TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.
Quality Assessment of the University Classroom
Lighting - A Case Study
Ivana Tureková 1, Danka Lukáčová 1, Gabriel Bánesz 1
1
Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Education, Department of Techniques and
Information Technologies, Dražovská 4, Post code: 949 74, Nitra, Slovakia
Abstract - The purpose of this study is to prove that
the quality of the school environment significantly
influences students’ academic performance. The
factors affecting the work environment are accurate
lighting which plays an important role in visual tasks,
resulting in either visual comfort or visual fatigue. This
study presents the results of lighting objectification of a
selected university classroom. Specifically, it focuses on
detection of the daylight factor, which is a significant
criterion for the amount of daylight in the classroom.
Its value is a relative magnitude and depends on the
correct spatial layout of the classroom. The results of
the study indicate the insufficient values of this
indicator. At the end, with a software, the solution for
replacing the artificial lighting in the classroom is
designed, which is a possible alternative for improving
the visual comfort of the classroom.
Keywords – daylighting assessment, visual comfort,
daylight illumination coefficient, DIALux.
1. Introduction
Daylight plays an essential and irreplaceable role
in human life. It affects one’s productivity, comfort,
mood and overall health. Its effects apply in mental,
as well as physical terms. The controlling body of
humans is directly stimulated and regulated by
daylight [1, 2]. Suitable illumination is vital in
DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21
https://dx.doi.org/10.18421/TEM74-21
Corresponding author: Ivana Tureková,
Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of
Education, Nitra, Slovakia
Email: iturekova@ukf.sk
Received: 21 June 2018.
Accepted: 10 October 2018.
Published: 26 November 2018.
© 2018 Ivana Tureková, Danka Lukáčová,
Gabriel Bánesz; published by UIKTEN. This work is
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
The article is published with Open Access at
www.temjournal.com
TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018.
children’s education, hence the strict regulations
governing the natural and artificial lighting in child
care and educational facilities. The majority of
children and students spend most of the day in
enclosed spaces where the sun penetrates in limited
quantities only. Most problematic is the winter time,
when the lack of light is most critical, although
a number of buildings struggle with proper amount of
daylight throughout the whole year. The main
struggle of educational buildings in Slovakia
nowadays is inappropriate thermal insulation,
inadequate microclimatic conditions in the
classrooms, absence of mechanical ventilation
systems or insufficient natural daylight [3]. Besides
lifestyle, genetic dispositions and healthcare quality
level, environmental conditions are amongst the
basic parameters that affect human health. The
impact of environmental factors (15 – 20 %) is the
second most important element influencing public
health [4]. This comes immediately after the
population lifestyle impact (50 %).
Daylighting is considered a resource of primary
importance in schools: it’s a key factor for
occupants’ health and well-being, enhancing the
indoor environmental quality and reducing the
energy consumption for electric lighting [5]. The
impact of natural light on learning has physiological,
psychological and behavioural influences on school
children as well as workers [6].
Humans are affected both physically and
psychologically by light [7]. As shown in Table 1.
there is a multitude of physiological and
psychological benefits resulting from building
daylighting [8].
Table 1. Natural light and human body
Natural light and human body
Physically Psychologically
Improve Decrease Improve Decrease
Vitamin D Cancer Mood Depression
Possibility
Visual Abnormal Mental Stress
System Bone Performance
Formation
Circadian Alertness Sadness
Rhythms
Sleep Brain Violent
Quality activity Behavior
829
 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.
There is no doubt that people find daylight more
pleasant than electric lighting as their primary source
of light. Foreign studies confirm [9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14], that a high percentage of respondents surveyed
prefer working in daylight. Similarly, people prefer
to sit at tables located next to windows as opposed to
further in the room, especially when these windows
have access to direct sunlight [15, 16, 17, 18].
Thanks to light we are able to receive visual
information about the environment that we are
surrounded by 75 % to 90 % of these are received
through eyesight. The mental state in which the
visual system fulfils its function optimally is called
visual comfort. Suitable lighting is an essential
element here. Visual comfort is directly affected by
the lighting source, type and layout of the lights,
evenness, and level of luminance and brightness
distribution in space [14].
In terms of evaluation of work conditions, the
geometrical parameters of the space and surface
features, including colour, matter as well as whether
or not there is glare [19]. Lighting should be
sufficient and even, without excessive brightness or
contrast. If there is proper lighting distribution,
objects appear to be plastic. In suitable lighting
conditions one has a feeling of clear vision even after
a longer time. The opposite of visual comfort is
visual fatigue. This is a complex state due to
shortcomings in lighting. Symptoms include burning
eyes, headaches and conjunctivitis [20].
Even when it’s cloudy the lighting changes rapidly
over the course of the day. This is done to a greater
extent than we are able to realize as a result of the
adaptive ability of our vision (Figure 1.).
Figure 1. Changes in daylight illumination throughout a
cloudy day and the perception of these changes
The variability of daylight is an advantage to us, as
in a physiologically acceptable course it forces our
vision to adapt [21]. However, in terms of lighting
evaluation, the instability of daylight is a problem
most relevant in quality assessment (evenness,
830
brightness distribution throughout our vision field,
exclusion of silhouette effect or glare). Illumination
quality can be impaired at any state of sky, however,
mainly at direct sunlight. For instance, evenness
evaluation according to STN 73 0580-1/Z2 brings
inaccuracies because it is based on daylight factor
values set for evenly cloudy sky [22]. Therefore, at
this time there is no exact evaluation method, due to
instable daylight.
The daylight factor D (%) is determined by the
daylight rate coefficient in conditions of a cloudy
winter day according to formula [23]:
(1)
Where E (lx) represents illumination at the
observed location on a levelling plain and Eh (lx)
represents external illumination of the horizontal
unshaded plain (Figure 2.).
The daylight rate coefficient D (%) is a relative
value and therefore, unlike luminance E (lx), its
value is not so much subject to changes in the
brightness of the cloudy sky [19]. Relative simplicity
of the winter-cloudy model and its independency of
sun position or point of the compass enables us to
estimate D (%) by calculation and mathematical and
graphic methods [24] as well and by using a software
or measurements [25].
Figure 2. Illumination rates for a horizontal unshaded
plain with a cloudy sky in course of a day and a year
2. Method
The aim of our study was to determine the values
of illumination, the daylight illumination coefficient
and the expression of similarity or inaccuracy of the
results achieved with the limit values in the
representative classroom. Using the DIALux model a
new lighting system was designed [26].
For our experiment we selected a small university
classroom located in the building of the Faculty of
Education at Constantine the Philosopher University.
The room is situated on the ground floor and lectures
TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018
 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.

take place here frequently. It holds 24 students and 1
teacher. 15 meters far from the building there is
another building which could have an impact on the
daylight intensity in the measured classroom (Figure
3.). The foreside of the building where the classroom
is located is heat cladded and the whole building has
plastic windows.
Located 15 meters from the researched classroom,
there is another building which significantly affects
the daylight intensity in the school.
Particular measurement was performed by a light
meter Testo 545 (Figure 4.). It was extremely
accurate measurement since the permissible
deviation defined by producer was ±2% (according
to DIN 5032, part 6).

Figure 4. Apparatus Testo 545 that was used for lighting

measurement
The lighting measurements were executed in
March 8.00 - 15.00 hour. This included 8
measurements of sunlight, 8 measurements of
compound lighting and 3 measurements of artificial
lighting.
The aim of objectification was to detect the current
state of a workplace. Illumination was measured
within the net of 20 selected control points [27].
Height of the datum plane was 0.85 m above the
floor, distances between measuring points were 1 m
and the outer points of the net were less than 1.5 m
from the wall.
Other control points were distributed in regular
distances so that they can adequately monitor the
whole measured place, changes in lighting and also
Figure 3. A classroom where all measurements were done places with the highest and lowest intensity of
- position of windows and the nearby building, lighting. External conditions were measured by
arrangement of furniture
anemometer (psychrometer) AN 340.
The room orientation is north-west. Table 2. shows
description data of the space. 3. Results
Table 2. Characteristics of sunlight and artificial lighting Table 3. shows the results of external conditions in
system which the measurements took place.
Description of the office place
Walls Ceiling Floor Table 3. External conditions in measurements
colour white colour white colour light
gray Temperature Humidity Wet Condensation
material plaster material plaster material PVC (°C) (%) thermometer point
state of clean state of clean state of clean temperature (°C)
surface surface surface (°C)
23.6 32.8 13.9 6.2
Description of lighting system
Natural lighting 2 windows 800 x 1100 mm
system: Average daylight values are presented in Figure 5.
4 pieces of lamps number of light At 11 o’clock the daylight amounted to a maximum
sources in lamps: 4 value measured (507,4 lx). In the morning and in the
pieces
Artificial lighting Type of light TESLA, PHILIPS
afternoon the values were considerably lower (100 –
system: sources: TL-D 200 lx).
Power input: 36 W
Position of light regular, symmetric
sources:

TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018. 831

 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.

902.63

835.25

476.25
790.38 312.25
466.63
1000.00 559.57
785.25 297.63 170.63
439.71
800.00 187.38
438.50 302.29
210.63
600.00 443.13 290.88
193.63
400.00 243.13
176.875
200.00

0.00
Figure 5. Average daylight values in the classroom from 8 am to 3 pm

Table 4. presents daylight values, measurement At the same time, measurement of combined light
uncertainty and illumination requirements by STN was carried out by turning on every light source in
EN 12464-1 : Light and Illumination. the classroom in the same measuring points. We have
determined the average illumination of the classroom
Table 4. Measurement results and Illumination (Ē) based on the arithmetic mean of the measured
Requirements. values of the overall scaled horizontal illumination in
Ē U Ē–U Ē+U Illumination the whole of the measured space or combined
requirements by illumination on the comparison plain (Figure 6.).
(lx) (%) (lx) (lx) STN EN 12464-1 The lowest values were on average about 1000 lx,
426.13 34.09 392.04 460.22 500 lx which meets the illumination requirements
(minimum of 500 lx) for educational spaces [28].

1557.38

1488.63 1243.50
1277.63 1046.50
1184.38
1214.25 781.50
1413.13 1172.75 933.63
1044.13
1600.00 1563.63 1147.88 905.63
1400.00 1189.38 978.25
882.38
1200.00
958.25
1000.00 831.38
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00

Figure 6. Average combined illumination values in the course of a day in the classroom.

832 TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018

 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.

Table 5. presents the values of combined Table 6. summarizes the values of 20 measuring
illumination, measurement uncertainty and points of average daylight values, external
illumination requirements by STN [28]. illumination at cloudy sky in winter (there was a set
of 20 measuring points constructed, similar to the
Table 5. Combined Illumination Values. one in the classroom) and artificial lighting in the
Ē U Ē–U Ē+U Illumination classroom by using only the existing lighting sources.
(lx) (%) (lx) (lx)
requirements by The last column contains the daylight illumination
STN EN 12464-1 coefficient D (%) calculated by using the formula
1140.71 91.26 1049.45 1231.97 500 lx
(1).

Table 6. Results of measuring daylight and artificial light, calculation of daylight illumination coefficient

Measuring Average Average values of Artificial Average Daylight

point daylight values combined lighting lighting values daylight values illumination
(classroom) outside coefficient
Ē (lx) Ē (lx) Ēartificial (lx) Ēoutside (lx) D (%)
1. 785.25 1563.63 840.15 12520 6.3
2. 443.13 1189.38 820.35 14310 3.1
3. 243.13 958.25 894.71 14170 1.7
4. 176.88 831.38 829.53 13880 1.3
5. 790.38 1413.13 1003.23 14210 5.6
6. 428.50 1147.88 1033.44 13250 3.2
7. 290.88 978.25 1057.53 13780 2.1
8. 193.63 882.38 999.92 14010 1.4
9. 559.57 1214.25 825.74 13360 4.2
10. 438.71 1172.75 894.58 13450 3.3
11. 302.29 1044.13 943.16 13780 2.2
12. 210.63 905.63 873.06 13970 1.5
13. 835.25 1488.63 751.22 12890 6.4
14. 466.63 1277.63 720.81 13580 3.4
15. 297.63 1184.38 852.14 13560 2.2
16. 187.38 933.63 753.26 12790 1.4
17. 902.63 1557.38 790.78 14120 6.4
18. 476.25 1243.50 767.83 13480 3.5
19. 312.25 1046.50 786.21 12780 2.4
20. 170.63 781.50 730.34 13010 1.3
Average
425.58 1040.71 858.40 13354 3.2
value

Table 7. present artificial daylight values, Table 7. Artificial daylight values and illumination
measuring uncertainty, and illumination requirements requirements
by STN EN 12464-1: Light and Illumination.
Ē U Ē–U Ē+U Illumination
Daylight illumination coefficient D (%) as one of requirements by
the criteria of daylight amount has to meet the (lx) (%) (lx) (lx) STN EN 12464-1
following requirements: 857.95 68.64 789.31 926.59 500 lx
Inside the premises or in their functionally
specialized parts where employees spend a lot of The values of average illumination we obtained by
time the minimum values of the daylight illumination the measurements and calculations were rectified by
coefficient must be: measurement uncertainties set against the
illumination requirements. Technical solutions for
a) At side illumination Dmin = 1,5 % improving lighting systems are relevant while project
b) At top and combined illumination Dmin = 1, 5 processing and reconstruction. Various modelling
% and Dm = 3 %, where: Dmin is the minimum programmes offer a range of lighting system
value of the daylight illumination coefficient solutions. Through DIAlux programme a new
on the comparison plain (%);Dm – the average lighting system was drafted using LED lights, while,
value of the daylight illumination coefficient preserving the arrangement of the existing lighting
on the comparison plain (%). system (Figures 7., 8.).

TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018. 833

 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.

The lights were selected from the options in the

programme - 12 pcs of PHILIPS CR200B 2xTL5-
54W HFP GT_452 (luminous flux 5852 lm; Lamp
power: 118.0 W).

Figure 9. Rendering of place by false colours

Figure 7. Modelling room arrangement. 4. Discussion

The results obtained can be summarized within the

the following conclusions:

a) The lighting in the selected classroom cannot be

sufficiently illuminated by daylight alone as
daylight cannot provide the required lighting
intensity.
b) Combined lighting values as well as artificial
lighting values meet the required minimum.
Hence, with lighting units turned on, the required
limit values are met.
c) The obtained values of artificial lighting are
sufficient, as none of the values dropped below
500 lx.
d) The amount of daylight measured by the daylight
illumination coefficient appears to be sufficient
Figure 8. 3D model of the classroom and the proposed
lighting.
because 3 of the values have fallen below 1, 5.
This means that the space is not provided with
sufficient light for mental and physiological
influences as well as for contact with the outside
environment. If, for some reason, lighting is
higher than daylight, the lighting of daylight
must be supported by artificial lighting, which is
not considered as combined lighting.
e) Optimal working temperature in the room met
the required parameters for temperature –
humidity microclimate for cooler seasons (from
18 °C to 26 °C).
f) Required relative air humidity in the classroom
in cooler seasons should amount to 30 % -70 %.
Our values are between 30,3 % to 35,9 % which
means the humidity requirements have been met
as well.

834 TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018

 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.
It is necessary to mind the ceiling lighting sources
besides external daylight, considering that the values
of daylight alone without using the support of any
artificial light did not meet the required lighting
intensity and required value of daylight illumination
coefficient. Especially in winter months, daylight
alone is not sufficient and needs to be supported by
artificial lighting sources in order to prevent visual
fatigue and other health issues.
The natural light penetration into the classroom
must be ensured by regularly cleaning the covers of
the lighting systems and window openings,
maintaining clean wall surface, ceiling and floor.
Designers, teachers and all people who are
involved with educational environments must
consider the lighting and controlling it. Physical area
in designing is very important and lighting is one of
the most important features in physical area in all
environments especially in educational and working
environments [29]. Despite the fact that good lighting
makes workspace more efficient, the lighting system
is always regulated by the human factor. Modern
technologies already offer lighting based on natural
daylight. For example, the light is automatically
adjusted by the control system. The sensor inside
measures the daylight amount and maintains the
lighting level for a given time, depending on daylight
availability which guarantees energy savings.
Different scenarios (with varying degrees of
chromaticity and light intensity ratios) are presented
in the control system [1].
5. Conclusions
Good lighting is a key to creating successful living,
working and learning environment, and is necessary
to ensure safety, as well as, well-being, health and
quality of life. By objectivizing the lighting, we
pointed out the deficiencies in the internal
environment of the university classroom. A major
shortcoming in the design of the classroom is due to
another building being immediately adjacent to the
researched building. This causes shadowing and
insufficient daylight flow into the room even though
the daylight coefficient met the required values. At
the moment, only alternative solutions can be taken,
which can bring not only light comfort but also
energy savings. However, other parameters such as
humidity, air flow, temperature, noise or chemical
factors are very closely related to the building's
suitability. Therefore, improving the lighting is
important, however, at the same time, maintaining
the classroom with both appropriate air conditioning
and regeneration systems is necessary, so that the
inner environment well-being, impacts the
performance of the student and the teacher positively,
and does not result in discontent.
TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018.
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the Grant Agency
Ministry of Education SR KEGA - project no.
014UKF-4/2016.
References
[1]. Nevrklová, J., (2017). Světlo pro naši budoucnost.
Světlo, 6 (12).
[2]. Kotus, M., Bujna, M., (2015). Bezpečnosť a ochrana
zdravia pri práci. Nitra: SPU, 2015. 148 p.
[3]. Šolc, M., Kliment, J., Divoká, A. & Forrai, F.,
(2017). Faktory ovplyvňujúce kvalitu a bezpečnosť
pracovného prostredia doktoranda pri realizovaní
experimentov. In. Doktorandské štúdium - súčasný
stav a perspektívy. Prešov : pp. 82-97.
[4]. Lalonde, M., (1974). A new perspective on the health
of Canadians. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and
Services Canada. Retrieved from Public Health
Agency of Canada website: http://www.phac-
aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/perspect-eng.pdf
[5]. Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (1998). Lighting
quality and energy-efficiency effects on task
performance, mood, health, satisfaction, and
comfort. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering
Society, 27(1), 107-129.
[6]. Bellia, L., Bisegna, F., & Spada, G., (2011). Lighting
in indoor environments: Visual and non-visual effects
of light sources with different spectral power
distributions. Building and Environment, 46(10),
1984-1992.
[7]. Boubekri, M., (2008). Daylighting, Architecture and
Health, NY: Architectural Press, 143 p.
[8]. Shishegar, N., & Boubekri, M. (2016, April). Natural
light and productivity: Analyzing the impacts of
daylighting on students’ and workers’ health and
alertness. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on “Health, Biological and Life
Science”(HBLS-16), Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 18-19).
[9]. Wells, B. W. P. (1965). Subjective responses to the
lighting installation in a modern office building and
their design implications. Building Science, 1(1), 57-
68.
[10]. Manning, P., (1967). Windows, environment and
people, Interbuild/ Arena, 20-25 (Oct. 1967).
[11]. Markus, T.A., (1967). The significance of sunshine
and view for office workers, in Sunlight in buildings,
Proc. CIE conference, Rotterdam, 59-93.
[12]. Cuttle, C. (1983, June). People and windows in
workplaces. In Proceedings of the people and
physical environment research conference,
Wellington, New Zealand (pp. 203-212).
[13]. Heerwagen, J. H., & Heerwagen, D. R. (1986).
Lighting and psychological comfort. Lighting Design
and Application, 16(4), 47-51.
[14]. Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (1998). Lighting
quality and energy-efficiency effects on task
performance, mood, health, satisfaction, and
comfort. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering
Society, 27(1), 107-129.
835
 TEM Journal. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 829-836, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM74-21, November 2018.

[15]. Aldworth and Bridgers, D., (1971). Desing variety in [22]. STN 73 0580-1/Z2 .(2007). Daylighting in buildings.
lighting. Lighting research and Technology, 3, 8-23. [23]. Regulation MZ SR n. 541/2007 Z. z. about details
[16]. Collins, B., (1990). The Psychological Aspects of and requirements for lighting during work.
Lighting: A Review of the Work of CIE TC3.16. [24]. Vychytil, J., (2015). Stavební světelná technika.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards ČVUT Praha 2015,158 p.
and Technology. [25]. Buday, F., (2012). Požiadavky na osvetlenie pri
[17]. Ludlow, A. M. (1976). The functions of windows in práci.
buildings. Lighting Research & Technology, 8(2), http://www.aos.sk/spe/seminare/spe_2012/08_buday_
57-68. bp2012.pdf
[18]. Veicht, J. A., (1993). End user knowlage, beliefs, and [26]. DIALux v 4.6, DIAL GmbH, (2008). from
preferences for lighting. Journal of Interior design, http://urlm.co/www.dial.de
19, 15-16. [27]. STN EN 12464-1 .(2012). Light and
[19]. Tureková, I., Lukáčová, D. & Bánesz, G., (2017). lighting.Lighting of work places. Part 1:Indoor work
Monitoring of lighting in a school classroom. In: places.
WOS 2017. Proceedings from 9h International [28]. Stanko, L., (2017). Objektivizácia vnútorného
Conference on the Prevention of Accidents at Work, prostredia vo vysokoškolských učebniach.
Prague, London: Taylor&Francis, 339-344. [Bakalárska práca]. PF UKF 2017. 58 p.
[20]. Moore, T. (1998). Harvesting daylight inside [29]. Knez, I., & Kers, C. (2000). Effects of indoor
buildings. EPRI Journal, 23(4), 18-19. lighting, gender, and age on mood and cognitive
[21]. Kaňka, J. (2016) Požadavky na denní osvětlení performance. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 817-
budov. TZB journal online: http://stavba.tzb- 831.
info.cz/denni-osvetleni-a-osluneni/15093-pozadavky-
na-denni-osvetleni-budov

836 TEM Journal – Volume 7 / Number 4 / 2018