See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322896498

Daylighting and energy performance design for single floor commercial hall
buildings

Preprint · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 447

4 authors, including:

Francesco De Luca Raimo Simson

Tallinn University of Technology Tallinn University of Technology
34 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jarek Kurnitski
Tallinn University of Technology
200 PUBLICATIONS   1,921 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated building and urban performance analysis and design View project

indoor environmental quality and learning outcomes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesco De Luca on 02 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Emerald Publishing
Management of Environmental Quality

Daylighting and energy performance design for single floor

commercial hall buildings
Francesco De Luca, Raimo Simson, Jarek Kurnitski and Hendrik Voll
{francesco.deluca, raimo.simson, jarek.kurnitski, hendrik.voll}@ttu.ee
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

ABSTRACT

Purpose. Electric lighting accounts for a large share of energy consumption in commercial buildings.
Utilization of daylight can significantly help to reduce the need for artificial lighting, increase workers
productivity, customers’ satisfaction and consequently improve sales. However, excessive use of glazing
and absence of lighting controls can contribute greatly to higher energy need for heating and cooling and
cause undesired glare effects. Thus, optimizing the size, position and materials of external glazing, with the
addition of deflectors and dynamic artificial lighting, can become key aspects in the design of sustainable
low energy buildings. The scope of this research is to analyze daylight potential and energy performance
of a hall-type commercial building, situated in the cold climate of Finland, by utilizing different
combinations of skylights, windows and lighting controls.

Design/methodology/approach. We have used computer simulations to estimate daylight and energy

performance of a single floor commercial building in relation to various combinations of skylights and
windows with variable glazing materials, light deflectors and zonal lighting controls.

Findings. The results show that electric light energy saving potential ranges from a negligible 1.9% to a
significant 58.6% in the case of glass skylights and wall windows using multi-zone lighting control. Total
delivered energy ranges between increase of 1.5% and 21.2% in the cases with single zone lighting control
and between decrease of 4.5% and increase of 4.5% in the cases with multi-zone control. The highest
decrease in primary energy consumption was 2.2% for single zone and 17.6% for multi-zone lighting
control. The research underlines the significant potential of electric light energy savings using daylighting
strategies that, including the control of direct solar access for glare and internal gains, can be more than
50%.
Originality/value. This research combines accurate daylight and energy assessment for commercial hall
buildings based in cold climate region with multiple design variations. The novelty of this work is the
consideration of interior elements, shelves and deflectors, in the calculations. This is made possible through
the combined use of validated simulation platforms for detailed annual daylighting and electric lighting
calculation (Radiance and Daysim) and energy analysis (IDA-ICE, Equa Simulation AB). This method
allows to obtain a reliable assessment of the potential of using natural light sources in buildings.

Keywords: daylighting; electric lighting; skylights; retail hall building; energy savings.

INTRODUCTION

Daylight is the most appreciated source of illumination in commercial and office buildings (Galasiu and
Veitch, 2006, Sharp et al., 2014). It has been the main source of illumination for building interiors until the
mid-20th century when fluorescent lamps became affordable and energy was not expensive (Brox, 2010).
With the extensive use of electric lighting and mechanical ventilation, the strong relation between interiors
and facades was weakened so that in some cases fenestration was considered redundant (Collins, 1976).
Daylight regained importance during the 1970s due to the shortage of energy caused by the oil crisis and
after a diminished interest in the late 2000s in the last decades has regained momentum due to energy
efficiency concerns (Reinhart and Selkowitz, 2006).

The quantity of illumination in interior spaces is precisely measurable with different metrics whereas the
quality is subjective and involves human needs (Veitch, 2001). The variability of daylight with the
alternation of day and night improves the circadian rhythm of the occupants and is beneficial for their health
(Lockley, 2009). Daylight can be considered as an important factor for the physiological and psychological
well-being of people (Altomonte, 2008).

Daylight can be available for the building interior from different sources: direct solar radiation, diffused by
sky and clouds and reflected by the surroundings and from the interior space itself. Direct solar radiation is
the most appreciated source of daylighting for its quantity, quality and distribution potential (Reinhart,
2014, Johnsen and Watkins, 2010). Utilization of natural light in retail spaces has a positive effect on
occupants’ comfort. The users tend to spend more time in day-lit commercial spaces and this increase sales
(Sharp et al., 2014). A study prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States
by Edwards and Torcellini (2002) demonstrates an average of 40% increase in sales due to skylights use.
Similar results come from the report done for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company of United States by
Heschong Mahone Group (HMG, 1999).
Daylight is particularly useful for offices and commercial buildings because of the occupied hours during
which the buildings are used and the period of daylight availability coincide. Furthermore, single floor
buildings, like large retail halls, can use natural light not only through windows but also, and mostly,
through skylights which have higher light intensity and through which the light can also reach the spaces
in the middle of the building. Daylight can be maximized by a correct design of glazing surfaces in terms
of location, orientation, size and materials. When utilizing skylights and wall windows it is important to
take into account the possible need for shading devices or deflectors to decrease or eliminate the potential
effect of disturbing glare caused by daylight or direct solar radiation (Al-Obaidi et al., 2017, Byrd, 2012).

Considering a typical commercial retail space, in terms of daylight, it is dim in the first and last hours of
occupancy and during wintertime (in the northern hemisphere), which can be just sufficient if exploited
effectively. On the other hand, natural light can be excessive during noon hours and in summer, as to disturb
vision and generate unwanted solar heat gains (Byrd, 2012). The latter makes it very important to correctly
balance and design different elements, such as interiors, facade layouts, windows and shading devices to
obtain the needed illumination and minimize energy consumption (De Luca et al., 2016, Haase and
Grynning, 2017, Kim et al., 2016, Darula et al., 2015).

Daylight can have significant effect on energy use in commercial buildings, especially in single floor
shopping malls and retail buildings (Haase et al., 2015, Yu and Su, 2015). Artificial lighting accounts for
energy use up to 40% of total consumption, thus posing great potential for energy savings by the use of
natural light as internal illumination source (Krarti, 2010, Nazaroff, 2014, Ponmalar and Ramesh, 2014,
Gago et al., 2015).

Energy efficient luminaires, utilizing daylight and demand based lighting controls are becoming a common
practice in today’s low energy buildings (Chew et al., 2017, Dubois and Blomsterberg, 2011, Pandharipande
and Newsham, 2018). Many studies, based on simulation analyses as well as on field measurements
conducted for different types of buildings, show the effect of daylighting and lighting controls on lighting
energy consumption (Sing et al., 2015, Bodart and De Herde, 2002, Li et al., 2005, Gago et al., 2015,
Simson et al., 2016, Choi et al., 2016, Wong, 2017). Li and Lam (2001) have suggested that proper lighting
schedules in relation to daylight variations can result in 50% electric lighting savings in office buildings.
Through the use of sensors and controllers, daylighting can reduce and even eliminate the need for artificial
lighting required to provide sufficient illuminance levels (Yu and Su, 2015). Chen et al. (2014) have
reported 36.1% electricity saving potential for the on/off control and 41.5% for dimming control of electric
lighting integrated with daylighting in case of industrial buildings. In their work, Atif and Galasiu (2003)
report that continuous dimming lighting control system can provide 46% annual savings in electrical
lighting consumption, while the automatic on/off can save up to 17% of lighting energy in large atrium
spaces. The savings were for 68% of the lighting energy consumed during main occupancy for the
continuous dimming system, and 31.5% for the automatic on/off. Energy savings for electric lighting due
to the appropriate use of daylighting can be maximized by the use of dynamic dimming systems associated
with LED luminaires and efficient ballasts which, in contrast with fluorescent lamps, permit to dim down
to very low minimum power (Rossi et al., 2015, Montoya et al., 2017, Gayral, 2017).

While the reduction of artificial lighting through daylighting strategies will reduce the electricity need, it
will also affect heating and cooling loads and the total energy use of the building (Ahn et al., 2014, Hee et
al., 2015). Increasing glazing areas and decreasing internal loads by efficient lighting and control would
lead to increased heating energy need during wintertime, caused by lower thermal resistance of the glazed
areas, and to higher cooling energy need during summertime due to increased solar heat gains (Bodart and
De Herde, 2002). At the same time, properly designed shading systems can reduce cooling loads by
lowering heat gains, decrease possible glare and contrast effects and increase occupant comfort levels by
letting necessary quantities of daylight into the building when needed (Shen et al., 2014, Jakubiec and
Reinhart, 2016).

There is a vast body of research regarding the influence of daylight on energy performance of side lit offices
and commercial spaces, but lack of studies analyzing the use of skylights for commercial halls, especially
focusing on buildings located in northern latitudes. The findings of the few scientific studies state that it is
generally difficult to gain energy savings from skylights – the glazing type and area need to be well
optimized to compensate the daylight-induced cooling penalty (To and Chan, 2006, Gago et al., 2015). In
a recent study, Motamedi and Liedl (2017) used computer simulations to analyse a one story office building
in San Fransico and found that optimal skylight to floor ratio is 5.5–6% which would decrease energy
consumption by 19%. They also concluded, that skylight ratio over 14% would not be energy efficient.
Considerable energy savings were reported in a study on 73 stores by Heschong Mahone Group that
registered electric lighting savings from skylights between 20-30%, with buildings total energy savings
ranging from 15 to 20% (Heschong, 2003). Moreover, when the installations of skylights and clerestories
were associated with automatic electric light controls, energy savings by utilizing daylight increased up to
20% more (HMG, 1999, Heschong et al., 2002, Heschong, 2003).

This study investigates the influence of daylighting on energy performance of a large space hall-type retail
building, located at the northern latitude of south Finland, with different configurations of skylights,
clerestories, deflectors, lighting zones and controls. The scope of the work is to accurately determine the
artificial lighting energy reductions in the different combinations to support the general energy design of
the building type.
METHODS

The objectives and framework of the study for daylight contribution prediction, electric lighting energy
savings and energy consumption assessment of the studied building is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Objectives and framework of the research.

Objectives  To quantify energy consumption reduction potential of a large hall-type commercial building by
utilizing daylight.
 To evaluate the change in heating and cooling energy need due to the increase of glazing areas
on the building envelope.
 To assess the need for glare reduction to avoid visual discomfort.
Workflow  Defining and creating simulation models of the studied building with varying combinations of
skylights, clerestories, deflectors and internal layout of the shelves.
 Defining target illuminance and operating hours of the building space.
 Modelling detailed daylight sources (skylights and clerestories), including physically accurate
material properties for daylight simulations.
 Defining cases by choosing relevant combinations regarding building orientation, daylight
sources and the use of deflectors and materials.
 Designing electric lighting plan to provide the target-maintained illuminance (assuming no
daylight contribution) and calculating installed power and annual consumption.
 Defining daylight zones and electric lighting controls.
 Defining envelope thermal transmittances and building operation parameters used in energy
performance simulations.
 Creating parametric and data processing model of the building for daylight simulations
automatization for electric lighting need calculations.
 Calculating annual daylight availability and electric light contribution by dynamic computer
simulations.
 Importing calculated hourly electric lighting loads as lighting control variables to energy
performance assessment tool.
 Creating building simulation model, including building systems, for energy simulations.
 Calculating annual energy performance.
 Assessing the results.

The case study building

The studied retail building is a single floor hall of 137.4m x 66.0m with a total floor area of 9068.4m²
located at northern latitude of Helsinki, Finland (60°10’N). The building is divided into three identical bays,
each 22m wide (Figure 1). The roof consists of three double slopes with a maximum internal height of the
ridge of 8.4m (without skylights) and a minimum height of 7.85m. The interior of the building is occupied
by shelves of two lengths, 24m and 10m, both with a height of 2.4m (Figure 1). For daylight design we
have used two building orientations: North-South and East-West. The operating hours of the building are
from 7:00 to 22:00, Monday to Saturday. The requested target illuminance is 500lx at floor level.
Figure 1. Model of the analyzed building (left) and shelves layout (right).

Depending on the reflectance properties of the finishing materials used, natural light entering the building
can be scattered and reflected more or less efficiently. The reflectance values and materials properties used
in the calculations are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Material properties used for daylight simulations.

Visible Transmittance Reflectance, Solar heat gain coefficient

(VT), % % (SHGC), -
Glass for skylights 72 - 0.51
Polycarbonate for skylights 35 - 0.46
Polycarbonate for deflectors 50 - -
Polycarbonate for clerestories 41 - 0.43
Floor - 20 -
Walls/Shelves - 50 -
Ceiling - 80 -

Daylight sources

The building presents two types of natural light sources: wall windows and skylights. In case of windows,
we used a 40% window-to-wall ratio: window height was 3.4m and offset from floor 4.45m, to leave a
usable portion of wall for products display (Figure 2). For all window cases we used polycarbonate glazing
with Visible Transmittance (VT) of 41% and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.43.

Skylights were placed at the peak of each building bay throughout the length of the hall with two
interruptions, forming three separate sections, each 43 meters long. We used Ridge type skylights: width
3.52m, internal height 1.01m and full height 1.861m above the roof (Figure 2). For skylights, we analyzed
two different materials: glass and translucent polycarbonate (Table 2).

As discussed in the introduction, the use of daylighting in order to efficiently light interior spaces presents
one downside: in many cases it can cause an excessive lighting to produce visual discomfort (glare) and
increase solar heat gains. It can be very harmful for commercial buildings and workplaces because it can
prevent sales and reduce workers productivity. The solution is to design appropriate deflectors that will
block unwanted direct sunlight but let diffuse daylight into the building. With lower intensity, deflectors
can still provide sufficient daylight to illuminate the interiors efficiently.

After many performance tests by daylight simulations using different layouts, sizes, orientations and
materials for the deflectors, an array of vertical elements has been selected with height of 0.7m and 0.7m
of distance between each element, mounted into the light well and facing south for every building
orientation (Figure 2). This configuration permits to block the vast majority of the direct sunlight at noon
at the latitude of Helsinki, Finland, where the sun altitude (the angle between the horizon and the sun) is
about 53.5° at its highest in the summer solstice on 21st of June. The most performative material selected
is the polycarbonate with a VT of 50% that blocks direct sunlight and scatters a portion of it into the building
as diffuse light, without negative effects on occupants’ comfort and energy use.

Figure 2. Location of skylights and clerestories, sizes of skylights, size and orientations of deflectors. (Dimensions
in mm).
Analyzed cases

The different cases analyzed are combinations of orientation (long axis of the building aligned North-South
or East-West), designs with or without skylights, wall windows and deflectors (when using glass skylights),
glazing material of the skylights (glass or polycarbonate) and wall windows glazing material for East-West
orientation (glass or polycarbonate).

The cases analyzed for the daylighting performance are presented in Table 3. The cases analyzed for the
energy performances have been limited to the 7 base cases for the orientation North-South with both single
zone and multi-zone controls for a total of 15 cases including also the base case without any source of
daylight.

Table 3. Description of analyzed cases.

Building
orientation Windows and skylights description Case no

North-South Without windows and skylights Case 00

With glass skylights, with polycarbonate wall windows East and West With deflectors Case 01
No deflectors Case 02
With glass skylights (no wall windows) With deflectors Case 03
No deflectors Case 04
With polycarbonate skylights, with polycarbonate wall windows East and West Case 05
With polycarbonate skylights (no wall windows) Case 06
With polycarbonate wall windows East and West (no skylight) Case 07
East-West With glass skylights (with deflectors), with wall windows South polycarbonate North glass Case 08
With polycarbonate skylights (no def.), with wall windows South polycarbonate North glass Case 09
With wall windows South polycarbonate North glass Case 10
With wall windows South and North polycarbonate Case 11

Daylight simulations and electric lighting design

The work has been conducted using the validated daylight software Radiance (Ward, 1994) and Daysim
(Reinhart, 2006). Dynamic simulations permit to predict realistic quantity of available daylight in different
parts of the building, for short periods or entire year, to interpret the results for a specific task to accomplish
by choosing between a varieties of metrics (Guglielmetti et al., 2010).

Continuous Daylight Autonomy (CDA) simulation allows to assess whether or not a specific part of an
indoor area is sufficiently lit by daylight to reach the target illuminance fully or partly during a specific
operating hour (Figure 3). As the simulation has been run for all the operating hours of the specified period,
usually the entire year, the result is given by the sum of the percentage of time during which the space can
be lit solely by daylight plus the percentage of time during which it can be lit partially by daylight (with the
contribution of electric light) multiplied by the ratio of daylight contribution. This metric is useful to predict
daylighting performance and electric light consumption when it is possible to use dimmable luminaires
(Reinhart et al., 2006).

Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) metric uses two threshold values - a lower and upper value. The lower
threshold has the same function as the target illuminance for CDA. The upper threshold sets a target
illuminance, above which the light is not useful anymore, it is considered excessive. This metric is
particularly useful to evaluate glare and discomfort for the occupants (Nabil and Mardaljevic, 2005). In the
present study the upper threshold of the UDI has been set to 3000lx to simulate high contrast and excessive
lighting, uncomfortable in a retail building (Figure 3).

To assess the daylight contribution to electric light energy consumption, a placement plan for luminaries
has been designed using the specialized software DIALux (DIAL GmbH) with a target illuminance of 500lx
at the floor level. The electric lighting plan uses 68W LED luminaires with 1% Dali ballast for a total
installed power of 56.24 kW (6.2 W/m2) and annual consumption of 29kWh/m2y (without daylight). For
electric light energy saving it is crucial to utilize dimmable luminaires with a small value of minimum
power so to save more energy when electric lighting is not needed. Using dimmable luminaires, it is possible
to integrate their total installed power with the simulations of the CDA that therefore can assess the
daylighting contribution performance of the different study cases.

Figure 3. False-color diagrams for CDA (left) and UDI (right) of the case with glass skylights and deflectors and
with wall windows, with orientation North-South (Case 01).
Zones and controls

For higher accuracy of the daylight simulations a calculation grid of 2m has been used, excluding the area
below the shelves (Figure 5). The hourly needed electric lighting load (W/m2) was calculated using
Radiance and Daysim. The result was converted to an electric lighting load factor varying between 0 and
1, with 0 defining the artificial lighting being switched off and 1 defining the maximum load usage (100%
of installed lighting power). Then, the multiplier values were used as lighting control input in IDA-ICE
software to estimate annual energy use of the building. The workflow process used in the analysis is
visualized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Workflow of the analysis process.

In a large hall retail building the daylighting performance varies significantly in different areas of the
building, depending on the specific location of natural light sources - on walls or roof – and on the layout
of obstacles, such as shelves. This means that some areas can have considerably higher levels of daylight
autonomy, e.g. areas near windows and skylights, compared to areas away from light sources (Figure 3).

As mentioned the most efficient way to integrate daylighting and artificial lighting is to install dimmable
luminaires which use light sensors for demand based lighting control. The light sensors measure the
quantity of light in specific areas of the building, usually in “critical” places, which require the illuminance
levels to be fulfilled. It is crucial to distribute as many light sensors as there are control zones with uniform
daylighting potential into the building and ensure correct placement. Using fewer light sensors than daylight
uniformity areas would lead to an oversupply of electric lighting in high potential areas or and undersupply
of low potential areas of the building.

In the present study five lighting zones have been selected based on the calculation results of uniform
daylighting areas that have been estimated through the integration of parametric software and daylight
simulation tools (Figure 5). Consequently, the calculation grid cell with the least annual daylight potential
has been selected for the location of the sensor for each zone in the multi-zone approach. This guarantees
fulfillment of the target set-point of 500lx in the entire zone.

When designing electric light plan and lighting zones in relation to daylight distribution it is important to
choose the right strategy for the lighting control (Mardaljevic, 2000).

Figure 5. Grid of the daylight sensors (left), daylight uniformity areas obtained by simulation and computation
(center) and proposed lighting zones (right) of the case with glass skylights and deflectors and with wall windows,
with orientation North-South (Case 01).

In the case of day-lit spaces with dimmable luminaires automatic control is proven more efficient than
manual (Reinhart, 2004). Main types of automatic controls can be defined as:

• Automatic on and off;

• Always on during operating hours automatic dimmable with daylight;

• Always on during operating hours automatic dimmable with daylight and occupancy sensors.
For the present research the lighting control strategy “Always on during operating hours, dimmable with
daylight” was used in order to achieve high efficiency for electric lighting use and to assure sufficient visual
comfort for occupants and customers.

Energy performance simulations

To quantify the effect of different daylighting design variations on the energy performance of the building,
energy simulations have been performed with well-validated software IDA-ICE v4.7.1 (EQUA, 2017,
Kropf and Zweifel, 2002). Although IDA-ICE is capable of calculating lighting energy consumption taking
into account daylighting, it is not possible to model interior objects that have an effect on daylighting
performance and lighting energy consumption. Hence the electric lighting schedule obtained through the
daylight simulations and load calculations with Radiance and Daysim has been imported as lighting control
to IDA-ICE. This allows for more accurate energy analysis accounting also the use of shelves and
deflectors.

The building simulation model variations for energy calculation are shown in Figure 6. Values for thermal
bridges were taken from the Finnish Building Code (NBCF, 2012). For the primary energy calculations,
also Finnish primary energy factors were used: 0.7 for district heating and 1.7 for electricity.

a b

c
d
Figure 6. Building simulation model variations for heating and cooling load and energy performance
analysis in IDA-ICE: a) the base case model without windows; b) the model with wall windows; c) the
model with skylights; d) the model with wall windows and skylights.
The thermal transmittances and areas of the building envelope are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Building envelope description.

Building envelope part U-value, W/(m2 K) Total area, m2

External walls 3144.7
- with wall windows 0.16 2275.6
Roof 9079.7
- with skylights 0.12 7732.6
Floor toward ground 0.09 9068.4
Windows 0.75 869.0
Skylight 1.00 1494.9
Doors 1.00 85.0

Infiltration for the building was calculated using equation (1), according to the Finnish Building Code
(NBCF, 2012):

qi = q50 × A/(3.6 × z) (1)

Where: q50 is building air permeability at 50 Pa pressure difference, m3·h-1·m-2 of external surface area; A
is total area of building envelope, m2 and z is building height factor, for the current case z = 24. The building
air permeability value 1.0 m3·h-1·m-2 was used, as is realistically achievable with current construction
techniques and envelope construction for low energy buildings. The building parameters used for annual
energy consumption calculations are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Building energy simulation input parameters.

Parameter Value
Heating set-point, °C 18
Cooling set-point, °C 25
Ventilation airflow rate, 7:00-22:00, L/(s·m2) 1.0
Ventilation airflow rate, 22:00-7:00 L/(s·m2) 0.15
Ventilation system SFP, kW/(m3/s) 1.5
Heating system efficiency, - 0.9
Heat source (district heating) efficiency, - 0.97
Air heating efficiency, - 0.9
Cooling system efficiency, - 0.9
Cooling source SCOP, kWh/kWhe 3.5
Internal gains from occupants, W/m2 3.0
Internal gains from lighting (maximum), W/m2 6.2
Internal gains from equipment, W/m2 1.0

For energy consumption simulations have been used only cases 01 to 07 (Table 3), all with North-South
orientation. The reason for this was the negligible difference in daylight performance, hence also in electric
lighting energy consumption, between the cases with the same building configurations for the two
orientations. These cases have been simulated with multi-zone and single zone lighting control and
compared to the reference case without any source of natural light. Altogether, 15 cases were analyzed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Daylight performance

The results of average CDA and UDI values from the daylighting simulations conducted using Radiance
and Daysim are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Daylighting analysis results for different design combinations: average CDA and UDI values for total floor
area.

For cases with shelves and with different combinations of skylights, in both orientations, the CDA values
are in a range of 20% on the maximum 100% scale and 30% on the relative scale between lowest to highest
values. The highest average CDA values, 55.7%, 55.4% and 60.1%, were calculated for cases 01, 08 and
02 respectively. These cases had glass skylights and/or deflectors and wall windows with North-South
(cases 01 and 02) and East-West (case 08) orientation. The lowest CDA value, for the cases with both
sources of daylight, was found for the case with polycarbonate skylights and with wall windows (Case 06
average CDA 42.3%)

Proportionally and inversely the cases with highest performance had higher quantity of excessive lighting
as set by the UDI threshold >3000lx. The highest performing case, with glass skylights, without deflectors
and with wall windows (Case 02) had an average UDI>3000 of 8% (max 24.2%) and the lowest performing
case, with polycarbonate skylights and without wall windows (Case 06) had average UDI>3000 of 2.7%
(max 3.9%). The high percentage of UDI>3000, calculated for the cases with glass skylights without
deflectors (cases 02 and 04), indicates that the use of deflectors is necessary to increase the customers visual
comfort and at the same time have good daylighting performance (av. CDA > 50%). Polycarbonate
skylights can as well control the excessive daylighting, but for these cases 05, 06 and 09 the average CDA
value is always lower than for those with glass skylights and deflectors.
The use of wall windows improves daylighting performance between 4% and 16% on a relative scale
between all the different cases when using glass and polycarbonate skylights respectively. The daylighting
performance of the cases without skylights with only wall windows (cases 07 and 11) are very poor with
an average CDA around 20% in both orientations North-South and East-West.

There is no significant difference between North-South and East-West orientation for similar configurations
with deflectors facing south. For example, the average CDA for the building configuration with North-
South orientation, glass skylights, deflectors and polycarbonate windows (Case 01) was 55.7% and building
with East-West orientation with glass skylights, deflectors, polycarbonate windows toward South facade
and glass windows toward North of (Case 08) was 55.4%. Nevertheless cases with glass skylights oriented
toward East-West had higher excessive lighting (UDI>3000) than those oriented toward North-South. This
can be explained by the higher quantities of direct sunlight through the East-West oriented skylights and
deflectors that allow more direct sunlight into the zone. The same configurations with polycarbonate
skylights for both orientations also show similar UDI>3000 percentages.

For the East-West orientation cases, with windows toward South and North, the performance differences
between the combinations with polycarbonate windows (case 10) and with polycarbonate windows on the
South and glass on the North facing windows (case 11) have been estimated. In both cases no skylights
have been used to evaluate better the sole performances of the different window materials. The North
windows made of glass improved the performance 6.3% on the total 100% scale (average CDA-s of 26.5%
and 20.2%) and 24% on the relative scale between the two configurations. The quantity of excessive natural
lighting and contrast was very low, with an average UDI>3000 of 1.3% in both cases.

Daylight and electric light contributions

The daylighting performance is translated almost in full to the electric light energy saving due to the LED
luminaires dimmable up to 1% used in this study (Figure 8).

The use of electric energy with daylight contribution for the multi-zone cases is reduced to 41.4% in the
case of North-South orientation, glass skylights, polycarbonate windows and no deflectors (Case 01). The
maximum electric light contribution for the multi-zone cases is 83.4% for the case with East-West
orientation, polycarbonate windows and without skylights (Case 11).
Figure 8. Daylight contribution and electric light energy usage for multi-zone and single zone lighting control. 

This study underlines that when daylight sources are present the use of multiple lighting zones increases
energy savings in terms of reduced electric lighting need (Figure 8). In cases with single zone the use of
electric energy is reduced to a minimum value of 61.6% for the case with North-South orientation, with
glass skylights, with polycarbonate windows and without deflectors (Case 02) and to a maximum value of
98.1% for the case with East-West orientation, with polycarbonate wall windows and without skylights
(Case 11). For the same building variation cases, using the multi-zone strategy, the electric light
contribution is 41.4% and 83.4% respectively. For single zone strategy, the same cases performance is
67.2% and 85% respectively. On average, among all the 11 cases, the multi-zone strategy uses 31% less
electric light compared to the single zone design.

The results show that the daylighting performance and consequently the electric light energy savings are
independent from the orientation of the building when using deflectors facing south and polycarbonate
windows for both facades in the cases with North-South and East-West orientations and polycarbonate for
the South façade and glass for the North façade in the cases with East-West orientation.

Energy consumption

The estimated delivered energy results for the building design variations are shown in Figure 9. With
constant lighting and no glazing surfaces (Case 00), the total annual delivered energy for the building is
66kWh/m2y. Using only polycarbonate wall windows (Case 07) will increase heating consumption by
11.8%, from 17 to 19kWh/m2y, while the cooling energy will remain the same with both single and multi-
zone lighting control. The total energy consumption is reduced of 4.5% though the electric light saving is
more than 10.3% for the multi-zone control, whereas the total energy and the electric light energy used for
the single zone control are very similar to the base case.
Figure 9. Delivered energy of the building with different skylights and wall windows combinations for multi-zone
and single zone lighting control.

For the multi-zone cases the addition of skylights to the wall windows (cases 01, 02, 05 and 06) increases
the total energy consumption up to 4.5%. The heating energy is increased up to 76.5%, cooling up to 7
times the base case, from 1 to 7kWh/m2y whereas the electric light use is reduced up to 41.4%. The use of
only skylights (cases 03, 04 and 06) increases the heating energy consumption up to 58.8% from 17 to 27
kWh/m2y and the cooling use from 1 to 4 kWh/m2y whereas the electric light energy use is reduced up to
44.8% of the base case from 29 to 13 kWh/m2y. The cases with single zone lighting control require
additional energy from 1.5% and 21.2% comparing the base case and from 6.3% to 18.1% comparing the
same multi-zone control cases. The results underline the importance of multi-zone lighting control strategy
for the electric light appliances. Some of these cases reduce the delivered energy whereas all the single zone
cases require additional energy.

The building variations with glass skylights, deflectors (Case 01) and polycarbonate skylights (Case 05)
have roughly the same total energy consumption, although the glazed skylights allow to save more electric
energy for lighting. The cases showing reduction in total energy consumption are either designed with only
skylights (cases 03 and 04) or with only wall windows (Case 07). The latter is mainly due to the reduced
glazing area, thus lowering heating as well as cooling energy need. Cases with skylights only (cases 03 and
04) show significant daylight contribution of about or more than 50% of the required illuminance.

The primary energy consumption of the different combinations of skylights, wall windows, deflectors and
natural light source materials, calculated using the Finnish primary energy factors as specified in the
Methods section, are shown in Figure 10. The base case without any source of daylight (Case 00) accounts
for 91kWh/m2y primary energy use.
Figure 10. Primary energy calculations of the building with different skylights and side-windows combinations for
multi-zone and single zone lighting control.

The multi-zone lighting control reduces an average of 12.1% of total energy consumption with a minimum
of 7.7% for the building variation with polycarbonate skylights and wall windows (Case 05). The maximal
primary energy reduction of 17.6% was achieved for Case 04, with glass skylights without deflectors and
with wall windows. When using single zone control, the total energy consumption varies from an increase
of 14.3% for the case with polycarbonate skylights and wall windows (Case 05) to a decrease of 2.2% for
the case with glass skylights, without deflectors and with wall windows (Case 04).

Although the lighting energy consumption decreases for the cases with single zone control, the low savings
are consumed by the increased heating and cooling energy need, resulting in roughly the same (cases 02,
04 and 07) or even higher (cases 01, 03, 05 and 06) primary energy use. On the other hand, all the cases
with multi-zone control permit to increase significantly energy savings for electric lighting, hence to
contrast the increase of heating energy consumption. This emphasizes the importance of proper lighting
zoning and control in buildings with higher share of glazed envelope areas.

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigates the potential of daylighting and energy performance of a large single floor retail
building, located in cold climate region of Finland, through variable envelope design solutions by utilizing
windows, skylights and lighting controls.

The daylighting analysis results show high potential to lit commercial single floor buildings through natural
light and save electric lighting energy also in northern latitudes like the Helsinki region in Finland. When
using skylights, with or without windows, depending on the material and the presence of deflectors, the
target illuminance is met for up to an average 60% of the operating time. The latter applies to glass skylights
and windows. When the excessive natural lighting accounts for an average 8% of the time, deflectors are
recommended. Using deflectors will decrease daylight potential to an average of 55%, which is still a
significant value. Other cases that use polycarbonate skylights will not have a problem with excessive
lighting - daylight performance will decrease, but in the case with both skylights and wall windows, just
below the average value of 50% of the operating hours.

The electric lighting energy savings potential is consequently significant, up to 59% for the case with glass
skylights and no deflectors together with wall windows and multi-zone lighting control. The same case with
added deflectors, with balanced daylighting results, shows 53% lower electric lighting energy consumption.
The use of deflectors to improve visual comfort results in a decrease of excessive lighting in about 55%,
whereas increase in energy consumption is 9%.

An important outcome is given also from the comparison of the electric lighting energy saving for the same
cases between using multiple lighting sensors, which divide the floor in different zones (multi-zone
control), and a single sensor (single zone control). The difference in performance between the two systems
is significant. The electric lighting energy saved by the multi-zone system compared to the single zone
strategy ranges from a maximum of 39% for the cases with skylights, without deflectors and with wall
windows to a minimum of 14% for the cases with only wall windows.

The addition of skylights and wall windows affects the total energy use trough lighting, heating and cooling
energy needs. With single zone lighting control, even with the decrease in lighting energy, the total
delivered energy increases, mainly due to the higher heating energy consumption. The highest energy
consumption has been simulated for the cases with polycarbonate skylights and wall windows, up to 21.2%
higher than the case without natural light source, whereas the lowest increase is of 1.5% for the case with
only wall windows. Using multi-zone lighting control however allows small reductions in total delivered
energy up to 4.5% for the cases with only glass skylights and only wall windows. For the combinations of
skylights and wall windows the total delivered energy consumption is always higher than the base case.

As for the primary energy calculations of the different building configurations, cases with single zone
lighting control using glass skylights with or without deflectors with or without wall windows and only
wall windows achieved roughly the same results as the base case. Other cases showed an increase of primary
energy values. The multi-zone lighting control on the other hand reduces an average 12.1% of total primary
energy compared to the base case and an average 14.6% compared the single zone control cases with a
maximum of 20%.
The best performance in terms of daylighting and electric light savings were found for cases with glass
skylight, without deflectors and with wall windows. However, deflectors are necessary to decrease
unwanted glare and excessive direct sunlight effects. The slight increase in electric light use is compensated
by significant increase in the visual comfort and high decrease of solar internal gains. The highest energy
savings were achieved by cases with either skylights or windows. For the cases with only glass skylights
the performance of daylighting was found to be significant with also some potential for energy savings. In
case of using only wall windows, the energy savings as well as daylighting performance were found to be
quite poor. The study underlines the strategic importance for energy savings through the use of multi-zone
lighting control strategy to be able to make maximal use of daylight.

This research confirms the results of previous studies presented and adds a sizable contribution to the
daylighting design strategies for commercial hall buildings. It can be stated that daylighting, when properly
exploited through appropriate design, is a crucial measure for achieving savings in energy use and rising
occupants’ satisfaction by improving visual comfort.

The results of this study can help to predict the performance of buildings with similar characteristics. Small
variations in performance can occur in the case of small building variations (floor plan area and layout, size
and WFR of the skylights and wall-windows). In case of buildings with significant variations the used
method can be applied for daylighting and energy performance studies.

Future work

Future research should focus on the efficiency and performance of different daylight sources, lighting
controls and zoning. Regarding daylight sources, different types of skylights, i.e. monitor and saw-tooth, in
relation with building orientations and need for deflectors should be analyzed. For the wall windows,
performance assessment of innovative light diffusing materials need to be conducted. Finally, variations of
internal obstacles, e.g. different shelves layouts, together with varying quantity and location of lighting
control zones should be studied. Coupled with the latter variations, energy performance assessment and
comparison with previous cases should also be foreseen. Advances in further research would contribute
greatly to the shift towards sustainable energy and daylight design for new low-energy single floor
commercial buildings.

Acknowledgements. The research has been supported by the Estonian Centre of Excellence in Zero Energy
and Resource Efficient Smart Buildings and Districts, ZEBE, grant 2014-2020.4.01.15-0016 funded by the
European Regional Development Fund and under Institutional research funding grant IUT1-15, and by the
Estonian Research Council with Personal research funding grant PUT-652.
REFERENCES

Ahn, B.-L., Jang, C.-Y., Leigh, S.-B. and Jeong, H. (2014), "Analysis of the Effect of Artificial Lighting
on Heating and Cooling Energy in Commercial Buildings", Energy Procedia, Vol. 61 No.
Supplement C, pp. 928-932.
Al-Obaidi, K. M., Munaaim, M. A. C., Ismail, M. A. and Rahman, A. M. A. (2017), "Designing an
integrated daylighting system for deep-plan spaces in Malaysian low-rise buildings", Solar
Energy, Vol. 149, pp. 85-101.
Altomonte, S. (2008), "Daylight for Energy Savings and Psycho-Physiological Well-Being in Sustainable
Built Environments", Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 3-16.
Atif, M. R. and Galasiu, A. D. (2003), "Energy performance of daylight-linked automatic lighting control
systems in large atrium spaces: report on two field-monitored case studies", Energy and
Buildings, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 441-461.
Bodart, M. and De Herde, A. (2002), "Global energy savings in offices buildings by the use of
daylighting", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 421-429.
Brox, J. (2010), Brilliant: The Evolution of Artificial Light, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Byrd, H. (2012), "Post-occupancy evaluation of green buildings: the measured impact of over-glazing",
Architectural Science Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 206-212.
Chen, Y. Y., Liu, J. J., Pei, J. J., Cao, X. D., Chen, Q. Y. and Jiang, Y. (2014), "Experimental and
simulation study on the performance of daylighting in an industrial building and its energy saving
potential", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 73, pp. 184-191.
Chew, I., Karunatilaka, D., Tan, C. P. and Kalavally, V. (2017), "Smart lighting: The way forward?
Reviewing the past to shape the future", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 149, pp. 180-191.
Choi, H., Hong, S., Choi, A. and Sung, M. (2016), "Toward the accuracy of prediction for energy savings
potential and system performance using the daylight responsive dimming system", Energy and
Buildings, Vol. 133 No. Supplement C, pp. 271-280.
Collins, B. L. (1976), "Review of the psychological reaction to windows", Lighting Research &
Technology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 80-88.
Darula, S., Christoffersen, J. and Malikova, M. (2015), "Sunlight and insolation of building interiors",
Energy Procedia, Vol. 78, pp. 1245-1250.
De Luca, F., Voll, H. and Thalfeldt, M. (2016), "Horizontal or vertical? Windows’ layout selection for
shading devices optimization", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 623-633.
Dubois, M. C. and Blomsterberg, A. (2011), "Energy saving potential and strategies for electric lighting
in future North European, low energy office buildings: A literature review", Energy and
Buildings, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 2572-2582.
Edwards, L. and Torcellini, P. (2002), "Literature Review of the Effects of Natural Light on Building
Occupants", National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO. (US).
EQUA (2017), "IDA Indoor Climate and Energy (IDA-ICE, version 4.7.1)", Equa Simulations AB.
Gago, E. J., Muneer, T., Knez, M. and Koster, H. (2015), "Natural light controls and guides in buildings.
Energy saving for electrical lighting, reduction of cooling load", Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 41, pp. 1-13.
Galasiu, A. D. and Veitch, J. A. (2006), "Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous
environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review", Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 728-742.
Gayral, B. (2017), "LEDs for lighting: Basic physics and prospects for energy savings", Comptes Rendus
Physique.
Guglielmetti, R., S., P. and Torcellini, P. (2010), "On the Use of Integrated Daylighting and Energy
Simulations to Drive the Design of a Large Net-Zero Energy Office Building", Fourth National
Conference of IBPSA-USA, SimBuild 2010, New York, New York, pp. 301-309.
Haase, M., Skeie, K. S. and Woods, R. (2015), "The Key Drivers for Energy Retrofitting of European
Shopping Centres", Energy Procedia, Vol. 78 No. Supplement C, pp. 2298-2303.
Haase, M. and Grynning, S. (2017), "Optimized façade design - Energy efficiency, comfort and daylight
in early design phase", Energy Procedia, Vol. 132, pp. 484-489.
Hee, W. J., Alghoul, M. A., Bakhtyar, B., Elayeb, O., Shameri, M. A., Alrubaih, M. S. and Sopian, K.
(2015), "The role of window glazing on daylighting and energy saving in buildings", Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 42, pp. 323-343.
Heschong, L. (2003), "Daylight and Retail Sales", Heschong Mahone Group, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company Fair Oaks, CA, USA.
Heschong, L., Wright, R. L. and Okura, S. (2002), "Daylighting impacts on retail sales performance",
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 21-25.
HMG (1999), "Skylighting and Retail Sales, An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting
and Human Performance", Heschong Mahone Group, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Fair
Oaks, CA, USA.
Jakubiec, J. A. and Reinhart, C. F. (2016), "A Concept for Predicting Occupants’ Long-Term Visual
Comfort within Daylit Spaces", Leukos - The journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 185-202.
Johnsen, K. and Watkins, R. (2010), "Daylighting in Buildings. Energy Conservation in Buildings &
Community Systems & Solar Heating and Cooling Programmes", ECBCS Annex 29/SHC Task
21, AECOM.
Kim, S.-H., Shin, K.-J., Kim, H.-J. and Cho, Y.-H. (2016), " A Study on the Effectiveness of the
Horizontal Shading Device Installation for Passive Control of Buildings in South Korea",
International Journal of Polymer Science, Vol. 2017, pp. 1-11.
Krarti, M. (2010), Energy Audit of Building Systems: An Engineering Approach, CRC Press.
Kropf, S. and Zweifel, G. (2002), "Validation of the Building Simulation Program IDA-ICE According to
CEN 13791 „Thermal Performance of Buildings - Calculation of Internal Temperatures of a
Room in Summer Without Mechanical Cooling - General Criteria and Validation Procedures“",
HLK Engineering.
Li, D. H. W. and Lam, J. C. (2001), "Evaluation of lighting performance in office buildings with
daylighting controls", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 793-803.
Li, D. H. W., Lam, J. C. and Wong, S. L. (2005), "Daylighting and its effects on peak load
determination", Energy, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1817-1831.
Lockley, S. W. (2009), "Circadian rhythms: Influence of light in humans", in Larry, R. S. (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 971-988.
Mardaljevic, J. (2000), "Simulation of annual daylighting profiles for internal illuminance", International
Journal of Lighting Research and Technology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 111-118.
Montoya, F. G., Pena-Garcia, A., Juaidi, A. and Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2017), "Indoor lighting
techniques: An overview of evolution and new trends for energy saving", Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 140, pp. 50-60.
Motamedi, S. and Liedl, P. (2017), "Integrative algorithm to optimize skylights considering fully impacts
of daylight on energy", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 138, pp. 655-665.
Nabil, A. and Mardaljevic, J. (2005), "Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing daylight
in buildings", Lighting Research & Technology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Nazaroff, W. W. (2014), "Illumination, lighting technologies, and indoor environmental quality", Indoor
Air, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 225-226.
NBCF (2012), "National Building Code of Finland. Part D5, Calculation of power and energy needs of
buildings - regulations and guidelines. Ministry of the Environment, Department of the Built
Environment".
Pandharipande, A. and Newsham, G. R. (2018), "Lighting controls: Evolution and revolution", Lighting
Research & Technology, Vol. 50, pp. 115.128.
 Ponmalar, V. and Ramesh, B. (2014), "Energy Efficient Building Design and Estimation of Energy
Savings From Daylighting in Chennai", Energy Engineering, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 59-80.
Reinhart, C. (2006), Tutorial on the use of Daysim simulations for sustainable design, Institute for
Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada. Ottawa (Ont.).
Reinhart, C. (2014), Daylighting Handbook: Volume I Fundamentals, Designing With the Sun, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Reinhart, C. and Selkowitz, S. (2006), "Daylighting - Light, form, and people", Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 715-717.
Reinhart, C. F. (2004), "Lightswitch-2002: a model for manual and automated control of electric lighting
and blinds", Solar Energy, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Reinhart, C. F., Mardaljevic, J. and Rogers, Z. (2006), "Dynamic daylight performance metrics for
sustainable building design", Leukos, Vol. 3 No. 1-4, pp. 7-31.
Rossi, M., Pandharipande, A., Caicedo, D., Schenato, L. and Cenedese, A. (2015), "Personal lighting
control with occupancy and daylight adaptation", Energy and Buildings, Vol. 105, pp. 263-272.
Sharp, F., Lindsey, D., Dols, J. and Coker, J. (2014), "The use and environmental impact of daylighting",
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 462-471.
Shen, E., Hu, J. and Patel, M. (2014), "Energy and visual comfort analysis of lighting and daylight control
strategies", Building and Environment, Vol. 78, pp. 155-170.
Simson, R., Fadejev, J., Kurnitski, J., Kesti, J. and Lautso, P. (2016), "Assessment of Retrofit Measures
for Industrial Halls: Energy Efficiency and Renovation Budget Estimation", Energy Procedia,
Vol. 96 No. Supplement C, pp. 124-133.
Singh, R., Lazarus, I.J. and Kishore, V.V.N. (2015), “Effect of internal woven roller shade and glazing on
the energy and daylighting performances of an office building in the cold climate of Shillong”,
Applied Energy, Vol. 159, pp. 317–333.
To, D. W. T. and Chan, T. K. (2006), "Total Energy Performance of Atria with Daylight", HKIE
Transactions, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 24-30.
Ward, G. J. (1994), "The RADIANCE Lighting Simulation and Rendering System: Computer Graphics",
Proceedings of the 1994 SIGGRAPH Conference, Orlando, Florida, ACM pp. 459-472.
Veitch, J. A. (2001), "Lighting quality contributions from biopsychological processes", Journal of the
Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-+.
Wong, I. L. (2017), "A review of daylighting design and implementation in buildings", Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 74, pp. 959-968.
Yu, X. and Su, Y. H. (2015), "Daylight availability assessment and its potential energy saving estimation
-A literature review", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 52, pp. 494-503.

View publication stats