Indoor and Built

Case Study Environment

Indoor and Built Environment
2018, Vol. 27(1) 129–142
! The Author(s) 2016
Analysis of performance of the Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/
daylight into critical liveable area journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X16669844
of ‘type design’ dwelling unit journals.sagepub.com/home/ibe

on the basis of daylight metrics

for hot and dry climate

Trupti J. Dabe and Alpana R. Dongre

Abstract
Daylighting integrated with artificial lighting control is recognized as an important and useful strategy in
energy-efficient building designs. The prediction of the internal daylight levels is a key stage in daylight-
ing designs. For this research, the ‘type design’ residential quarters building as a case has been selected
from Nagpur region in central India having a hot and dry climate. These ‘type design’ have the major
issues related to the performance of daylight and thermal comfort due to lack of some rules related to
sizes of fenestrations in the development control regulation. The aim of this research is to evaluate the
most critical liveable area of a dwelling unit of ‘type design’ for daylight and thermal comfort. This
research includes evaluation of the selected parameters by comparative analysis of useful daylight
illuminance (UDI), daylight autonomy (DA), thermal comfort hours and carpet area to window ratio
(CAWR) with the help of dynamic simulation by using ‘Daysim’, ‘radiance analysis tool’ and ‘temperature
distribution tool’ of Ecotect 2011 software. The findings of this research arrive to derive the CAWR with
respect to orientation (four cardinal directions) of the building without compromising the thermal com-
fort with respect to the temperature of a dwelling unit of ‘type design’.

Keywords
Daylight simulation, Useful daylight illuminance, Daylight autonomy, Carpet area to window ratio,
Orientation of the building
Accepted: 22 August 2016

Introduction studies being conducted in workspaces4 and rarer

Daylight is the healthiest, most efficient, renewable,
freely and a naturally available light source around
us. In the spatial arrangement and architectural
design of residential buildings, fenestration and sur-
faces play an important role in the creation of visual
expressions as well as proving energy efficiency, thus, it
is vital for both architects as a designer and occupants
as a resident. On the other hand, the lack of daylight
exposure may negatively cause physical, mental and
emotional stress of the occupants. For this reason, fen-
estration in the building defined the architectural style,
more than any other single characteristic. Daylight
studies have been conducted on various typologies1–3;
however, the published literature focuses more on such
research exists for residential built forms. Especially
in India, a tropical country with abundant daylight
availability (DAV), research in this area is of prime
importance. This research pertains to study fenestration
sizes for daylight provisions in multi-storeyed residen-
tial buildings with multiple dwelling units per floor.
Department of Architecture and Planning, Visvesvaraya
National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
Corresponding author:
Trupti J. Dabe, Department of Architecture and Planning,
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur
440010, India.
Email: truptidabe78@gmail.com
130
Though the major difference in the provision of day-
light in the office spaces and the areas of residence
is primarily the lighting level requirements at the work
plane, the configuration of buildings of both the typol-
ogies also contribute to the possible provision of fenes-
trations and evaluation criteria. Office buildings have a
defined structural grid with an exposed façade as width
and the depth that forms a working bay. The exposed
façade, in this case, provides for glazing or fenestrations
for daylight penetration. The criterion considered for
evaluation is the wall window ratio (WWR),5 whereas
in dwelling units of residential buildings, the sizes of
rooms have limited spans, and are overlapped fully or
partially with adjacent rooms or common areas. Thus,
the rooms sometimes get one or two adjacent walls to
accommodate the windows for adequate penetration of
daylight into interior spaces. Hence, the evaluation cri-
terion suggested in this typology is essentially carpet area
to window ratio (CAWR).6
This paper focuses on the different aspects of sizing of
the windows in multi-storeyed residential buildings and
its impact on thermal comfort with respect to the tem-
perature of dwelling units for occupants. There are vari-
ous factors of thermal comfort, namely air temperature,
radiant temperature, air velocity and humidity. For this
research, air temperature is considered since thermal
comfort analysis is limited, to investigate the impact of
window openings of liveable areas on thermal comfort
hours per year. In the Asian context, the government
organization (state/central) provides residences (or quar-
ters) for their employees, and these residences (or quar-
ters) are termed as ‘type designs’. These ‘type designs’
are allotted to the government organization employees
Figure 1. The ‘type-5’ residential quarters building: (a) Plan and (b) Section at A-A.
Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)
on the basis of their grade pay scale. These quarters are
categorized as ‘type designs’: ‘type-1 to type-6’. Each
‘type design’ has a different carpet area and construction
specification. These type designs are repeated as per
requirement, often irrespective of their orientation
(four cardinal directions) considerations. However, the
Development Control Regulation (DCR) of that par-
ticular city is strictly followed in the planning process
of these ‘type design’ residential buildings. Therefore,
for this research, these ‘type designs’ are selected as a
case and the selected case is a ‘type design’ of a three
bedroom, hall and kitchen apartment with a servant
quarter from Nagpur region of Central India, which
has a hot and dry climate.
The Development Control Regulation-2000 (DCR-
2000) for the Nagpur region (as per act-17.12.1)7 states
that the minimum aggregate area of openings of habit-
able rooms and kitchens excluding doors as specified in,
shall be not less than one-tenth of the floor area (the
carpet area in this research context). This is an absolute
value and does not state the aggregate area of openings
according to the different orientation of the residential
quarters buildings; hence, often daylight level and ther-
mal discomfort become the associated issues. Some
other features of these dwelling units include limitation
of sill and lintel heights of the windows because of priv-
acy and overall height limitations, respectively. Balcony
with one or two windows is provided to the exterior
wall of the liveable areas of dwelling unit as a provision
for the desert cooler, the most sustainable cooling
device for multi-storeyed residential buildings in hot
and dry climate as shown in Figure 1(b). The balcony
width is restricted, as per provisions in the DCR-2000.
Dabe and Dongre
Therefore, the aim of this research is to optimize the
CAWR to achieve the optimum daylight levels into the
liveable areas of dwelling unit with respect to the orien-
tation of the residential buildings without compromising
on the thermal comfort. This research also attempts to
investigate the role of the window along the balcony. It
presents the comparative analysis of CAWR with day-
light metrics and thermal comfort hours per year with
CAWR, by using a dynamic simulation process with
Ecotect 2011 software. Through this research, adequate
CAWR is derived for each orientation and thermal com-
fort hours per year of liveable areas of the dwelling unit.
The case study
The selected case was from the Nagpur region, which
has a hot and dry climate. The dwelling unit of a resi-
dential quarters building of ‘type-5’ at Chandrapur of
the Nagpur region was selected as a case for this
research. This ‘type-5’ residential quarters building
was designed as per new ‘type designs’ that have been
approved by the Chief Architect of State Government
in 2005. The construction of this ‘type-5’ residential
quarters building was completed in 2014. This ‘type-5’
residential quarters building has a ground floor plus
two-storeyed floors and has two dwelling units on
each floor (Figure 1(a)). The total carpet area of the
selected dwelling unit is 118.99 m2. The selected dwell-
ing unit has a living room combined with the dining
room, three bed rooms, kitchen and servant quarter as
liveable areas. In this ‘type-5’ residential quarters, the
stairway and the common usable area as shown in
Figure 1(a) facilitate building. For this research, field
measurements of daylight were conducted in the dwell-
ing unit of the first floor.
The climatic condition of the
Nagpur region
The Nagpur region has a very dry and semi-humid
climate throughout the year except monsoon season.
The Nagpur region climates witness a very hot weather
during the month of summer (March to May), monsoon
season (June to September) and winter season (October
to January). In the month of summer, the maximum
temperature of the Nagpur region remains more than
42 C, and at times it may reach to 48 C. Monsoon
advances in the month of June. Maximum rainfall
occurs during July and August months. The winter
season of the Nagpur region has minimum temperature
hovering around 12 C and at times even dip below that
level.8 The overall climatic data of the Nagpur region is
under the hot and dry climatic zone. Hence, in this
research, the annual climatic conditions were considered
during evaluation of the selected parameters.
131
Research methodology
In this research, the CAWR was calculated to achieve
the optimum daylight level through evaluation
of parameters with daylight metrics, useful daylight
illuminance (UDI), and Daylight Autonomy (DA)
using Ecotect 2011 software. These metrics are climate
based and give an annual occurrence of illuminance
on the work plane. The research was done with the
calibrated simulated model of the dwelling unit,
which was derived by a comparison of field measure-
ments with simulation.9 The field measurement read-
ings were taken at every 15-min interval for 24 h
between 3.00 pm on 24 January 2015 and 3.00 pm
on 25 of January 2015 with LI COR-210 light sensors.
The focus of this research was on daylight; hence
all artificial lights were switched off during taking the
readings of field measurements. The sensors were
placed in the liveable areas of dwelling unit, at work
plane level (0.80 m from floor level) where horizontal
illumination was measured to assess the general day-
lighting provision10 (Figure 2). The cross signs on the
plan show the placement of sensors.
The windows provided to the dwelling unit were alu-
minium frame sliding windows with 5 mm thick single
clear glass panels. During the field measurement, all
windows were kept open and doors kept closed. The
information of existing conditions of selected residen-
tial quarter building for this research such as site loca-
tion, longitude and latitude, orientation of buildings,
the local time zone, the site specifies-terrain, North-
offset, and altitude were documented and input into
the simulation model. The weather file of the Nagpur
region was imported from Energy plus website. The
workflow of this research is described in Figure 3.
Parameters used for evaluation study
For achieving the optimum daylight level into the inter-
ior spaces of the building, many parameters have been
used by different researchers on daylight.11,12 The
common parameters include wall to window ratio,
CAWR, types of shading devices, the sill level of the
window, the head height of the window, the orientation
of the building, types of glazing for the windows, types
of fenestrations, the position of the window, the height
of the dwelling unit, etc. The selected case being the
hot and dry climatic zone, a standard shading device
of 0.60 m horizontally projected a shading device has
been considered. The selected typology is multi-
storeyed residential building so that CAWR parameter
is suitable. These ‘type designs’ are repeated as per
requirement in the entire Nagpur region irrespective
of their orientation specifications. Hence for this
research, CAWR and orientation of the building were
the parameters being selected.
132
Figure 2. The dwelling unit of ‘type-5’: (a) the plan of a living dining room with positions of sensors, (b) part elevation of the
building, (c) the view of ‘type-5’ residential quarters building, (d) and (e) position of sensors in the living dining room.
The daylight metrics used for evalua-
tion of parameters
There are new dynamic metrics (Climate-based daylight
modelling-CBDM) that predict luminous quantities
using realistic sun and sky conditions derived from
standardized meteorological data. These metrics are
DA, UDI, and DAV.13–15 In this research, the DA
and UDI are the two daylight metrics that were used
to evaluate the selected parameters.
Daylight autonomy
Daylight autonomy is a measure of how often a min-
imum work plane illuminance threshold of 500 lx (Lux)
can be maintained by daylight alone, and is expressed
as the percentage of occupied time during the year.16
For the purpose of this typology as suggested by
Garcia-Hansen et al. to calculate the DA, the minimum
work plane illuminance threshold of 150 lx was con-
sidered for the living dining room.17
Useful daylight illuminance
UDI is an occurrence of lighting level throughout the
year of a target range of illuminances (i.e.100 to
2000 lx) achieved across the work plane. This range is
considered to be useful for the occupant, neither too
dark (>100 lx) nor too bright (<2000 lx). This threshold
Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)
was determined through preferences on lighting level
studies performed for office buildings.18 According to
Mardaljevic, in residential buildings, this threshold
could be increased to 2500 lx.19 The range could be fur-
ther divided as follows:
. Daylight illuminances less than 100 lx are considered
sufficient to be the sole source of illumination (UDI
fell short).
. Daylight illuminances in the range of 100–500 lx are
considered effective either as the sole source of illu-
mination or in conjunction with artificial light (UDI
achieved – supplementary).
. Daylight illuminances in the range of 500–2000 lx are
often perceived either as desirable or at least toler-
able (UDI achieved/autonomous).
. Daylight illuminance higher than 2000 lx is likely to
produce visual or thermal discomfort or both (UDI
exceeded).
In this context, as referred in the paper, ‘Daylighting
performance of subtropical multi-residential towers
simulations tools for design decisions’ larger than
50% between the ranges of 100 and 2000 lx is con-
sidered as adequate UDI level.17
Dynamic daylight simulation
For this research, dynamic daylight simulation process
was used to evaluate the selected parameters by using
Dabe and Dongre
Figure 3. Workflow diagram.
daylight metrics. Dynamic daylight performance
metrics are based on the time series of illuminance
within a building. The key advantage of dynamic day-
light performance metrics compared to static metrics is
that they consider the quantity and character of daily
and seasonal variations of daylight for a given building
site together with irregular meteorological events.15
For a dynamic simulation, an annual climate file
of the Nagpur region has to be imported that includes
hourly data of direct and diffuse irradiances. The
dynamic simulation process was conducted by using
‘radiance analysis tool’ and ‘Daysim’ of Ecotect 2011
133
software20 with the calibrated visual model of the
dwelling unit of ‘type-5’ at four cardinal directions.
The dynamic simulation process with Daysim gives
the results of daylight levels in the daylight metrics,
namely UDI and DA.
Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort of the naturally ventilated building
depends on indoor temperature, local climatic condi-
tions, and the openings of building (window and
door). The openings are crucial to address the harshness
134
of the outdoor climatic effect on indoor temperature.
The thermal comfort can be modified as per requirement
of occupants with the help of open able windows, blinds,
and doors with ceiling fan. If the openings of the build-
ing are not properly designed, it will increase the energy
consumption and reliance on mechanical ventilation.
Energy consumption in Indian residential buildings is
the highest among Asia-Pacific Partnership countries.21
The literature reviews suggest that, there is a gap in ther-
mal comfort studies in relation to inter-disciplinary
research and it should be carried out in association
with experts in other fields like psychologists, physiolo-
gists, sociologists, philosophers and even with other
building-related ones (architects and engineers).22 The
openings (windows and doors) of the building helps to
interconnect the indoors with the outdoors, and allows
natural ventilation, outside views and daylight into the
interior. In the residential buildings of hot and dry cli-
matic zone, the balconies play a very important role for
thermal relief to the occupants. Therefore, it is necessary
to investigate the possible relations between the use of
openings and the thermal comfort of occupants of resi-
dential buildings. The present research presents the main
results of the impact of CAWR on the thermal comfort
by comparative analysis, on the basis of the selected case
of ‘type design’.
In accordance with the National Building Code of
India 2005,23 SP: 41-1987 (Bureau of Indian standards
1982), the hand book on the functional requirements of
buildings (other than industrial buildings),24 18 C to
27 C is the comfort temperature range. Indraganti21
specified the comfort range of temperature 26.0 C
and 32.5 C in her research of naturally ventilated resi-
dential apartment. Whereas, Kumar has established
the comfort range of temperature 17.1 C to 36.4 C
in his research paper, ‘Evaluation of Thermal
Comfort of Naturally Ventilated University Students’
Accommodation based on Adaptive Thermal Comfort
Model and Occupant Survey in Composite Climate’.25
With these references, the adaptive comfort temperature
range was set to 18 C to 32 C for the purpose of this
research to the analysis of thermal comfort by using
Ecotect 2011 software. Ecotect 2011 software had been
used by various researchers for thermal comfort ana-
lysis.26 The same software was used with ‘temperature
distribution tool’ in the present research.
The existing condition of the critical area
of the living dining room from the daylight
level point of view
In the selected dwelling unit of ‘type-5’, the only living
dining room has three windows but the dining area has
no window, it is surrounded by other liveable areas of
dwelling unit (Figure 2(a)). The living dining room has
Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)
external exposure through 1.20 m wide balcony which is
facing the south direction of the residential quarters
building (Figure 1(b)). The balcony has two windows,
sized 0.90 m  1.20 m; number-1 window is for lighting
and ventilation purpose, and window number-2 is for
the provision of dessert cooling in summer (Figure 2(a))
as mentioned in the DCR-2000.7 The number-3
window of size 0.90 m  1.20 m is located at the adja-
cent wall of the living dining room, which opens in the
entrance offset of the residential quarters building,
having an indirect external exposure to the interior
space of the living dining room. The living dining
room in the present state has only 9.01% CAWR,
which is below the recommended ratio mentioned in
the DCR-20007 for the Nagpur region. For a hot and
dry climate of the Nagpur region, DCR-20007 specifies
4% extra balcony area for the provision of dessert
cooler in summer. For this research, only the living
dining room was selected due to its critical location,
geometry and carpet area, in comparison to other
liveable areas of dwelling unit from the performance
of daylight and the thermal comfort point of view.
For comparison purpose, this existing condition was
considered.
Experiment among the living dining room
to derive the adequate ratio of carpet area
to the window with respect to orientation
of the residential quarters building
Different experiments had been carried out to derive
adequate sizes of windows for the living dining room
to achieve the optimum daylight level as referred to in
the research paper, ‘Assessment of building façade per-
formance in terms of daylighting and the associated
energy consumption in architectural spaces: Vertical
and horizontal shading devices for southern exposure
facades’4 on the basis of CAWR. There is a need to
finalize the width of the window to be placed in the
balcony. This wall has a direct exposure through the
1.20 m wide balcony (Figure 1(b)). For the purpose of
this research, a window module 0.45 m wide and 1.20 m
high was considered as an incremental unit. The run-
ning length of the balcony wall is 4.27 m, and out of this
length, the 0.90 m  2.10 m is left for the door and
1.20 m space is left for the provision of a dessert
cooler, which was not considered in the calculation of
CAWR, so into the available space (2.17 m) the max-
imum size of the window-B 1.80 m  1.20 m was fina-
lized (Figure 4(b)). Then, the daylight level and the
thermal comfort performance of window-B in the inter-
ior of the living dining room were investigated.
Through the dynamic simulation process with
Daysim, the UDI (between the ranges of 100–2000 lx)
Dabe and Dongre 135

Figure 4. The selected dwelling unit of ‘type-5’ residential quarters building: (a) the plan of dwelling unit and (b) plan of the
balcony along with living dining room shows detail dimensions.

was observed (Table 1) for the living dining room. Table 1. The useful daylight illuminance
This observation was calculated by considering the ranges at four cardinal directions achieved
same window-B when oriented to four different direc- by Window-B.
tions (i.e. N, S, E and W).
Orientation of UDI
The thermal comfort analysis of the living dining residential building (100–2000 lx) %
room with only window-B was conducted, and the
result shows that the total comfort hours per year North 67.88
between the comfort band (18 C to 32 C) would East 76.05
be 7091 h/year (i.e. 8760 h) (Figure 5). Therefore, South 61.74
the living dining room was considered under the West 65.56
comfort zone with window-B. The performance of
window-B could not create the problem of thermal dis-
comfort throughout the year. There was the minor 2.25 m  1.20 m, were done by using the incremental
change which is negligible in the total comfort hours unit (0.45 m) (Figure 6). On the basis of the combin-
according to the orientation of building (four ations of the window A and B emerged the different
cardinal directions, for North – 7091 h/year, for East ratio of carpet area to the window, i.e. 9.01%, 10.5%,
– 7092 h/year, for South – 7091 h/year and for West – 12% and 13.50%. All these four combinations of
7090 h/year). CAWR were evaluated by the dynamic simulation pro-
After finalizing the size of window-B along the bal- cess at each orientation (four cardinal directions) of the
cony, four experimental setups with window-A, residential quarters building to find out the variations
0.90 m  1.20 m, 1.35 m  1.20 m, 1.80 m  1.20 m, in daylight levels (Figure 7).
136 Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)

1800

1600

1400

THERMAL COMFORT 1200

HOURS/YEAR
1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
TEMPERATUR (°C)

Figure 5. Graph of thermal analysis for the performance of window-B.

Existing condition Experimental condition-1

window-A- 0.90m x 1.20m (9.01% window-A- 1.35m x 1.20m

Carpet Area to Window Ratio) (10.5% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)

Experimental condition-2 Experimental condition-3

Window- A- 1.80m x 1.20m Window- A- 2.25m x 1.20m

(12% Carpet Area to Window Ratio) (13.5% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)

Figure 6. Plans of the living dining room showing the combination of different sizes of window-A, with a constant size of the
window-B (1.80 m  1.20 m).
Dabe and Dongre 137

Figure 7. Graphical presentation of useful daylight illuminance levels after dynamic simulation at each orientation with
different carpet area to window ratio.

Results Table 2. Results of the evaluation of parameters with

The result obtained from the dynamic simulation pro- 0.60 m externally projected horizontal shading device.
cess shows that the values of UDI and DA vary by
Carpet area UDI DA
CAWR with respect to the orientation of building as
Orientation to window (100–2000 lx) (150 lx)
mentioned in Table 2. of building ratio (%) (%) (%)

North 9.01 78.91 65.33

Comparative analysis of UDI and CAWR 10.5 74.49 70.46
The comparative analysis of UDI and CAWR at each 12 84.72 74.92
orientation was conducted with the data derived from 13.5 86.34 77.89
the dynamic simulation process. East 9.01 84.4 72.30
The graph of comparative analysis of UDI and 10.5 87.04 77.66
CAWR at each orientations of residential quarter build- 12 88.37 81.32
ing (Fig. 8), shows that, when the building is facing the
13.5 90.12 84.32
East direction, the UDI between the ranges of 100 and
South 9.01 70.66 54.34
2000 lx was observed to be 90.12% time of the year at
work plane to achieve a CAWR of 13.5% to the living 10.5 74.49 59.78
dining room. Similarly, when the building is facing the 12 78.05 64.42
North direction, the UDI (100–2000 lx) was 86.34% and 13.5 80.46 68.49
when facing the West direction the UDI (100–2000 lx) West 9.01 72.25 58.57
was 81.54% to achieve a CAWR of 13.5% CAWR to 10.5 75.04 64.22
the living dining room. For South facing, the UDI (100– 12 77.08 67.78
2000 lx) was 82.27% to achieve a CAWR of 10.5% 13.5 80.54 70.82
CAWR to the living dining room. So when the residen-
tial quarters building is facing the North, East and West
directions, the size of windows as per CAWR window-A Comparative analysis of daylight
was 2.25 m  1.20 m. With regards to the South facing,
autonomy and CAWR
the size of window-A was 1.35 m  1.20 m; the size of
window-B was constant (1.80 m  1.20 m) for all Daylight autonomy is a percentage of occupied hours/
directions. year when the illuminance level of interior space met
138 Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)

(a) PERCENTAGE OF UDI<100 LUX

PERCENTAGE OF UDI=100-2000 LUX
(b) PERCENTAGE OF UDI<100 LUX
PERCENTAGE OF UDI=100-2000 LUX
PERCENTAGE OF UDI>2000 LUX PERCENTAGE OF UDI>2000 LUX
USEFUL DAYLIGHT LUMINANCE

USEFUL DAYLIGHT LUMINANCE

100 100
84.72 86.34 87.04 88.37 90.12
90 78.91 90 84.4
80 74.49 80
70 70
60 60
IN %

IN%
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
9 10.5 12 13.5 9 10.5 12 13.5
CARPET AREA TO WINDOW RATIO IN % CARPET AREA TO WINDOW RATIO IN %
(c) PERCENTAGE OF UDI<100 LUX (d)
PERCENTAGE OF UDI=100-2000 LUX
PERCENTAGE OF UDI>2000 LUX
90
UDEFUL DAYLIGHT LUMINANCE

PERCENTAGE OF UDI<100 LUX

USEFUL DAYLIGHT LUMINANCE

82.27 78.05 80.46 PERCENTAGE OF UDI=100-2000 LUX
PERCENTAGE OF UDI>2000 LUX
80 70.66 90 80.54
75.04 77.08
70 80 72.25
60 70
50 60
IN %

IN %
50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0 9 10.5 12 13.5
9 10.5 12 13.5
CARPET AREA TO WINDOW RATIO IN %
CARPET AREA TO WINDOW RATIO IN %

Figure 8. Comparative analysis of useful daylight illuminance and carpet area to window ratio (a) for North direction, (b)
for East direction, (c) for South direction and (d) for West direction.

Further, 50% DA was highlighted for different direc-

Figure 9. Daylight autonomy (DA150
living dining room.
the threshold by daylight alone. This definition of day-
light autonomy makes it a ‘climate-based’ daylight met-
rics because it depends on multiple sky conditions
appearing at a selected site throughout the year.
Figure 9 shows a set of daylight autonomy
(DA150lux) contour lines in the living dining room
assuming daily occupancy from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
tions, meaning that 50% of the occupied time daylight
levels at a point are above the target illuminance. A
threshold illuminance of 150 lx was considered for
living dining room for this research during the activities
timing and a threshold DA of 50% in short DA150
lux(50%) values, these are graphically represented for
general understanding (Figure 10).
From the analysis of daylight autonomy at 150 lx,
the level of the threshold of 50% was observed to vary,
varying according to the orientation of building (i.e. N,
S, E, and W) (Figure 10). On all the four experimental
setups, the effect of the rotation of the residential quar-
ters building indicates that DA150 lux was enhanced with
an increase in CAWR (window-A size) and reached a
maximum, when the residential quarters building was
facing the East direction (Table 2). However, when the
lux) contours for the residential quarters building was facing North, South,
and West directions, DA150 lux was observed least. With
13.5% CAWR (window-A size 2.25 m  1.20 m
and window-B size 1.80 m  1.20 m), the maximum
DA 150 lux was achieved at the East direction.
Thermal comfort analysis of living dining
room with respect to CAWR
The thermal comfort analysis was conducted by taking
the combination of different sizes of window-A
Dabe and Dongre
Existing condition
window-A- 0.90m x 1.20m
(9.01% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)
Experimental condition-2
window-A- 1.80m x 1.20m
(12% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)
N-NORTH, E-EAST, S-SOUTH, W-WEST
Figure 10. Daylight autonomy ((DA) 150 lx (50%) for different orientation of the residential quarters building with vari-
ation in size of window-A.
(0.90 m  1.20 m, 1.35 m  1.20 m, 1.80 m  1.20 m, and
2.25 m  1.20 m) with the constant size of window-B
(1.80 m  1.20 m) i.e. 9.01% CAWR, 10.5% CAWR,
12% CAWR and 13.5% CAWR.
From the graph of thermal analysis (Figure 11),
when the CAWR of the living dining room was
observed to be 9.01%, the total comfort hours of
6222 h/year were obtained between the temperature
ranges of 18 C to 32 C (comfort band). Similarly,
when the CAWR was 10.5%, the total comfort hours
were 6867 h/year, when CAWR was 12% the total com-
fort period was 6878 h/year, and when the CAWR was
13.50% the total comfort period was 6783 h/year.
Throughout the year, the maximum total thermal com-
fort hours were obtained by providing 12% CAWR
(window-A: 1.80 m  1.20 m and window-B:
1.80 m  1.20 m) to the living dining room. There was
a minor change in the values of total thermal comfort
139
Experimental condition-1
window-A- 1.35m x 1.20m
(10.5% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)
Experimental condition-3
window-A- 2.25m x 1.20m
(13.5% Carpet Area to Window Ratio)
hours/year, which is negligible, according to the orien-
tation of building (four cardinal directions).
Discussion
In the selected case, the occupants use the living dining
room of the dwelling unit for the maximum time of the
day; hence, the performance analysis of such areas
becomes almost necessary. The analysis reveals the
limit of one-tenth carpet area to window opening as
per DCR-20007 as a generalized case for all orienta-
tions. As shown in Figure 11, the daylight and thermal
comfort requirements did not reach the optimum levels.
The experiments done with different CAWR (9.01%,
10.5%, 12% and 13.5%) of the living dining room for
four cardinal directions (shown in Figure 11) show that
the maximum percentage of UDI (100-2000 lx) (i.e.
daylight level) at three orientations (North, East and
140
CAWR-9.01%
1800
1600
ANNUAL HOURS/YEAR
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 11. Graph of thermal analysis on the basis of carpet area to window ratio.
West) can be achieved by just providing 13.5% CAWR.
However, in the case of South orientation, the max-
imum percentage of UDI (100–2000 lx) can be achieved
by providing 10.5% CAWR to the living dining room
of residential building (Figure 8). Similarly, the max-
imum percentage of DA150lux (50%) can be achieved by
providing 13.5% CAWR to the living dining room
(Figure 10).
Whereas the maximum thermal comfort hours per
year can be achieved by providing 12% CAWR to
the living dining room. By providing the 12% CAWR
to the living dining room, the percentage of UDI
(100–2000 lx) and DA150lux (50%) is favourable
(Table 2). Hence, 12% CAWR is the optimum percent-
age of CAWR to achieve daylight level and thermal
comfort at each orientation in the living dining room.
The experiments performed considering only
window-B (balcony window) for all four orientations
precisely show that the balcony projection helps in
reducing the glare. However, the daylight and thermal
comfort have a little impact in the range of 3–16 % of
UDI (100–2000 lx) due to the change of orientation
(Table 1) (Figure 5).
Conclusions
The selected case of ‘type designs’ of the Nagpur region
is a representative example of residential buildings lying
in a hot and dry climatic zone to evaluate the perform-
ance of daylight levels and thermal comfort of critical
liveable areas. Field measurements and simulation
models were used in the experiments. This research per-
tains to study of window sizes for daylight provisions
Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)
CAWR-10.5% CAWR-12% CAWR-13.5%
TEMPERATURE °C
and its impact on the thermal comfort of occupants in
residential buildings with respect to different orienta-
tion. The conclusions are as follows:
1. As CAWR is enhanced, there is an enhancement in
the daylight autonomy and UDI. However, thermal
comfort at times could act as a limiting factor; a
trade-off between both daylight and thermal comfort
parameters is required for optimum results.
2. The CAWR with respect to different orientations
was calculated in this research for the living dining
room of residential building being situated in the hot
and dry climatic zone which could be globally
applicable with similar carpet area to achieve opti-
mum daylight level.
3. The sizes of windows are directly correlated with
daylight levels and thermal comfort of liveable
areas of the dwelling unit of residential buildings.
4. The external wall with the balcony and its open-
ings are helpful to control the direct penetration of
daylight, thus preventing glare problem. It could
contribute towards reducing the higher UDI and
at the same time assists in providing thermal
comfort.
5. In contrast to existing DCR, the present research has
indicated that the CAWR for each orientation of
residential buildings should be different. In the
‘type designs’ of Asian context, and the Indian sub-
continent in specific, the same plan of dwelling
unit with the same CAWR cannot be used for
different orientation. DCRs need to specify the
CAWR according to the orientation of residential
buildings.
Dabe and Dongre
The research presents the new contribution as a
methodology to the architects/designer during the plan-
ning of residential buildings, to analyse the impact of
the CAWR and orientation of the residential building
on the performance of daylight levels and thermal com-
fort of liveable areas of dwelling units. Further research
work may include the impact of construction material,
colour texture of interior spaces and glazing material of
window, on the performance of daylight and thermal
comfort of liveable areas of the dwelling unit of resi-
dential buildings.
Authors’ contribution
Both the authors have equally contributed, and the work is
original and not published elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Visvesvaraya National
Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India and its facilities. This
research work is the outcome of a full-time PhD programme of
the Department of Architecture and Planning, Visvesvaraya
National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Fairuz S, Fadzil S and Sia S. Sunlight control and daylight distri-
bution analysis : the Komtar, case study. Buil Environ 2004; 39:
713–717.
2. Balocco C and Frangioni E. Natural lighting in the hall of two
hundred. A proposal for exhibition of its ancient tapestries.
J Cultural Heritage 2010; 11: 113–118.
3. Kim C and Chung S. Daylighting simulation as an architectural
design process in museums installed with toplights. Build Environ
2011; 46: 210–222.
4. Alzoubi HH and Al-zoubi AH. Assessment of building façade
performance in terms of daylighting and the associated energy
consumption in architectural spaces : vertical and horizontal shad-
ing devices for southern exposure facades. Energy Convers Manage
2010; 51: 1592–1599.
5. Singhal N, Tathagat T and Rawal PR. Analysis of daylighting
devices for typical office buildings of New Delhi, India. In:
Proceedings of the 11th international IBPSA conference,
Glasgow, Scotland, July 27–30 2009; pp.1685-1692.
6. Afroz R, Rahman M, Islam KT and Ahmed M. Daylight perform-
ance in South facing rooms of residential apartments in respect of
current Building Code (2008): relation between obstruction dis-
tance and opening size. Eur Scientific J 2014; 10(6): 456–469.
141
7. Nagpur Muncipal Corporation. Act TP. Development Control
Regulations – 2000 for Nagpur city. Part 1 Administration.
Nagpur, India: Nag Vidharbha Builders Association, 2000.
8. Dewangan PL and Surpam RV. By Regional Meteorological
Centre Airport, Nagpur (Maharastra State). India
Meteorological Department. Annual report on climate of
Nagpur. Ministry of Earth Science Government of India, New
Delhi, 2011.
9. Issa RR, Hinze J, Olbina SJ and Vangimalla PR. Validation of
Autodesk Ecotect TM accuracy for thermal and daylighting simu-
lations. In: Proceedings of the 2011 winter simulation conference,
Phoenix, AZ, December 11–14 2011; pp.3388-3399.
10. Reinhart C and Breton PF. Experimental Validation of
AutodeskÕ 3ds MaxÕ Design 2009’ and Daysim3.0. LEUKOS
2009; 6: 7-35.
11. Cutler B, Sheng Y, Martin S, Glaser D and Andersen M.
Interactive selection of optimal fenestration materials for sche-
matic architectural daylighting design. Automat Construct 2008;
17(7): 809–823.
12. Lenoir A, Cory S, Donn M and Garde F. Optimisation method-
ology for the design of solar shading for thermal and visual com-
fort in tropical climates.In: Proceedings of BS2013: 13th
conference of International Building Performance Simulation
Association, Chambéry, France, August 26–28 2013; pp.3086-
3095.
13. Mardaljevic J. The BRE-IDMP dataset: a new benchmark for the
validation of illuminance prediction techniques. Ligh Res Technol
2001; 33(2): 117–134.
14. Reinhart C and Fitz A. A findings from a survey on the current
use of daylight simulations in building design. Energy Build 2006;
38(7): 824–835.
15. Reinhart FC, Mardaljevic J and Rogers Z. Dynamic daylight
performance metrics for sustainable building design. LEUKOS
2013; 3(1): 7–31.
16. Kota S and Haberl JS. Historical survey of daylighting calcula-
tions methods and their use in energy performance simulations.
In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference for enhanced
building operations, Austin, TX, November 17–19 2009; pp.1-9.
17. Garcia-HansenV, Kennedy R, Sanders P and Varendorff A.
Daylighting performance of subtropical multi-residential towers
simulations tools for design decisions. In: Proceedings of the 28th
conference, opportunities, limits & needs towards an environmen-
tally responsible architecture, Lima, Perú, November 7–9 2012,
pp.1–7.
18. Nabil A and Mardaljevic J. Useful daylight illuminance : a new
paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings. Light Res Technol
2016; 37(1): 1–27.
19. Mardaljevic J. Climate-based daylight analysis for residential
buildings. impact of various window configurations,external
obstructions, orientations and location on Useful Daylight
Illuminance. The Gateway, Leicester: De Montfort University,
2008, pp.1–91.
20. Leandra M, Matterson G, Ferrà JO, Salom J and Higuera J.
Dynamic daylight simulation and visual comfort survey in med-
iterranean climate. Case study in office building. In: Proceedings
of BS2013: 13th conference of International Building Performance
Simulation Association, Chambéry, France, August 26–28 2013;
pp.3010-3018.
21. Indraganti M. Adaptive use of natural ventilation for thermal
comfort in Indian apartments. Build Environ 2010; 45(6):
1490–1507.
142
22. Rupp RF, Vasquez NG and Lamberts R. A review of human
thermal comfort in the built environment. Energy Build 2015;
105: 178–205.
23. SP:7-2005. National Building Code of India 2005 (Group 1 to 5).
New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2005.
24. SP: 41-1987. Handbook on functional requirements of buildings
(other than industrial buildings) (part 1–4). New Delhi, India:
Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987.
Indoor and Built Environment 27(1)
25. Kumar P. Evaluation of thermal comfort of naturally ventilated
university students’ accommodation based on adaptive thermal
comfort model and occupant survey in composite climate. Int J
Architect Eng Construct 2014; 3: 298–316.
26. Abudallah AH, Bakar SKA and Rahman IA. Simulation of
office’s operative temperature using Ecotect model. Int J
Construct Technol Manage Simul 2013; 1: 33–37.