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

net/publication/301543450

USING DIVA FOR ASSESSING CLIMATE-BASED LEED DAYLIGHT CREDIT

Conference Paper · July 2014

CITATIONS READS
2 1,287

3 authors, including:

Ahoo Malekafzali Ardakan

North Carolina State University
8 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahoo Malekafzali Ardakan on 20 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 USING DIVA FOR ASSESSING CLIMATE-BASED LEED DAYLIGHT
CREDIT

 
Jianxin Hu, PhD. Wane Place, Ph.D.
College of Design College of Design
North Carolina State University North Carolina State University
Brooks Hall, Box 7701 Brooks Hall, Box 7701
Raleigh, NC 27695 Raleigh, NC 27695
e-mail: jhu3@ncsu.edu e-mail: wayne_place@ncsu.edu

Ahoo Malekafzali Ardakan

College of Design
North Carolina State University
Brooks Hall, Box 7701
Raleigh, NC 27695
e-mail: amaleka2@ncsu.edu

ABSTRACT
Daylight Factor, which is the ratio of the interior
illuminance level to the outside illuminance level on an
unobstructed horizontal surface, was previously used for
assessing LEED Daylight Credit for buildings. The new
version of LEED Daylight Credit (LEED v4), however,
accounts for annual hourly measurement of daylight level
in a space. This is more effective in capturing the dynamic
characteristic of interior daylight illumination throughout a
year. Three options have been suggested for assessing the
LEED Daylight Credit. The first and second options are
based on computer simulation, whereas the third option has
an experimental approach involving two illuminance
measurements. The challenge of this experimental method
is that these two measurements need to be taken at least
five months apart, which results in a lengthy
documentation process. This paper focuses on the
methodology of using DIVA as a tool to perform the first
two assessment options – Annual hourly daylight
prediction and single-point-in-time prediction. For both
options, the effect of window shading is considered. A
MatLab program is developed to analyze standard DIVA
results and output performance metrics, such as Spatial
Daylight Autonomy and Annual Solar Exposure. In this
paper the newly published LEED Daylight Credit is also
examined in terms of its effectiveness in evaluating
daylight quantity and quality in wall-based sidelighting and
roof-based toplighting designs.
Keywords: Daylight, Building, LEED, DIVA, Climate-
Based Daylight Modeling, Daylight Autonomy
1. INTRODUCTION
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a
green building certification program that recognizes
sustainable building strategies and practices. To receive
LEED certification, building projects satisfy prerequisites
and earn points towards one of the five rating systems –
Building Design and Construction; Interior Design and
Construction; Building Operations and Maintenance;
Neighborhood Development; and Homes. Each rating
system is made up of a combination of credit categories [1].
This paper focuses on the Daylight Credit of the Building
Design and Construction (BD+C) rating system in the most
recent LEED version (LEED v.4). This rating system
addresses design and construction activities for both new
buildings and major renovations of existing buildings.
1.1 Static and Dynamic Daylight Assessments
Developed in the UK over 50 years ago, the long-established
Daylight Factor (DF) approach was widely used in
daylighting research and education. Daylight Factor is simply
the ratio of indoor horizontal illuminance (e.g. at the task
plane) to unobstructed outdoor horizontal illuminance under
overcast sky conditions [2]. Because the luminance
distribution of an overcast sky is symmetrical about the
vertical axis going through the zenith and the sun component
is excluded from the scenario, this method has two
disadvantages: 1. It is insensitive to the building orientation
due to the symmetrical sky luminance distribution; 2. It is
insensitive to the location, hence the climate, of the building.
Based on this approach, the DF of a daylighting design would
be predicted to have the same performance whether the
building faces north in rainy Seattle or faces south in sunny
Phoenix.
A new approach, Climate-Based Daylight Modeling
(CBDM), was developed in recent years to address the
issues associated with Daylight Factor. CBDM is the
prediction of various luminous quantities using solar and
sky conditions that are derived from meteorological
datasets [3] and therefore is dependent upon both locale
and orientation, in addition to building configuration and
composition. Specifically, comparing with the traditional
Daylight Factor approach, CBDM has the following
advantages: 1) CBDM predicts absolute measures of
daylight illumination using realistic descriptions for the
sky and sun conditions; 2) The evaluation usually lasts for
a year to capture variations in meteorological conditions;
3) Solar and sky conditions are evaluated together; and 4)
Building location and orientation are taken into
consideration.
1.2 Evolvement of LEED Daylight Credit
Across various versions of LEED, the intent of the
Daylight Credit has always been to connect building
occupants with the outdoors, reinforce circadian rhythms,
and reduce the use of electrical lighting by introducing
daylight into the space. However, the credit requirements
and assessment evolved in a fashion similar to the
development of daylight prediction method outlined in
Section 1.1.
Due to its simplicity and ease of use, the Daylight Factor
concept was adopted by LEED in earlier years. For
example, LEED 2.2 uses the term Glazing Factor (Credit
8.1), which is equivalent to Daylight Factor. As stated in
LEED manual: “Glazing Factor is the ratio of interior
illuminance at a given point on a given plane (usually the
work plane) to the exterior illuminance under known
overcast sky conditions”. The credit requires that a
minimum glazing factor of 2% be achieved in a minimum
of 75% of all regularly occupied areas. The Glazing Factor
(i.e. Daylight Factor) is solely determined by room and
window geometries and glazing properties. Building
orientation and local climate are not taken into
consideration. The reasoning behind this formula is: if the
natural lighting is sufficient on an overcast day, it is likely
to be more than adequate when the sun is shining.
Consequently, if the glazing area sized according to this
recommendation is appropriate for Seattle, for example, it
will certainly be over-glazed in Phoenix. This contributes
to the growing concern in this country that the Daylight-
Factor-based LEED guideline promotes buildings that are
often over-lit by large expanses of curtain walls, at the cost
of soaring energy consumption.
LEED (v2009) moved away from the Daylight Factor
concept and started to adopt a dynamic approach. It required
designers to demonstrate through computer simulation that
the applicable spaces achieve daylight illuminance levels of a
minimum of 10 footcandles (fc) (108 lux) and a maximum of
500 fc (5,400 lux) in a clear sky condition on September 21
at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Although it did not fully apply the
CBDM method on an annual basis, it was certainly a step
forward towards climate-based modeling approach.
The most recent version of LEED (v4) provided three options
for assessing the Daylight Credit. The first two options are
based on computer simulation, whereas the third on physical
measurement. Option 1 features a new simulation called
“Spatial Daylight Autonomy and Annual Sunlight
Exposure.” Spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) is a standard
requiring 50% of occupiable hours during the year be
adequately daylit in a project (above 300 lux). Annual
Sunlight Exposure (ASE), which is the percentage of square
footage in regularly occupied spaces that has direct sunlight
during the year, controls the upper limit for assessing glare
issues. LEED v4 requires that illuminance values of 1000
lux and above must not exceed 250 occupied hours during
the year, and must not exist in more than 10% of the
occupiable floor area. Two points can be gained if the sDA
value is achievable in 55% of regularly occupied space, and
three points can be gained if the sDA value is achievable in
75% of occupied space. [4]
Option 2 adopts a simple-point-in-time approach, which is to
demonstrate through computer modeling that illuminance
levels will be between 300 lux and 3,000 lux for 9 a.m. and 3
p.m., both on a clear-sky day at the equinoxes (15 days
within September 21st and March 21st). Two points can be
gained if these illuminance values are achievable for 90% of
regularly occupied space, one point for 75% of occupied
space. [4] Although it is a simpler assessment procedure that
option 1, option 2 only provides 2 points maximum, whereas
option 1 provides 3 points maximum.
Option 3 is based on measurement of the physical space
rather than computer simulation. However, the requirement is
similar to option 2 - Achieve illuminance levels between 300
lux and 3,000 lux. Three points will be gained if the
illuminance value is achieved for 90% of occupiable space,
two points for 75%. The Measurement can be taken at any
hour between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Two measurements are
required during the course of a year – the first one can be in
any regularly occupied month, and the second one, however,
needs to be taken at least 5 months later to account for
seasonal effects. [4] Although option 3 can potentially lead to
three points, the documentation process can be lengthy since
the two measurements have to be taken at least 5 months
apart.
1.3 Objectives:
Among the three, Option 1 potentially provides more 2.2 Performance Metrics & Thresholds
points than Option 2, and can be less time consuming for
documentation than Option 3. In additions Option 1 fully Two performance metrics are used to assess daylight quality
adopts the CBDM approach, predicting hourly daylight and quantity in a space:
quantity on an annual basis. It yields the most accurate  sDA: Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) is a metric
estimate of daylighting performance in a space. However, indicating whether the quality of daylight in interior
the simulation for Option 1 can be challenging and it is the spaces is sufficient. It is defined as the percentage of
goal of this paper to develop a procedure and necessary analysis area that receives more than 300 lux for 50% of
tools to facilitate the assessment process for professionals the analysis period. The sDA with these thresholds is
and students. Specifically the objectives of the study are: recorded as sDA300,50%. In LEED v4, up to 3 points can
 Examines the Daylight Credit in the Interior be gained for the Daylight Credit depending on sDA
Environmental Quality category (LEED BD+C: values achieved:
New Construction | v4);
 Develop an assessment procedure and supporting sDA Points
tools for compliance documentation; and 55% 2
 Discuss the advantage and limitations of the 75% 3
current Daylight Credit requirements and make
recommendations.  ASE: Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) is a metric
indicating the potential for visual discomfort caused by
2. METHODS direct sunlight. It is defined as the percentage of an
analysis area that exceeds 1000 lux for more than 250
Four daylighting designs are identified as examples to hours. The ASE with these thresholds is recorded as
address the research objectives outlined above. They are: ASE1000, 250h. LEED v4 requires that ASE must not
 Sidelighting window facing north exceed more than 10% of the occupiable floor area.
 Sidelighting window facing south
 Toplighting sawtooth facing north 2.3 DIVA Simulations
 Toplighting sawtooth facing south
DIVA 2.0 is a plug-in to Rhino that exports scene
All four systems are outfitted in a 30’x30’ space with 11’ geometries, material properties, and sensor grids into the
ceiling height as a test bed. The depth of the space (30’) is format required to enable the use of Radiance and
fairly typical to classrooms and open offices. The surface EnergyPlus [5, 6.]. To convert a Rhino file to a valid
reflectance is as follows: ceiling: 80%; walls: 50%; floor: Radiance mode, DIVA employs Python, which is an open
20%. Glazing transmittance is assumed to be 65% (double source scripting language that is compatible with Rhino and
pane Low-E glazing). translates Rhino geometry to Radiance scripts. DIVA 2.0
uses RADIANCE for daylight calculations. It employs
2.1 System Parameters Daylight Coefficient (DC) Method for annual daylighting
simulation, and uses EnergyPlus for whole-building energy
An approved method for assessing the LEED v4 Daylight simulation [5, 7].
Credit has been published by Illuminating Engineering
Society (IES LM-83-12). This method is titled “IES Spatial Radiance parameters used for this study are illustrated in
Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure
Table 1.
(ASE)”. The system parameters in this paper are defined
according to this IES document.
Table 1: Radiance Parameter
ab AMBIENT BOUNCES 6
Period of Analysis: The designs are evaluated for 10
hours per day, from 8:00am to 6:00pm, which results in ad AMBIENT DIVISIONS 1000
3,650 hours for a full year. ar AMBIENT RESOLUTION 300
Analysis Points: analysis points form a 24”x24” grid
system within an analysis area, at a height of 30’ above as AMIBIENT SUPERSAMPLES 625
finished floor. aa AMIBIENT ACCURACY 0.05

Blinds/Shades Operation: Blinds shall close whenever

more than 5% of the analysis points receive direct sunlight Raleigh North Carolina was selected as the project location
(1000 lux or more). This analysis is conducted for each for all simulation runs. The four daylighting designs are
hour of occupancy. The visible light transmission (VLT) is modelled in Rhino and exported into DIVA for daylighting
assumed to be 55% for both sunlight and skylight. analysis (Figure 1 and 2).
 An analyysis proceduree is then perform med for each oof the 3650
hours too see if 2% of the analyssis points receeive direct
sunlight (1000 lux or m more) in Simulation 1. If thee data show
that morre than 2% off analysis pointts are over 10000 lux, the
illuminaance data for thhat specific houur will be replaaced by the
data at thhe same hour in Simulation 2. Essentially a modified
data set is created fromm Simulation 1 and 2 to accoount for the
blinds beehaviour.

3.1 Resuults for Sidelighhting Window

w Facing North

The nortth-facing winddow (Figure 1)) is equipped w with blinds

F
Figure 1: 30’x30’ space with side window facing north
n or south that opeerate accordingg to the algoriithms defined in Section
2.1. Winndow to floor area ratio is vvaried to obtaiin 75% for
sDA vallue. As shownn in Table 2, w when the windoow to floor
ratio is increased to about 27%, tthe sDA300, 500% reaches
75%. Thhis will meet the sDA requiirement in LE EED v4 for
gaining tthree points. H
However, the coorresponding A ASE value:
38% is ssignificantly hhigher than thee threshold set by LEED,
which iss 10%. When the window too floor ratio deecreases to
19%, thee sDA value (559%) is approaaching 55%, w which is the
thresholdd for gaininng two pointss for Dayligght Credit.
Howeveer, ASE value (28%) is still significantly hhigher than
the requuired 10%. Thherefore, Based on the dataa shown in
Table 1,, the space simmulated will noot be able to rreceive any
points foor the LEED D Daylight Credit.

Table 2: N
North-Facing W
Window with ASE
E Threshold 10000 Lux
Window
w to Floor Ratio
o sDA 3000, 50% ASEE 1000,250h
F
Figure 2: 30’x30’ space with sawttooth skylight fac
cing north or soutth 19% 59% 28%
22% 62% 30%
33. DATA ANA
ALYSES AND DISCUSSION
NS 27% 75% 38%

TThe two metrrics, sDA and d ASE, are essentially tw wo A questiion arises wheether the ASE threshold 10000 lux is set
thhresholds defin
ning the lowerr and upper lim mits of dayligh
ht too low to represent diirect sunlight eexposure. In faact, another
level in a spacce. This is to define a com mfortable rangee, widely aadopted metricc, Useful Dayliight Index, deffines useful
eensuring that th
here is sufficieent daylight qu
uantity and thaat daylightt as a range bbetween 100 lux to 2000 llux, which
gglare issues can
n be minimizedd. means tthat any dayllight level hiigher than 20000 lux is
considerred visually disturbing. Anoother fact is that both the
AAs mentioned ini Section 1.3, the purpose off this study is to
t second and third opttions providedd in LEED v44 Daylight
eexplore a proceess to maximizze the number of points undeer Credit uuse 300 to 30000 lux rangee to define comfortable
thhe LEED v4 Daylight Creedit. For all four fo daylightin ng daylightt levels. This iimplies that 30000 lux can bee the upper
ddesign examplees examined in n this study, th
he strategy is to
t thresholdd for assessinng glare causeed by excessivve daylight
ooptimize the daaylighting desiigns, for examp ple by changinng quantitiees.
thhe glazing sizze (i.e. window w-to-floor ratiio), to yield an
a
ssDA that is ab bove 75%. Thee next step is to examine th he
In light of the above facts, the simmulation data thhat created
vvalue of ASE tot see if it is below
b 10%. If both condition ns
Table 2 are reprocessed with the ASE thresholld changed
aare met, three points
p can be gained.
from 10000 lux to 20000 lux. The resullts are shown inn Table 3:
IIn order to siimulate the blinds operatio
on described in
i
SSection 2.1, two simulations are
a conducted for
f each modell: Table 3: N
North-Facing W
Window with ASE
E Threshold 20000 Lux
Window
w to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 2000,250h
 Simulaation 1: withou
ut blinds and on
ne 19% 667% 11%
 Simulaation 2: with h blinds dep ployed for all
a 22% 772% 12%
occupiiable hours. 27% 779% 14%
The increase in ASE threshold significantly lowers the
ASE values. It also raised sDA to some degree, since a Table 6: North-Facing Sawtooth with ASE Threshold 1000 Lux
higher ASE threshold lowers the chance of blinds Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 1000,250h
deployment. As shown in Table 3, both sDA and ASE are 10% 84% 0%
close to their target values, 75% and 10% respectively, to
gain three points for the credit. It can also be expected that Table 7: North-Facing Sawtooth with ASE Threshold 2000 Lux
the metrics will reach their targets more easily if the ASE Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 2000,250h
threshold is increased to a higher level, for example, 3000
10% 88% 0%
lux.

3.2 Results for Sidelighting Window Facing South 3.4 Results for Toplighting Sawtooth Facing South

The space with south facing window is simulated and the Lastly, the south-facing sawtooth system is simulated and the
data are processed in the same fashion as in the north results are shown in Table 8 and 9, with ASE thresholds
facing case in Section 3.1. The results are shown in Table 4 1000lux and 2000 lux respectively. It requires less glazing
(ASE threshold: 1000 lux) and in Table 5 (ASE threshold: area (around 6% window to floor ratio) than north facing
2000 lux). system to reach the required sDA target. However, similar to
the sidelighting window cases, south facing apertures tend to
Table 4: South-Facing Window with ASE Threshold 1000 Lux create a more unevenly distributed light levels across the
Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 1000,250h room. Even with ASE threshold being 2000 lux, the ASEs
14% 75% 55% are still much higher than 10%.

Table 5: South-Facing Window with ASE Threshold 2000 Lux Table 8: South-Facing Sawtooth with ASE Threshold 1000 Lux
Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 2000,250h Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 1000,250h
14% 75% 46% 5% 55% 36%
6% 78% 36%
When window to floor ratio is 14% for both cases, the sDA 7% 89% 37%
value is fixed at 75%, however, the ASE values are
significantly higher than the target 10%, even when ASE
threshold is set at 2000 lux. This is not surprising in that a Table 9: South-Facing Sawtooth with ASE Threshold 1000 Lux
south facing window, which admits direct sunlight under Window to Floor Ratio sDA 300, 50% ASE 2000,250h
clear sky conditions, tends to create a relatively uneven 5% 59% 21%
illuminance distribution in the interior space – the zone at 6% 82% 30%
the perimeter tends to receive much more daylight than the 7% 94% 31%
zone deeper in the space. Therefore, it would be more
difficult to meet the upper and lower thresholds
requirements (sDA and ASE) at the same time than the 4. CONCLUSIONS
north facing system.
The new LEED Daylight Credit is examined in terms of its
3.3 Results for Toplighting Sawtooth Facing North
feasibility in the paper by using four examples. They are all
Sidelighting systems, even with remedies such as based on a room size (30’x30’) that is typical to classroom
overhangs, light shelves, etc., inherently create an and office buildings. Other parameters, such as surface
unbalanced light distribution across the space, whereas reflectance, schedule, etc., are also typical to these building
toplighting systems have the potential to evenly lit a space types. The daylight climate type (Raleigh, NC) assumed in
if the apertures are evenly distributed across the roof. The this study is also considered as moderate, not predominantly
north facing sawtooth system demonstrates the above sunny as in Phoenix or rainy as in Seattle.
prediction. When the window to floor ratio is set at 10%,
the sDAs for both cases are well above 75%, and ASEs are The following conclusions can be drawn based on the
both 0, even when ASE threshold is at 2000 lux. This simulation data presented above:
design clearly meets all the LEED requirements and will To reach the same sDA value, south facing apertures,
gain three points. In this case, the window to floor ration including sidelighting windows and toplighting sawtooth
can even be reduced to be lower than 10% and still receive skylights, are more efficient than north facing ones, meaning
three points. The reduction in glazing area can also it would require less amount of glazing on south facing
potentially lower the cooling and heating loads. apertures than that on north facing ones. This is not
 surprising as both sunlight and skylight can be incident on
south facing apertures, so that they have more potential to
bring more light into a space.
South facing apertures tend to create more unevenly
distributed light levels across the space, resulting in a
greater divergence between sDA and ASE. This will make
it more difficult than north facing apertures to meet the
LEED requirements for sDA and ASE at the same time.
The current threshold for ASE – 1000 lux seems to be low.
In fact, it is not uncommon for a space to receive more
than 1000 lux with a north-facing window that only admits
diffuse light from the sky. As an indicator for direct solar
exposure, this value needs to be reconsidered. It appears
that this low threshold makes it very challenging for the
spaces to meet the ASE requirement. Some of the cases
considered in Section 3 will not get any points because the
ASE can never be in the accepted range when minimum
sDA (55%) is maintained.
5. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The daylighting designs explored in this study are not fully
optimized, especially the south facing ones. Exterior
overhangs and interior light shelves, for example, can
potentially provide more balanced light distributions, so
that the LEED points can be gained more easily.
There three units of sawtooth apertures in the toplighting
systems. More units, such as 4 or 5, can be incorporated in
the space to even out the light fluctuation in the interior.
This can potentially reduce the divergence between sDA
and ASE.
View publication stats
It will also make the study more complete if more
daylighting design schemes beyond these four can be
explored and more daylight climate types can be considered.
6. REFERENCES
[1] http://www.usgbc.org/leed
[2] Ibarra, D. I. & C. F. Reinhart, “Daylight Factor
Simulations – How Close DO Simulation Beginners
Really Get? ”, Building Simulation 2009
[3] Mardaljevic, J., “Climate-Based Daylight Analysis”,
Conclusion to Reportership R3-26, 2008
[4] http://www.usgbc.org/node/2614118?return=/credits/ne
w-construction/v4
[5] Lagios, K., Niemasz, J., and Reinhart, C. F, (2010).
Animated Building Performance Simulation (Abps) –
Linking Rhinoceros/ Grasshopper With Radiance/
Daysim. Conference Proceedings of SimBuild 2010,
New York City, USA.
[6] Reinhart, C.F., and Jan Wienold, (2011). The daylighting
dashboard–a simulation-based design analysis for daylit
spaces. Building and Environment 46 (2): 386-96. The
daylighting dashboard–a simulation-based design
analysis for daylit spaces. Building and Environment 46
(2): 386-96.
[7] Guglielmetti, R., Macumber, D., and Long, N, (2011).
OPENSTUDIO: An Open Source Integrated Analysis
Platform. Proc. 12th Conference of International
Building Performance Simulation Association IBPSA,
Sydney, Australia