USA, (2016).
[23] A. Kontadakis, A. Tsangrassoulis, L. Doulos, F. Topalis, A Review of Light [52] P. Moon, D.E. Spencer, Illumination from a non-uniform sky, Illum. Eng.
Shelf Designs for Daylit Environments, Sustainability (2018) 71. 37 (1942) 707–726.
[24] T.C. Howard, W. Place, B. Andersson, P. Coutiers, Variable area light [53] Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, Assessing the effectiveness of dynamic
reflecting assemblies (VALRA).in: In Proceedings of the 2nd International metrics in predicting daylight availability and visual comfort in classrooms,
Daylighting Conference, CA, USA, 1986, 222–234. Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 669-680.
[25] I.M. Franco, Efficacy of light shelves: Passive, dynamic and automatic [54] G. Lim, M.B. Hirning, N. Keumala, N. Ghafar, Daylight performance and
devices related to light and thermal behavior.in: Thermal Performance of users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia, Energy and
Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 2007. Buildings 141 (2017) 175-185.
[26] M. Kostantoglou, A. Tsangrassoulis, Performance evaluation of an [55] A. Tabadkani, A. Roetzel, H.X. Li, A. Tsangrassoulis, A review of
automatically controlled light-shelf.in: In Proceedings of the 5th Balkan automatic control strategies based on simulations for adaptive facades,
Light Conference, Belgrad, Serbia, 2012. Building and Environment (2020) 106801.
[27] A. Kontadakis, A. Tsangrassoulis, L. Doulos, F. Topalis, An active sunlight [56] C.F. Reinhart, O. Walkenhorst, Validation of dynamic RADIANCE-based
redirection system for daylight enhancement beyond the perimeter zone, daylight simulations for a test office with external blinds, Energy and
Building and Environment 113 (2017) 267-279. Buildings 33 (2001) 683-697.
[28] S. Zhang, D. Birru, An open-loop venetian blind control to avoid direct [57] J.A. Jakubiec, G. Quek, T. Srisamranrungruang, Towards Subjectivity in
sunlight and enhance daylight utilization, Solar Energy 86 (2012) 860-866. Annual Climate-Based Daylight Metrics.in: Proceedings of BSO 2018: 4th
[29] G.Y. Yun, D.Y. Park, K.S. Kim, Appropriate activation threshold of the Building Simulation and Optimization Conference, Cambridge, UK, 2018.
external blind for visual comfort and lighting energy saving in different [58] Z. Rogers, D. Goldman, Daylighting Metric Development Using Daylight
climate conditions, Building and Environment 113 (2017) 247-266. Autonomy Calculations In the Sensor Placement Optimization Tool -
[30] M.H. Oh, K.H. Lee, J.H. Yoon, Automated control strategies of inside slat- Development Report and Case Studies, 2006.
type blind considering visual comfort and building energy performance, [59] L. Heschong, V.D. Wymelenberg, Keven, M. Andersen, N. Digert, L.
Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728-737. Fernandes, A. Keller, J. Loveland, H. McKay, R. Mistrick, B. Mosher, C.
[31] A. Tabadkani, A. Tsangrassoulis, A. Roetzel, H.X. Li, Innovative control Reinhart, Z. Rogers, M. Tanteri, Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight
approaches to assess energy implications of adaptive facades based on Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), IES - Illuminating
simulation using EnergyPlus, Solar Energy 206 (2020) 256-268. Engineering Society, 2012.
[32] S. Chaiyapinunt, N. Khamporn, Shortwave thermal performance for a glass [60] J. Mardaljevic, Examples of Climate-Based Daylight Modelling.in: CIBSE
window with a curved venetian blind, Solar Energy 91 (2013) 174-185. National Conference: Engineering the Future, Oval Cricket Ground,
[33] OKALUX. 2020. Available: https://www.okalux.com/products/product- London, UK, 2006.
finder/products/ [Accessed 20.11.2020. [61] A. Nabil, J. Mardaljevic, Useful Daylight Illuminance: A New Paradigm to
[34] K. Lichtplanung. 2021. Available: http://www.koester- Access Daylight in Buildings, Lighting Research & Technology 37 (2005)
lichtplanung.de/pages_gb/news_01.html [Accessed 30.01.2021. 41-59.
[62] S. Olbina, Y. Beliveau, Developing a transparent shading device as a [89] R. Harrold, D. Mennie, IESNA Lighting Ready Reference: A Compendium
daylighting system, Building Research & Information 37 (2009) 148-163. of Materials from the IESNA Lighting Handbook, 9th Edition : Lighting
[63] C.F. Reinhart, J. Wienold, The daylighting dashboard – A simulation-based Fundamentals, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (2003)
design analysis for daylit spaces, Building and Environment 46 (2011) 386- 9780879951894.
396. [90] J.Y. Suk, M. Schiler, K. Kensek, Investigation of existing discomfort glare
[64] D.A. Chi, D. Moreno, J. Navarro, Correlating daylight availability metric indices using human subject study data, Building and Environment 113
with lighting, heating and cooling energy consumptions, Building and (2017) 121-130.
Environment 132 (2018) 170-180. [91] H.D. Einhorn, Discomfort glare: a formula to bridge differences, Lighting
[65] F. Sicurella, G. Evola, E. Wurtz, A statistical approach for the evaluation of Research & Technology 11 (1979) 90-94.
thermal and visual comfort in free-running buildings, Energy and Buildings [92] T. Iwata, K. Kimura, M. Shukuya, K. Takano, Discomfort caused by wide-
47 (2012) 402-410. source glare, Energy and Buildings 15 (1990) 391-398.
[66] S. Zanon, N. Callegaro, R. Albatici, A Novel Approach for the Definition [93] J.A. Jakubiec, C.F. Reinhart, ‘The ’adaptive zone’-A concept for assessing
of an Integrated Visual Quality Index for Residential Buildings, Applied discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces, Lighting Research and
Sciences 9 (2019). Technology 44 (2012) 149–170.
[67] D.R.G. Hunt, Predicting artificial lighting use - a method based upon [94] CIE, Discomfort Glare In The Interior Working Environment, 1995.
observed patterns of behaviour, Lighting Research & Technology 12 (1980) [95] I. Gillian, V. Garcia-Hansen, M.B. Hirning, Evaluation of the Luminous
7-14. Environment in Open-plan Offices with Skylights.in: The World
[68] M.C. Dubois, Impact of Shading Devices on Daylight Quality in Offices - Renewable Energy Forum, SOLAR, Denver, Colorado, 2012.
Simulations with Radiance, Energy and Building Design, Lund (SE): Lund [96] J. Vos, B. Cole, H. Bodmann, E. Colombo, T. Takeuchi, T.J.C.T.R.C. Van
University, 2001. Den Berg, CIE equations for disability glare, 146 (2002) 2002.
[69] F. Cantin, M.C. Dubois, Daylighting metrics based on illuminance, [97] M.B. Hirning, G.L. Isoardi, V.R. Garcia-Hansen, Prediction of discomfort
distribution, glare and directivity, Lighting Research & Technology 43 glare from windows under tropical skies, Building and Environment 113
(2011) 291-307. (2017) 107-120.
[70] R. Hopkinson, P. Petherbridge, J. Longmore, Daylight in architecture, [98] M.B. Hirning, G.L. Isoardi, I. Cowling, Discomfort glare in open plan green
William Heineman Ltd, London (UK), 1966. buildings, Energy and Buildings 70 (2014) 427-440.
[71] E. Brembilla, D.A. Chi Pool, C.J. Hopfe, J. Mardaljevic, Inter-model [99] P. Chauvel, J.B. Collins, R. Dogniaux, J. Longmore, Glare from windows:
comparison of five climate-based daylight modelling techniques: current views of the problem, Lighting Research & Technology 14 (1982)
redirecting glazing/shading systems, 2017. 31-46.
[72] S. Darula, J. Christoffersen, M. Malikova, Sunlight and Insolation of [100] L. Bellia, A. Cesarano, G.F. Iuliano, G. Spada, Daylight glare: a review of
Building Interiors, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 1245-1250. discomfort indexes.in: Vis Qual Energy Effic Indoor Light: Today
[73] CEN/TC, Energy Performance of Buildings - Part 1: Indoor Environmental Tomorrow Rome, Italy, 2008.
Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of [101] A. Piccolo, F. Simone, Effect of switchable glazing on discomfort glare
Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting from windows, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1171-1180.
and Acoustics, CEN/TC, (2015). [102] A. McNeil, G. Burrell, Applicability of dgp and dgi for evaluating glare in
[74] J. Mardaljevic, N. Roy, The sunlight beam index, Lighting Research & a brightly daylit space, Proceedings of SimBuild; 2016: SimBuild 2016,
Technology 48 (2016) 55-69. 2016.
[75] C. Pierson, J. Wienold, M. Bodart, Discomfort glare perception in [103] M. Boubekri, L.L. Boyer, Effect of window size and sunlight presence on
daylighting: influencing factors, Energy Procedia 122 (2017) 331-336. glare, Lighting Research & Technology 24 (1992) 69-74.
[76] W.K.E. Osterhaus, Discomfort glare assessment and prevention for daylight [104] J. Mardaljevic, Rethinking daylighting and compliance.in: Proceedings of
applications in office environments, Solar Energy 79 (2005) 140-158. the SLL/CIBSE international lighting conference, Dublin (IE), 2013, 1–9.
[77] R.G. Hopkinson, Glare from daylighting in buildings, Applied Ergonomics [105] A.A. Nazzal, A new evaluation method for daylight discomfort glare,
3 (1972) 206-215. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 295-306.
[78] A. Jakubiec, C.F. Reinhart, DIVA 2.0: Integrating Daylight and Thermal [106] M. Tokura, T. Iwata, M. Shukuya, Experimental study on discomfort glare
Simulations using Rhinoceros 3D, DAYSIM, and EnergyPlus.in: caused by windows part 3 : Development of a method for evaluating
Proceedings of the 12th Conference of IBPSA, Building Simulations, discomfort glare from a large light source, Journal of Architecture and
Sydney, (AU), 2011, 2202–2209. Planning (Transactions of AIJ) 61 (489), 1996, 17-25.
[79] C. Pierson, J. Wienold, M. Bodart, Review of Factors Influencing [107] J. Wienold, J. Christoffersen, Towards a new daylight glare rating.in: In:
Discomfort Glare Perception from Daylight, LEUKOS 14 (2018) 111-148. Proceedinsg of the 10th European Lighting Conference, Lux Europa, Lux
[80] J.Y. Suk, M. Schiler, K. Kensek, Development of new daylight glare EuropaBerlin (DE), 2005, 157–161.
analysis methodology using absolute glare factor and relative glare factor, [108] G.Y. Yun, K.C. Yoon, K.S. Kim, The influence of shading control strategies
Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 113-122. on the visual comfort and energy demand of office buildings, Energy and
[81] J. Wienold, J. Christoffersen, Evaluation methods and development of a Buildings 84 (2014) 70-85.
new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD [109] J. Wienold, Dynamic daylight glare evaluation.in: In: Proceedings of the
cameras, Energy and Buildings 38 (2006) 743-757. 11th International IBPSA Conference, Building Simulation, Glasgow,
[82] J. Shin, G.Y. Yun, J.T. Kim, View types and luminance effects on Scotland (UK), (2009), 944–951.
discomfort glare assessment from windows, Energy and Buildings 46 [110] K. Konis, S. Selkowitz, Effective Daylighting with High-Performance
(2012) 139-145. Facades, Emerging Design Practices, Springer International Publishing,
[83] W.K.E. Osterhaus, Recommended luminance ratios and their application in Switzerland, (2017) 978-3-319-39463-3.
the design of daylighting systems for offices.in: Proceedings of the 35th [111] I. Konstantzos, A. Tzempelikos, Y.C. Chan, Experimental and simulation
Annual Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science analysis of daylight glare probability in offices with dynamic window
Association (ANZAScA), Geelong (AU), 2002. shades, Building and Environment 87 (2015) 244-254.
[84] D.L. Dilaura, K.W. Houser, R.G. Mistrick, G.R. Steffy, The Lighting [112] M. Andersen, S. Kleindienst, L. Yi, J. Lee, M. Bodart, B. Cutler, An
Handbook: Reference and Application 10th ed., Illuminating Engineering intuitive daylighting performance analysis and optimization approach
Society of North America, 2011. Building Research & Information 36 (2008) 593-607.
[85] A. Linney, Maximum Luminances and Luminance Ratios and their Impact [113] E.E. Tsianaka, A concept to evaluate dynamic daylight glare, Lund
on Users' Discomfort Glare Perception and Productivity in Daylit Offices, University, 2018.
Wellington (NZ): Victoria University of Wellington, 2008. [114] G. Ward, R.A. Shakespeare, Rendering with Radiance, Morgan Kaufmann,
[86] P. Petherbridge, R.G. Hopkinson, Discomfort Glare and the Lighting of (1998) 978-1558604995.
Buildings, Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering Society 15 (1950) [115] K. Van Den Wymelenberg, M. Inanici, P. Johnson, The effect of luminance
39-79. distribution patterns on occupant preference in a daylit office environment,
[87] P. Boyce, Human Factors in Lighting, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, LEUKOS The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
(2014) 9781439874899. America 7 (2013) 103-122.
[88] S.K. Guth, A method for the evaluation of discomfort glare, Illuminating [116] J.A. Yamin Garretón, E.M. Colombo, A.E. Pattini, A global evaluation of
Engineering 58 (5) (1963) 351-364. discomfort glare metrics in real office spaces with presence of direct
sunlight, Energy and Buildings 166 (2018) 145-153.
[117] I. Konstantzos, A. Tzempelikos, Daylight glare evaluation with the sun in [134] B.G. Limited, BREEAM UK New Construction 2018, BRE Global Limited,
the field of view through window shades, Building and Environment 113 Watford, UK, 2018.
(2017) 65-77. [135] H.I. Hellinga, Daylight and view: the influence of windows on the visual
[118] S. Kleindienst, M. Andersen, The adaptation of daylight glare probability to quality of indoor spaces, 2013.
dynamic metrics in a computational setting, 2009. [136] BS-EN17037, Daylight in Buildings European committee for
[119] J. Wienold, Dynamic simulation of blind control strategies for visual standardization Ireland, 2018.
comfort and energy balance analysis.in: Proceedings of the 10th [137] I. Konstantzos, Y.-C. Chan, J.C. Seibold, A. Tzempelikos, R.W. Proctor,
International Building Performance Simulation Association conference and J.B. Protzman, View clarity index: A new metric to evaluate clarity of view
Exhibition, Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2007, 1197-1204. through window shades, Building and Environment 90 (2015) 206-214.
[120] Y. Chan, A. Tzempelikos, I. Konstantzos, A systematic method for selecting [138] A. Tabadkani, A. Roetzel, H.X. Li, A. Tsangrassoulis, A review of
roller shade properties for glare protection, Energy and Buildings 92 (2015) occupant-centric control strategies for adaptive facades, Automation in
81-94. Construction (2020) 103464.
[121] R.A. Mangkuto, K.A. Kurnia, D.N. Azizah, R.T. Atmodipoero, F.X.N. [139] I. Elzeyadi, The impacts of dynamic façade shading typologies on building
Soelami, Determination of discomfort glare criteria for daylit space in energy performance and occupant’s multi-comfort, Architectural Science
Indonesia, Solar Energy 149 (2017) 151-163. Review 60 (2017) 316-324.
[122] L. Giovannini, F. Favoino, V. Lo Verso, A. Pellegrino, V. Serra, A [140] J.Y. Garretón, R. Rodriguez, A.E. Pattini, Effects of perceived indoor
Simplified Approach for the Annual and Spatial Evaluation of the Comfort temperature on daylight glare perception, Building Research & Information
Classes of Daylight Glare Using Vertical Illuminances, Buildings 8 (2018) 44 (2016) 907-919.
171. [141] M.G. Kent, S. Altomonte, P.R. Tregenza, R. Wilson, Temporal variables
[123] J. Christoffersen, J. Mardaljevic, The New European Standard (prEN and personal factors in glare sensation, Lighting Research & Technology 48
17037) in Buildings–A Brighter Future? Part 2, CISBE, no. prEN 17037, (2015) 689-710.
2016. [142] A. Borisuit, F. Linhart, J.L. Scartezzini, M. Münch, Effects of realistic
[124] J.Y. Suk, M. Schiler, K. Kensek, Absolute glare factor and relative glare office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on visual comfort,
factor based metric: Predicting and quantifying levels of daylight glare in alertness and mood, Lighting Research & Technology 47 (2014) 192-209.
office space, Energy and Buildings 130 (2016) 8-19. [143] S. Völker, M. Freyer, S. Raphael, M. Meyborg, Influence factors for
[125] T. Iwata, M. Tokura, Examination of the limitations of predicted glare discomfort glare of headlamps and a new model for its estimation.in: CIE
sensation vote (PGSV) as a glare index for a large source: Towards a 2017 Midterm Meetings and Conference on Smarter Lighting for Better
comprehensive development of discomfort glare evaluation, International Life, Jeju, South Korea, 2018.
Journal of Lighting Research and Technology 30 (1998) 81-88. [144] J. Wienold, T. Iwata, M. Sarey Khanie, E. Erell, E. Kaftan, R. Rodriguez, J.
[126] W. Kim, J.T. Kim, The Scope of the glare light source of the window with Yamin Garreton, T. Tzempelikos, I. Konstantzos, J. Christoffersen, T.
non-uniform luminance distribution.in: In: Proceedings of the 3rd Kuhn, E., C. Pierson, A., M. Andersen, Cross-validation and robustness of
International Symposium on Sustainable Healthy Buildings (SHB2010), daylight glare metrics, Lighting Research & Technology (2019) 983-1013.
Seoul (KR), 2010. [145] J. Kim, J. Shin, G. Yun, Prediction of discomfort glares from windows:
[127] USGBC, United States Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED v4 for influence of the subjective evaluation of window views, Indoor Built
Building Design and Construction, Washington, D.C., USA, 2018. Environment 21 (2011) 92-97.
[128] WELL, WELL buildings standard v2, https://v2.wellcertified.com/, 2019. [146] N. Tuaycharoen, The reduction of discomfort glare from windows by
[129] A.H. Sadek, R. Mahrous, Adaptive glazing technologies: Balancing the interesting views, 2006.
benefits of outdoor views in healthcare environments, Solar Energy 174 [147] Z. Gou, M. Khoshbakht, B. Mahdoudi, The Impact of Outdoor Views on
(2018) 719-727. Students’ Seat Preference in Learning Environments, Buildings 8 (2018).
[130] W.H. Ko, M.G. Kent, S. Schiavon, B. Levitt, B. Giovannini, A window [148] N. Tuaycharoen, Windows are less glaring when there is a preferred view,
view quality assessment framework, 2020. Built - Environment 9 (2011) 45-55.
[131] BS-EN14500, Blinds and shutters. Thermal and visual comfort. Test and [149] M.G. Kent, T. Cheung, S. Altomonte, S. Schiavon, A. Lipczyńska, A
calculation methods, European committee for standardization UK, 2008, p. Bayesian method of evaluating discomfort due to glare: The effect of order
60. bias from a large glare source, Building and Environment 146 (2018) 258-
[132] BS-EN14501, Blinds and shutters — Thermal and visual comfort — 267.
Performance characteristics and classification, European committee for [150] H.I. Hellinga, T. Hordijk, The D&V analysis method: A method for the
standardization UK, 2005. analysis of daylight access and view quality, Building and Environment 79
[133] DIN-5034-1, Daylight in Interiors Deutsches Institut fur Normung E.V. (2014) 101-114.
(DIN), 2011, p. 17.

Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: The Advantages and Limitations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: The Advantages and Limitations

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

Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: The Advantages and Limitations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW ARTICLE Journal of Daylighting 8 (2021) 181-203 doi:10.15627/jd.2021.

Daylight in Buildings and Visual Comfort Evaluation: the

Fig. 1. Research workflow.

Fig. 2. Fixed and adaptive prismatic panels [15].

to sharp edges of the system, although glare can still happen

3.3. Light shelf

Fig. 5. Seasonal operation of VALRA [13].

Fig. 6. Active sunlight redirection system (ASRS) [27].

to upper quarter of the zone, and additional shades such as roller

Fig. 8. Light-directing louvers: Okasolar daylighting system [33].

3.6. Directional shading system with holographic optical element

3.7. Sun-directing glass

a) Redirecting diffuse light – blocking direct incident

Fig. 12. Integrated anidolic system [39].

Fig. 13. Anidolic solar blind system [37].

Windows need to be protected from sun rays and possible glare to

Table 1. Selection matrix of daylighting systems.

Fig. 16. Human Circadian Cycle [49].

4. Visual comfort influence occupants’ visual satisfaction [44,50]. On the other

Fig. 17. Daylight quantity indices and their interrelations.

Apart from measuring absolute luminance intensity, the contrast 𝐸𝐸

Table 3. Visual comfort metrics to assess sunlight penetration.

Table 4. Nine-point scale of glare sensation based on [11,104].

5.87 ∙ 10−5 𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 +

Fig. 20. Glare indices and their interrelations.

Table 5. Visual comfort metrics to assess glare.

Table 6. View assessment based on European standard [127].

Table 7. View assessment based on European standard [132].

You might also like