An incorporation of contemporary daylight

assessment methods into architecture and urban

planning of residential areas in Poland

Natalia Sokół, Justyna Martyniuk-Pęczek

WA, Department of Urban Design and Regional Planning
Gdansk University of Technology
Gdańsk, Poland
natalia.sokol@pg.gda.pl

Abstract— This paper presents the preliminary results of the
ongoing research focusing on daylight design methods for the
urban planning of residential areas in Poland. The purpose of
this research is to find out if modern daylight performance
metrics and design methods can be beneficial to the process of
urban residential planning. The paper presents a review of
daylight guidelines derived from historic, Polish building
regulations. A summary of current recommendations and
practice as well as a review of chosen daylight performance
metrics: Useful Daylight Illuminance - UDI, Daylight Autonomy –
DA, Annual Sunlight Exposure – ASE as well as, Spatial Daylight
Autonomy - sDA and Daylight Glare Probability – DGP. The new
daylight recommendations prepared by CEN Technical
Committee 196/W11 are also discussed. Based on this
background, the results of the pilot study taken in 2014 and 2016
demonstrate a huge need for update /modernization of existing
Polish daylight guidelines and approaches. The paper is an
excerpt from a PhD research thesis, which focuses on daylight
design methods that could be applied to Polish building
regulations.
Keywords—daylight; daylight permormance indicators, daylight
metrics; CBDM; daylight factor; residential planning
I. INTRODUCTION
The relationship between urban forms and light is
undeniable. Le Corbusier said that: "architecture is the
masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought
together in light" [1]. Light defines architecture; therefore
every space must reveal its structure and nature through light.
The role of daylight in creating more sustainable architecture
within a contemporary urban environment is growing. Lighting
professionals describe daylight as "the totality of visible
radiation originating from the sky (...) during the hours of
daytime" [2] or sum of sunlight and skylight - so direct,
indirect, reflected and scattered light. The current and historic
definitions may vary but the notion that daylight has to be
evaluated is universal, therefore, a lot of daylight performance
indicators and methods depicting daylight have been suggested
through the years [2]. Popular quantitative daylight
performance metrics include Daylight Factor (DF) [3], outside
view ratings and the avoidance of direct sunlight (Glare Index).
The building sustainability performance rating systems like
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design), in their daylight good practice criteria
suggest daylight performance indicators like D, glare control,
minimized solar heat gain, glazing factor, also dynamic metrics
Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight
Exposure (ASE) as measurements which could help assessing
building energy performance. These criteria are often
interpreted by designers as sets of design guidelines especially
in countries like Poland, where the last daylight national
standard was withdrawn eleven years ago. This paper discusses
an evolution of daylight guidelines in Polish building
recommendations, and challenges for the incorporation of the
chosen contemporary daylight metrics in urban planning of
residential areas.
II. DAYLIGHT IN STANDARDS
A. How daylight was/is depicted in building
recommendations?
First, lighting scientists debate how to describe a nature of
daylight and its performance [4], while architects and urban
planners focus on how to use qualities of daylight to create
better living environment [5]. Through the years sufficient
supply of daylight within interiors was assured in different
ways. Table 1, summarises different approaches towards
daylight presented in Polish building recommendations since
1928 until now [6], [7], [8], [9].
Other influential documents, which were widely
commented among Polish architects and urban planners, which
could have an impact on design of the residential buildings and
a perception of daylight design, are Athens Charter 1933 and
New Athens Charter 2003 [10] Table 2.

978-1-5090-3305-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 TABLE I. POLISH BUILDING REGULATIONS CONCERNING DAYLIGHT FROM 1928 TILL NOW
The summary of historic approaches towards daylight in Polish building recommendations and other influential regulatory documents in context of
residential architecture
Date Type of document
XIX/XX German
Russian
Austrian
Regulations till 1918 [4], Partitions of Poland
1928 Polish Building Regulation 1928
Decree-law of President of the Republic of
Poland from 16 January 1928 on building law and H ≤ 22 m; D (street side)≥ H; D (courtyard) ≥ 1.5 H.
housing estates
(first one since Poland's independence in 1918)
(Dz.U. Nr 23, poz. 202., 1928)
1937 Promulgation of Mister of Interior 28th February
1939 1939 with regard to announcement of uniform
text of Decree-law of President of the Republic
of Poland on building law and housing estates [5] dwelling, to orient residential buildings in NS direction and to position them at 11 or 13 o’clock.
1954 1954 - R-NTP-54 MBMO/5-00001, Technical
designing standard, General buildings, daylight,
general directives of designing (project), Town
Planning and Architecture Committee, Institute of
Town Planning and Architecture Normative [9]
1961 Act Building Law, published on 31st of January
1961 in DZ. U. Nr 7 pos. 46. Decree-law of
Chairman of Committee of Construction, Town
Planning and Architecture, concerning technical
conditions that should be fulfilled by common
buildings, published on 21st of July 1961 in Dz. U. windows orientated N, apartment for ≥4 people with one side daylighting, - necessary to use
Nr 38 pos. 196.
1980 Decree-law of Minister of Administration, Land
Management and Environment, concerning
technical conditions that should be fulfilled by
common buildings, published on 3 July 1980 in
Dz. U. Nr 17 pos. 62.
1994 Act Building Law, published on 7th of July 1994
in Dz. U. Nr 89 poz. 414. Decree-law of Minister
of Spatial Development and Construction,
concerning technical conditions that should be
fulfilled by common buildings and their location,
published on 14 December 1994 in Dz. U. 1995
Nr 10 pos. 46.
2002 The Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure
dated 12 April 2002 on the technical conditions to
be met by buildings and their location Journal of
Laws 2002 No. 75, item. 690;
BPIE [7] a
Dz. U. 2002 Nr 75 poz. 690
Contents and practice
D = Distance
H = Height of the buildings
D≈H
§15: need for sufficient supply of daylight for residential dwellings
§177: 25% of the plot should be left free of buildings
§181-189: Relation of building's height (H) to a distance to neighbouring building (D)
§241: a need for windows with a view in rooms of residential buildings, windows area to floor
area ratio (WFR)1/10
§277: smaller residential buildings with widows- distance from the boundaries of the plot 4 m, 3
meters without windows.
Absence of proper definition of window area. Skylights for staircases are recommended in
residential buildings.
§15 & 177: sufficient supply of daylight for residential dwellings
§176: 25% of the plot should be left free of buildings. The rest similar to regulations from 1928.
In 1937 Tołwiński proposed, in order to introduce a maximum sunlight penetration to the
Also to keep a reasonable minimum distance between the buildings D≥2/3H even with NS
orientation. The NS orientation of the building would give the east and west facades sunlight
over 1.5 hour a day even of 21st of December, however the buildings could not be
overshadowed on the south side by other buildings located closer than 3.5 H.
No changes
§85: Wall or roof of opposite building cannot decrease the light incidence angle more than 27º,
that means D ≥ 2H. If the light incidence angle was decreased more than 27º, it is necessary to
proportionally increase the window area. WFR≥ 1/8 (permanently occupied rooms) WFR≥
1/12 (temporary occupied rooms)
Daylight shaft in residential only is special cases, buildings, apartments daylite only by
double-glazed windows on certain circumstances.
§ 7: D ≥ H D ≥ 3 m (H-height of the building);
WFR≥1:8, ≤1:5 (permanently occupied rooms) ≥1:12 (temporary occupied rooms) (window
area = inside window frame).
It is forbidden to construct apartments for ≥ 3 people with windows oriented N.
§ 13: D ≥ H – for obstructing objects not higher than 55 m, D≥ 55 m – for obstructing objects
higher than 55 m, D - decreased for a half in the down-town infill buildings (H-obstructing
height - is counted from, a lower edge of the lowest windows in obstructed building till the level
of the highest edge of obstructing object).
WFR≥1:8 (permanently occupied rooms in residential buildings) ≥1:12 (temporary occupied
rooms) (window area = inside window frame).
Insolation time ≥ 3 h in equinox days (21/03, 21/09) during 8 – 16 o'clock (permanently
occupied rooms), multi-room apartments – delimit of insolation to at least 1 room, in town
centre buildings - insolation ≥ 1,5 h, one room apartment – no insolation time required; the one-
room apartments are allowed only with N exposition.
§ 12.1: If the provisions of § 13, 60 and 271-273 or separate provisions defining the allowed
distance of some structures of buildings otherwise requires, the buildings on the plot
construction must be placed at a distance from the border to a neighbouring building plot of not
less than:
1) 4 m - in the case of a building facing a wall with window openings and door systems towards
the border,
2), 3 m - in case of a building facing the wall without openings window or door in the direction
of the border.
§ 13: The condition of the daylight provision for rooms designed to accommodate people is
considered to be fulfilled if between the arms of angle of 60 ° (set in the horizontal plane, with
the apex located in the inner face of the wall on the axis of the window of the room obscured)
there is no other object veiled in less than the amount of obscuration (for objects obscuration of
up to 35 m).
§ 57. 1: The connection of premises used to accommodate people should be provided with
daylight, tailored to its purpose, shape and size, subject to the conditions specified in § 13 and
 The summary of historic approaches towards daylight in Polish building recommendations and other influential regulatory documents in context of
residential architecture
Date Type of document
2006 Changes in Legal Documents concerning the
2008 daylight recommendations
2014 Dz. U. Nr 156, poz. 1118 2006
Dz. U. Nr 201, poz. 1238 2008
Dz. U. Nr 228, poz. 1514 2008
Dz.U. Nr 56, poz. 461 2009
Dz. U. poz. 926 2013
2012 Decree-law of Minister of Health from 29 June
Hospitals 2012 Position 739 and from 26 June 2012
concerning detailed requirements for premises
and equipment entity engaged in medical
activities; According to Art. 22 Paragraph 3 of the § 35. 1. In the operating theatres and diagnostic imaging areas only electric lighting should be
Act of 15 April 2011. Dz. U. Nr 112, poz. 654, Nr
149, poz. 887, Nr 174, poz. 1039 and Nr 185, poz. 2. daylight is allowed if it does not cause any diagnostic problems.
1092; Law Act of Republic of Poland Warsaw, 29
June 2012. Position 739
Contents and practice
the general provisions of health and safety.
§ 57. 2: In a room designed to accommodate people of window area ratio, calculated in the light
of the frames, the floor surface should be at least (WFR) 1: 8, while in another room where
daylight is required - at least 1:12.
§ 58. 1: It is allowed to designed rooms to accommodate people with artificial light only if: 1)
The daylight is not necessary or it is not advisable for technological reasons, 2) it is justified by
functional expediency locate the room in the underground facility or part of a building devoid of
daylight.
§ 60: Daylight should be provided at least one room in the apartment for three hours in
the days of the equinoxes (March 21 and 21 September), from 7.00 to 17.00.
§ 60. 1: Premises for the collective presence of children in the nursery, kindergarten and school,
with the exception of chemical laboratory, PE rooms and art rooms, should be given a period of
sunshine at least 3 hours in the days of the equinoxes (March 21 and September 21) hours 8oo-
16oo, while non-residential - in hours 7oo-17oo.
§ 60. 2: The multi bedrooms apartment allowed limiting the requirements referred to in
paragraph. 1 to at least one room. While in the new urban buildings located in centre of cites
there is allowed to limit the time of needed sunshine to 1.5 hours. For a one-bedroom apartment
suntime is not specified.
Text as above, contemporary interpretations:
§ Art.13 of specifies the conditions for distances between buildings in order to guarantee access
to daylight: D ≥ H for obstructing objects no higher than 35m; D ≥ 35 m for obstructing
objects higher than 35m. For downtown infill buildings, the distance (D) can be decreased by
half. Where: H is the obstructing height and is counted from: the lower edge of the lowest
windows in the obstructed building to the level of the highest edge of the obstructing object.
§ 57: In permanently occupied rooms, the ratio window area to the floor area (WFR) should be
at least 1:8, and in any other room, where daylight is required, the ratio should be at least 1:12.
The legislation foresees the exemptions when: 1. The daylight is not necessary or is not
desirable due to applied technology 2. There is a need for functional spaces in the underground
facility or part of a building with no access to daylight.
§ 60: specifies the conditions for exposure to sunlight in regard to room's function: In
permanently occupied rooms, the provision of daylight should be at least for3 hours during
equinox days (21/03 and 21/09) between 7am and 5pm. For multi-family apartments, the limit
of daylight time in at least one room is set at 1.5 hours, while in single room apartments, no
insolation time is required.
Chapter 5 Lighting
§ 33. In the rooms with beds a direct access to daylight should be provided.
§ 34. In these rooms special daylight protection equipment should be installed in a case of
excessive daylight exposure.
applied
a.
Translation of legal terms found in [7 p.76]. Other regulations translation is proposed by the author of this publication.

TABLE II. INFORMATION ABOUT ATHENS CHARTS 1933 AND 2003

Two Main International Documents on Urban Planning of great impotance in Poland
Date
Type of the document Contents and Comments
1933 IV CIAM (Congres Internationaux New postulates: to create hygienic cities - provision of space with greenery, fresh air, daylight and sun Suggested
d'Architecture Moderne) in Athens that sunlight should get to each room at least for 2 hours on 21st of December (§26); To meet the CIAM
in 1933 requirements:
Athens Charter D≥ 3H even with NS orientation
(Fr. Charte d'Athènes) D≥ 4H (courtyard side)
The first residential blocks, made of prefabricated concrete or prefabricated reinforced concrete, designed
according to the demands of the Charter of Athens, emerged in France before World War II. In Poland, the ideas of
Athens Charter may be seen by analyzing the projects multifamily settlements from the 60's and 70's [11], [4].
2003 New Athens Charter New postulates granted a significant role to in the cohesion of the environment shaping the city natural and
(Fr. Nouvelle Charte d’Athenes) solutions which accommodate people’s needs. The emphasis was put on protection of natural resources such as
land, air and water to save energy [10].

Many European national building standards delineate ways average DF, window to floor area ratio (WFR) or number of
to provide the adequate or sufficient daylight for residential or hours of required insolation. The standards are informative and
public dwellings. The requirements are in general based on they are used to provide guidance regarding the best practice.
However they are not intended to be applied in a prescriptive
manner [12]. Other models of daylight guideline for architects
and urban planners are published by different national bodies’
in a form of guidebooks e.g. British Building Research
Establishment (BRE) publication form 2011 Site layout
planning for daylight and sunlight. A guide to good practice
[13] or cited before Lighting Guide 10: Daylighting - A Guide
For Designers: Lighting For The Built Environment published
by British Society of Light and Lighting (SLL) in 2014 [2].
The list of others popular guidebook publications are presented
in Appendix 1.
B. Daylight in light recommedations
The latest Polish building daylight standard PN-71/B-
02380 Natural Interior Daylighting Code of Practice [14],
which described the general conditions of daylight distribution
within interior spaces, Daylight Factor calculations, daylight
coefficients, and DF values for different visual tasks, as well as
glass transmittance and reflectance values, was withdrawn on
24.10.2005 [15].
The legal requirements concerning daylight in other
countries vary. In 2012 a survey was carried out researching
the national regulations regarding daylight in 16 countries [16].
The most widely recognised international standards where
daylight is mentioned are:
• ISO 8995:2002 Lighting of Indoor Work Places- 4.7
Daylight (CIE S 008/E:2001)
• EN 12464-1 Light and Lighting - Lighting of Work
Places - Part 1: Indoor Work Places (daylight is just
mentioned)
• BS 8206-2:2008 Lighting for Buildings. Part 2: Code
of practice for daylighting.
Also related:
• EN 15193: Energy performance of buildings —
Energy requirements for lighting
• ISO 15469:2004 Spatial distribution of daylight – CIE
standard general sky
• DIN 5034-1:2011 Daylight in interiors – Part 1:
General requirements
• CSN 73 0580-1:1987, STN 73 0580-1: 1987
Daylighting in buildings. Part 1: Basic requirements.
Praha: ÚNM
Among the major initiatives for creating new more holistic
and robust international regulations for daylight is Comité
Européen de Normalisation (CEN) Technical Committee of
CEN/TC 169/WG 11. Although, Poland does not take an active
part in this document, consultations concerning the new
standard are widely awaited in Poland. A draft of the new
standard specifies minimum recommendations for achieving, by
means of natural light, ad adequate subjective impression of
lightness indoors and, for providing an adequate view out. It
also gives recommendations for the duration of sunshine
exposure within habitable rooms, minimum daylight provision
(daylight illuminance level of 300 lx is exceeded over 50% and
daylight illuminance level of 100 lx is exceeded over 100% of
the relevant area of the space for more than half of the daylit
hours in the year for façade widow), a criterion for a minimum
view in space (3 layers: sky, landscape: urban or nature,
ground. The residents should be able to see 1, 2 or 3 layers at
the distance larger than 6 m.). The draft details how to use
daylighting to provide lighting within interiors (target
minimum daylight factor) an how to limit glare (Daylight
Glare Probability) [17]. The proposed document is still under
revision and the discussion about the most precise daylight
performance metrics is still continuing.
III. DAYLIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The demand for accurate methods which evaluate a ‘daylit’
environment has increased recently due to a need for creating
low-energy buildings where human comfort performance is
respected. The daylight performance metrics are considered in
aspects of: daylight availability and distribution, sunlight
exposure, visual comfort, freedom of glare and outside view.
Most of the daylight metrics, described below, focus on
availability and quality of light within buildings’ interiors.
However, the decisions about an orientation of building
patterns, building placements and forms are part of urban
design. Therefore, the daylight metrics have to be investigated
in relation to the inside and outside conditions.
A. Traditional assesment systems
To make an accurate assessment of skylight performance
many methods were introduced through the years including
Waldram diagrams, pepper-pot (Pliejel’s) diagrams, Danilyuk
diagram, Kittler’s protractors, BRE daylight protractors
together with different CIE sky models [18] and formulae to
calculate their luminance distribution [19]. One of the most
popular indicators as the measure of general illumination from
the skylight is Daylight Factor introduced by Trotter in 1895
[20]. The Daylight Factor (DF or D) (1) is the ratio between
the illuminance inside a building to the illuminance at point
that has an unobstructed view of the sky outside the building
[21], [22], [3], [23].
DF = (Ei / Eo ) × 100 0 0 (1)
Where Ei is illuminance at a point in the room, and Eo is
the simultaneous illuminance form the whole sky, the
illuminance on an unobstructed horizontal surface outside [24].
For the CIE Standard Overcast Sky, so the fixed sky
distribution, daylight factor is the sum of three components: the
sky component (SC), the internally reflected component (IRC)
and the externally reflected component (ERC). DF is expressed
as a percentage. The average daylight factor (the mean daylight
factor over a given area of the room) for interiors is
recommended at least 2 per cent. For spaces where average DF
is under 2 per cent the supplementary lighting is be needed.
[25] Appendix 2.
The use of the most common overcast sky distribution,
(where the luminance at the horizon is one third that at the
zenith of the sky) [25], and an insensitivity of DF to building
orientation and sun availability are considered to be a big
drawbacks of daylight factor approach Appendix 3. The
sunlight strategies based on solar angle or solar intensity have
no influence on the DF. Therefore, other indicators of daylight
performance and simulations methods are introduced. One of
the most discussed indicators is Climate Based Daylight
Modelling (CBDM).
B. Climate Based Daylight Modelling
Limitations of DF Appendix 3, growing popularity of
sustainability assessment ratings and the increasing role of
computer simulations software led to a development of
alternative dynamic daylight performance metrics and methods
including Climate Based Daylight Modelling. CBDM is the
predication of any luminous quantity (illuminance and/or
luminance) using realistic sun and sky conditions derived from
standardised climate data. CBDM evaluations are usually
carried out for a full year at a time-step of an hour or less in
order to capture the daily and seasonal dynamics of natural
light [26]. Climate-based modelling delivers predictions of
absolute quantities (e.g. illuminance) that are dependent both
on the locale (i.e. geographically-specific climate data is used)
and the building orientation (i.e. the illumination effect of the
sun and non-overcast sky conditions are included), in addition
to the building's composition and configuration [26].
The advantage of CBDM and others dynamic daylight
performance metrics over static metrics is that they consider
the quality and character of daily and seasonal variations of
daylight for a given building site together with irregular
meteorological events [27]. The ways and tools to perform
CBDM are various. John Mardaljevic, the author of CBDM
[28], [29], [30] describes the ways that CBDM can be used. He
talks about two principal analysis methods: a cumulative
analysis and times series analysis. The cumulative method is
presented as a method that could be used for prediction of
microclimate, solar access and shading in an urban
environment. While the time-series analysis can be used for the
evaluation of the overall daylight potential, the occurrence of
excessive illuminances or luminances [30]. The New York
Times headquarters building is presented as an example how
daylight simulations can be used to support design decisions
[30]
Although, the foundations for CBDM were developed in
the late 1990s [31], the widespread recognition of this method
came later on. In 2013 the UK Education Funding Agency
(EFA) decided that CBDM would be a mandatory requirement
for the evaluation of school design. Therefore, a target criterion
for the Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) metric was
suggested.
UDI is as a dynamic daylight performance measure based
on work plane illuminance [32], [33]. It determines when
daylight levels are “useful’ for the occupants. In other words
UDI is defined as the annual occurrence of illuminances
across the work plane that are within a range considered
“useful” by occupants [30]. Since the introduction of UDI the
ranges of ‘useful’ upper daylight levels have changed [26]
Appendix 4.
The EFA decision to include a CBDM evaluation, a
mandatory requirement and to put UDI target levels into their
recommendations for British schools, seems to be a first step
into introducing a new dynamic daylight metrics into daylight
regulations, in which DF dominated for many years. This
decision was commented on [34], even by the author of the
CBDM [26] but also during the discussion at the 6th Daylight
Symposium 2015 and during daylight panels at the CIE 2015
conference held in Manchester. The demonstration of interest
in dynamic daylight metrics shows recognition for a growing
role of daylight design tools to create better urban environment.
The discussion about positives and limitations of dynamic
metrics is continuing. The critical voice focuses on the
complexity of CBDM methods in comparison to DF. The
critics also point out the inadequacy of daylight metrics
restricted to a horizontal surface compare to a ‘daylit’ room’s
appearance and the daylight comfort of the user, also the
unreliability of computer simulations or the hardship of
learning software like Radiance. The research focusing on
finding new daylight metrics, proving adequacy of proposed
new metrics or improving the existing one are carried out at
many universities.
The metrics describing daylight typology can be created
according to different parameters like the static and dynamic
characteristics of data, energy-efficiency potential or task-
comfort-perception factors. The daylight indicators can be
divided to those, which analyze the quality of light to perform
visual tasks like DF, DA or UDI, and to those, which evaluate
luminous comfort for the user, like Daylight Glare Probability
(DGP), also to tools which assess perceptions of daylight [35]
Appendix 4.
Due to a large number of daylight metrics, their
complexities, advantages and limitations are not presented in
this paper on a full scale. None of the presented metrics can
assure ‘good daylight design’ but they are helpful tools to
achieve the best daylit environment solutions. It seems that an
era of new dynamic daylight metrics supported by advanced
computer simulations has approached. A well-established but
limited DF is still in use but the new daylight indicators are
getting more attention. The advantage of new methods is that
can describe different aspects of daylight and may be used in a
synchronised way giving an extensive and more detailed
picture of daylight conditions in architectural and urban design.
PILOT WORK
Several studies confirm that daylight studies are crucial in
the early stages of residential urban planning, especially while
making decisions concerning urban density, building’s
location, the shape and height of the buildings, locations of
open areas and playgrounds, window to wall ratio, size of
apertures on a building facade or roof [43]. Although daylight
design is acknowledged in literature and case studies as a tool
for fostering residents’ well-being, daylight design strategies
are not common practice in Poland. Furthermore, despite the
growing role of daylight studies and daylight performance
metrics in a creation of sustainable architecture, modern
daylight assessment methods including CBDM are not
satisfactory investigated.
To identify potentials and challenges for the incorporation
of contemporary daylight performance metrics for urban
planning, two types of questionnaires were carried out.

Fig. 1. Design of the study. Two types of questionnaire were given to 82
architecture and urban planning students.
The results of both the pilot questionnaires show a lack of
daylight training among future architects and urban specialists.
The first survey carried out among 82 students illustrated the
importance of daylight as a natural resource, considered
essential in sustainable approaches to urban planning and
highlighted the belief that daylight and electric light projects
should be holistically integrated in the implementation of the
town lighting plan. The results of the second pilot study
showed a growing demand for better daylight education and an
urgent need for a revision of the existing outdated lighting
recommendations in Poland.
The challenges identified in the pilot study:
• very limited daylight guidelines in building
regulations
• lack of national daylight standards and guidelines
• lack of national initiatives towards promoting
daylight design as a sustainable design approach
• lack of Polish voice in discussion about new
European Daylight standard
• low awareness of daylight contemporary dynamic
metrics and assessment methods among architects
and urban planners.
CONCLUSIONS
Current Polish building standards containing daylight
recommendations do not precisely indicate what actions are
required to provide good daylight design and what kind of
daylight metrics are needed to achieve a better quality of
daylight. The research results suggest that daylight design
guidebooks explaining how to plan effectively for a daylight
environment are essential. National standards for daylighting
are needed.
One of the main challenges for the incorporation of
modern daylight performance methods is a lack of proper
educational channels dedicated to modern lighting design
techniques. Other barriers include limited daylight
recommendations present in Polish building regulations,
limitations of residential buildings market (deficiencies in
residential stock, small plots vs. big buildings with relatively
small apartments) and a lack of Polish daylight research
initiatives on the European scientific arena.
References
[1] Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture. 1931.
[2] The Society of Light and Lighting, Lighting for the Built Environment
LG10: Daylighting - A Guide for Designers. London, 2014.
[3] Daylight CIE 016-1970. International Commission on Illumination,
1970.
[4] K. Negendahl, “Building Performance Simulation in the early design
stage: An introduction to Integrated Dynamic Models, ” Autom.
Constr., vol. 54, pp. 39–53, 2014.
[5] S. Kunkel, E. Kontonasiou, A. Arcipowska, F. Mariottini, and B.
Atanasiu, Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Comfort and Daylight. Analysis
of Residential Building Regulations in Eight EU Member States.
Brussels, 2015.
[6] M. Bartnicka, “Wczoraj , dziś i jutro w promieniach słonecznych,”
Czas. Tech. z. 15. Archit. z. 7-A2 Bibl. Cyfrowa Politech. Krak., no. d,
pp. 4–8, 2010.
[7] T. Tołwiński, Urbanistyka T.2 : Budowa miasta współczesnego. 2nd ed.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Zakładu Urbanistyki Politechniki
Warszawskiej, 1939.
[8] A. K. Sochocka, “Impact of daylighting regulations present in Polish
building regulations on architectural design and town planning of
housing estate, ” 2000 unpublished.
[9] R-NTP-54 MBMO/5-00001 Normatywy techniczne projektowania:
Budownictwo Ogólne, Oświetlenie Dzienne, Ogólne wytyczne
projektowania (projekt). Warszawa: Komitet Do Spraw Urbanistyki i
Architektury Instytut Urbanistyki i Architektury, 1954.
[10] Nowa Karta Ateńska 2003 Wizja miast XXI wieku. Europejska Rada
Urbanistów, 2003.
[11] E. Mumford, The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism 1928 - 1960. MIT
Press 2002.
[12] C. Reinhart and A. Fitz, “Findings from a survey on the current use of
daylight simulations in building design”, Energy Build., vol. 38, no. 7,
pp. 824–835, 2006.
[13] P. J. Littlefair, Site Layout Planning For Daylight And Sunlight. A
Guide To Good Practice. IHS BRE Press, 2011.
[14] Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, Polska Norma. Oświetlenie wnętrz
światłem dziennym. Warunki ogólne. Natural interior daylighting.
Code of practice. Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, 1971, pp. 1–9.
[15] Z. Turlej, “Narzędzia projektowania oświetlenia dziennego w
budynkach”, Pr. Inst. Elektrotechniki PW, vol. zeszyt 256, 2012.
[16] D. T. G. Strong, “The Daylight Factor”, BRE UBM Compet., 2012.
[17] J. Mardaljevic, J. Chistoffersen and P. Raynham, ”A proposal for a
European standard for daylight in buildings”, Lux Europa Proceedings
2013, WC1E 6BT, 2013.
[18] S. Darula and R. Kittler, “CIE general sky standard defining luminance
distributions”, Proc. eSim, 2002.
[19] R. Kittler, “Daylight prediction and assessment: theory and design
practice”, Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 94–99, 2007.
[20] S. Kota and J. S. Haberl, “Historical Survey of Daylighting
Calculations Methods and Their Use in Energy Performance
Simulations”, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for
Enhanced Building Operations, Austin, Texas, November 17-19, 2009,
pp. 1–9.
[21] SLL CIBSE, The SLL Code for Lighting The Society of Light and
Lighting. 2012.
[22] SLL CIBSE, Lighting Guide 5 : Lighting in Education. Society of Light
and Lighting, 2011.
[23] P. Tregenza, “The daylight factor and actual illuminance ratios”, Light.
Res. Technol., 1980 also International Commission on Illumination,
ILV, http://eilv.cie.co.at/term/279, termlist, position 17-279 daylight
factor [D] [accessed 04.09.2016]
[24] P. R. Tregenza and D. Loe, The Design of Lighting. 2dn ed. Routledge,
2014.
[25] SLL CIBSE, Code for Lighting Chapter 5 : Daylight., 2012, pp. 115–
123.
[26] J. Mardaljevic, “Climate-Based Daylight Modelling And Its
 Discontents”, CIBSE Tech. Symp., no. April, pp. 1–12, 2015.
[27] C. F. Reinhart, J. Mardaljevic, and Z. Rogers, “Dynamic Daylight
Performance Metrics for Sustainable Building Design’, Leukos, vol. 3, TABLE III. MINIMUM AVERAGE DF FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTERIORS,
no. 1, pp. 7–31, 2006. RECOMMENDED BY SLL [25]
[28] J. Mardaljevic, “Daylight simulation : validation, sky models and
daylight coefficients ”, 1999. DF Values For Different Types Of Interiors
[29] J. Mardaljevic, “Examples of Climate-Based Daylight Modelling”, in Id. Minimum Average
Room type
CIBSE National Conference 2006: Engineering the Future., 2006, no. Daylight Factor in %
67. 1. Bedrooms 1.0
[30] J. Mardaljevic, L. Heschong, and E. Lee, ‘Daylight metrics and energy
savings.’, pp. 261–283, 2009. 2. Living rooms 1.5
[31] J. Mardaljevic, ‘Daylight simulation : validation, sky models and
3. Kitchens 2.0
daylight coefficients.’, De Montfort University Leicester, 1999.
[32] A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic, “Useful daylight illuminance: a new b.
paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings”, Light. Res. Technol.,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 41–59, 2005.
[33] A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic, “Useful daylight illuminances: a APPENDIX 3
replacement for daylight factors”, Energy Build., vol. 38, no. 7, pp.
905–913, 2006. TABLE IV. THE LIMITATIONS AND ADVENTAGES OF DF.
[34] E. Brembilla, J. Mardljevic and F. Anselmo “Is current modelling
practice fit-for-purpose for daylight evaluation using CBDM metrics?”, Limitations Positives
In 13th Radiance Workshop London September 2014, pp. 1–20, 2014. DF is insensitive to the location of the DF calculations are fairly
[35] S. Rockcastle and M. Andersen, “Dynamic annual metrics for contrast building, season and local daylight simple, widely accepted
in daylit architecture”, Proc. 2012 Symp. Simul. Archit. Urban Des. climate. and popular among
Soc. Comput. Simul. Int., no. July, p. 12, 2012. practitioners.
[36] J. Mardaljevic, L. Heschong, and E. Lee, “Daylight metrics and energy DF does not take into account the DF appears in codes,
savings. ”, Light. Res. Technol., vol. 41, pp. 261–283, 2009. orientation of the building façade. guidance and building
[37] C. F. Reinhart and D. A. Weissman, “The daylit area - Correlating performance metrics.
architectural student assessments with current and emerging daylight DF does not say anything about the glare DF calculations and
availability metrics”, Build. Environ., vol. 50, pp. 155–164, 2012. nor direct solar ingress. simulations are offered in

Daylight Factor
[38] J. A. Jakubiec, “Introduction to Simulating LEEDv4 Daylighting Credit a number of different
Compliance and IES-LM-83”, Diva Day October 2014, pp. 1–19, 2014. software.
[39] E. Djunaedy, A.Mahic, K. Van Den Wymelenberg, “Spatial Daylight Direct sunlight is excluded from the Predictions of DF are
Autonomy & Annual Sunlight Exposure The LM- 83 Radiance Script values of illuminations in the DF intuitive.
(using 3- phase method)”, 12th International Radiance Workshop, 2013. calculations. The most common sky
[40] J. Wienold and J. Christoffersen, “Evaluation methods and distribution used for daylight factor is the
development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments overcast sky distribution.
with the use of CCD cameras”, Energy Build., vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 743– The changes in illumination levels indoors DF concept is simple and
757, 2006. to the variations of sky luminance have no very effective in window
[41] J. Wienold, “Dynamic daylight glare evaluation”, Elev. Int. IBPSA effect on DF. design.
Conf. Build. Simul., pp. 944–951, 2009. DF is minimum legal lighting requirement DF is measurable in situ
[42] C. F. Reinhart and J. Wienold, “The daylighting dashboard - A not a measure of good lighting design. and in laboratory
simulation-based design analysis for daylit spaces”, Build. Environ., conditions under artificial
vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 386–396, 2011. sky.
[43] C. Reinhart, F, J. Mardaljevic, and Z. Rogers, “Dynamic Daylight
Performance Metrics for Sustainable Building Design”, Leukos vol. 3
no 1, pp. 7–31, 2006. APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 1 TABLE V. SELECTED DAYLIGHT METRICS
c.
GUIDEBOOKS
[1] Lighting Guide 10: Daylighting - A Guide for Designers: Lighting for
The Built Environment, Society of Light and Lighting SLL LG10
CIBSE, 2014.
[2] Lighting Guide 7: Office Lighting, Society of Light and Lighting SLL
LG7, CIBSE 2005.
[3] Lighting Guide 5: Lighting for Education, Society of Light and
Lighting SLL LG5, CIBSE 2011.
[4] SLL Code For Lighting, Society of Light and Lighting, 2012.
[5] SLL Lighting Handbook, Society of Light and Lighting, 2012.
[6] Lighting Guide 11: Surface Reflectance and Colour, Society of Light
and Lighting SLL LG, 2001.
[7] IES: Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and
Annual Sunlight Exposure (aSE), Lm-83-12, 2013.
[8] IES Recommended Practicefor Daylighting Buildings, Rp-5-13, 2013.
[9] Lighting Design for Schools. Building Bulletin 90
[10] EFA Daylight Design Guide, Education Funding Agency, 2013.

APPENDIX 2
CHOSEN DAYLIGHT
METRICS
Climate Based Daylight
Modelling
CBDM
Daylight Autonomy DA (2005)
Useful Daylight Illuminance UDI
(2005)
Annual Light Exposure
Annual Sunlight Exposure ASE
or aSE
(ASE1000lx,250h)
Metrics introduced by
Illuminating Engineering Society
(IES) Daylight Metrics
Committee
Included in the LEEDv4
daylighting compliance
requirements
(2013);IES LM-83, aSE
Spatial Daylight Autonomy sDA
Metrics introduced by
Illuminating Engineering Society
(IES) Daylight Metrics
Committee
Daylight Glare Probability DGP
CHARACTERISTICS
CBDM is the prediction of various radiant or luminous quantities (e.g. irradiance, illuminance, radiance and luminance)
using sun and sky conditions that are derived from standard meteorological datasets. Climate-based modelling delivers
predictions of absolute quantities (e.g. illuminance) that are dependent both on the locale (i.e. geographically-specific
climate data is used) and the building orientation (i.e. the illumination effect of the sun and non-overcast sky conditions are
included), in addition to the building's composition and configuration [30], [26], [36]. Also:
http://climate-based-daylighting.com/doku.php?id =academic:climate-based-daylight-modelling
It is represented as a percentage of annual daytime hours (how often) that a given point in a space is above a specified
illumination level-500lx . It was originally proposed by the Association Suisse des Electriciens in 1989 and was improved
by Christoph Reinhart between years 2001 and 2004. The limitations are: DF fails to give significance to those daylight
illuminances that are below the threshold. DA makes no account of the amount by which the threshold illuminance was
exceeded [27]. Therefore, there is no information about thermal discomfort of glare [20].
UDI is a modification of Daylight Autonomy suggested by Mardaljevic and Nabil in 2005. [32], [33]
UDI is defined as the annual occurrence of illuminances across the work plane that are within a range considered “useful”
by occupants [30]. In the first papers published UDI scheme had 100 and 2000 lux as the lower and upper bounds for useful
daylight illuminance achieved. The 2000 lux value was revised upwards to 3000 lux. The UDI scheme is applied by
determining at each calculation point the occurrence of daylight levels where:
• The illuminance is less than 100 lux, i.e. UDI 'fell-short' (or UDI-f).
• The illuminance is greater than 100 lux and less than 300 lux, i.e. UDI supplementary (or UDI-s).
• The illuminance is greater than 300 lux and less than 3,000 lux, i.e. UDI autonomous (or UDI-a).
• The illuminance is greater than 3,000 lux, i.e. UDI exceeded (or UDI-e [26].
Annual Light Exposure is a performance indicator defined as the cumulative amount of visible light incident on a point of
interest over the course of the year. It is used to design spaces that contain light-sensitive artwork. Annual Light Exposure
is expressed in lux per year [27].
Annual Sunlight Exposure describes the number of hours per year at a given point were direct sun is incident on the
surface. In other words, how much of space receives too much direct sunlight, which can cause visual discomfort (glare) or
increase cooling loads. Specifically, ASE measures the percentage of floor area that receives at least 1000 lux for at least
250 occupied hours per year.
ASE incorporates potential issues of thermal discomfort but it does not address issues of glare and veiling reflections.
LEEDv4- Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE1000 lx250h) below 10% in all regularly occupied floor areas [37], [38].
sDA is the percentage of area that is above 300 lx 50% of the time or more during the working hours.
LEEDv4 goal is to Achieve a Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA300lx,50%) in 55% (2pts) or 75% (3pts) [38], [39]
DGP is a metric to predict the appearance of discomfort glare in daylight spaces, metric calculated at the eye point,
proposed in 2005 by Jan Wienold and Jens Christoffersen [40], [41], [42].