The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0168-2601.htm

Towards nearly zero energy The workplane

daylight
building concept – visual comfort distribution
quality
and energy efficiency assessments
in a classroom 167
Norhayati Mahyuddin Received 5 May 2021
Revised 27 July 2021
Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, Accepted 28 July 2021
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and
Centre for Building, Construction and Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mozhgan Samzadeh
Centre for Building, Construction and Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Suzaini M. Zaid
Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and
Centre for Building, Construction and Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Norafida Ab Ghafar
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and
Centre for Building, Construction and Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to raise awareness on how a simple action by the occupant can significantly
influence building energy efficiency, cost and CO2 emissions to the environment. Classrooms in schools are the
primary energy consumers (45.4%) due to the use of artificial lighting, despite Malaysia’s tropical climate being
ideal for daylight exploitation. This paper focuses on assessing the workplane daylight distribution quality and
quantity in baseline and existing conditions of a typical pre-school classroom in Kuala Lumpur as a model-
based exploration strategy towards nearly Zero Energy Buildings.
Design/methodology/approach – The adopted method is based on the calculation of average daylight
factor (DF), daylight illuminance level (IL) and uniformity ratio (UR) parameters affected by the internal fixed
drapes through computational and in situ measurements according to the requirements of the law and
respective standards comprising the MS1525:2019, GBI and BREEAM.
Findings – The results show how user behaviour can turn a well-daylit area (Net Lettable Area>90%) into a
poor-daylit area (NLA<5%) by sacrificing natural daylight. All the parameters’ values were significantly

Open House International

Vol. 47 No. 1, 2022
This work was supported by the Institute of Research Management and Services (IPPP), Impact- pp. 167-187
Oriented Interdisciplinary Research Grant Programme (IIRG), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0168-2601
Malaysia [grant number: IIRG015A-2019]. DOI 10.1108/OHI-05-2021-0099
OHI decreased from 10% (UR) up to 88% (ADF). Full dependency on artificial lighting has imposed a total of
RM18858.90 and CO2 emissions of 25,362 kg for all pre-schools’ classrooms in the country per day.
47,1 Social implications – The paper develops the occupants’ awareness on their contribution to climate change
and global warming through the information and transparency provided.
Originality/value – The evidence indicates that a simple action by the occupant can significantly influence
visual comfort, EE, cost and CO2 emissions to the environment.
Keywords Visual comfort, Energy efficiency, User behaviour, Daylight factor, Workplane illuminance
level, nZEB
168 Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
According to the 2020 global status report for buildings and construction, CO2 emissions
from the operation of buildings were the highest ever recorded level at around 10 GtCO2, or
28% of the total global energy-related CO2 emissions in recent years (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2020) after a flattening level from 2013 through 2016 (IEA, 2020).
The global building stock accounts for 40% of the total energy consumption (Ballarini
et al., 2019), 55% for electricity consumption in building operations (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2020), 20% (IEA, 2011) to 45% (Dubois and Blomsterberg, 2011)
refers to lighting and has increased by 20% since 2000 (Rousselot and Pollier, 2018).
Classrooms are the major energy consumers (45.4%) in schools mainly due to the use of
artificial lighting during the day (Bernardo et al., 2017).
In Malaysia, around 15% of all electricity is used for lighting in buildings (CIE –
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 1994). Roslizar et al. (2014) indicated that school
buildings in Malaysia with typical classrooms consume 22% of electricity for lighting
purposes and is ranked as the second top consumer after air-conditioning system, which has
38% of energy consumption. Malaysia plans to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 relative to the emissions intensity of GDP in 2005 to meet its
2030 Paris Agreement Climate Pledge. Furthermore, the National Energy Efficiency Action
Plan (NEEAP) has set a target to save 52,233 GWh of electricity over a 10-year period from
2016 to 2025 (MESTECC, 2018). These targets require new strategies in the building sector.
Attempts for nZEB in Malaysia have started since 2002 with the promotion of the use of
MS1525 – code of practice use of EE and renewable energy for non-residential buildings, the
integrated energy-efficient building design programme (Lojuntin, 2017) and green building
tools in Malaysia such as the Green Building Index (GBI) and the Malaysian Carbon
Reduction and Environmental Sustainability Tool (MyCREST).
However, the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in buildings should not be
overshadowed or obscured by the drive towards energy efficiency. Improving EE without
compromising on the quality of the IEQ of the classrooms, visual comfort and task
performance of occupants can be achieved by adoption of daylighting as an energy-efficient-
design and wellbeing approach (Bhusal et al., 2006; Tzempelikos, 2017; Nocera et al., 2018;
Amundadottir et al., 2017; Inanici and Hashemloo, 2017). Daylight is essential for the
educational process in classrooms, both physically and psychologically (Galal, 2019), as there
is a direct link between daylight and the performance of student’s health and mental
functions which are set by circadian rhythm and influenced by the duration and the intensity
of daylight exposure during the day (Pellegrino et al., 2015).
User behaviour is a major determinant factor of building energy consumption patterns in
both IEQ and EE and must not be overlooked. This crucial factor is usually not considered
during the design phase or post-occupancy optimisation phase (Paone and Bacher, 2018).
Doulos et al. (2019) stated that while technology is crucial in the energy consumption of
lighting, occupant behaviour is equally important. As reported by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2009), user behaviour can make positive and
negative substantial differences; wasteful behaviour can add one-third while conservation The workplane
behaviour can save a third energy usage into the buildings. Ouf et al. (2016) recorded 22% daylight
increased electricity consumption in school buildings in Canada due to occupant behaviour.
Additionally, Salleh et al. (2015) stated that energy savings of between 5% and 15% is
distribution
achievable based only on changes in user behaviour in the schools in Malaysia. quality
Occasionally, several challenges derive from the implementation of improper
modifications for improvements and these usually arise out of a lack of understanding and
knowledge of user and/or personnel managing the building. An example of this is the 169
installation of internal blinds such as classic drapes, roller drapes, vertical curtains and
horizontal curtains, which are commonly used in tropical regions, allowing occupants to
minimise/eliminate solar heat gain and glare. However, inner shields are less effective from an
energy point of view (Cellai et al., 2014) and sacrifice natural daylight; pupils’ comfort, health
and productivity; and increase the need for artificial lighting and energy consumption. The
type of inner shield used in this research is a fixed blackout classic drape installed in the
classroom.

2. Current state
2.1 Scope of the research
In educational buildings, particularly in a pre-school building, the comfort and performance
of the pupils should be a priority alongside the use of EE (Catalina and Iordache, 2012).
Concerns surrounding energy consumption in the schools in Malaysia focus more on the
electrical equipment instead of IEQ (Roslizar et al., 2014), while the tropical climate of
Malaysia is ideal for daylight exploitation as daylight is consistently available from the hours
of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Tang, 2017). Thus, educational buildings can benefit from this fundamental
resource to achieve IEQ and EE concurrently. At the time of this research, there has yet to be
any publication of work regarding pre-schools’ daylight condition assessment in Malaysia
considering both visual comfort and EE affected by the occupants’ behaviour, and
particularly, on the impact of the installation of internal fixed drapes as a common solution
broadly used to combat thermal discomfort and glare in this climate.
The research gap of this study will be explored through the evaluation of visual comfort
and electrical lighting energy consumption in an educational building which has been
influenced by the user behaviour. This paper aims to raise awareness on how a simple action
by the occupant can significantly influence building energy use, cost and CO2 emissions to
the environment. This paper particularly focuses on the assessment and comparison of
quality and quantity of the daylight distribution on a workplane area in the baseline (pre-
occupancy) and existing (post-occupancy) conditions of a classroom in Kuala Lumpur as a
model-based case study for the transformation of the existing building into nZEB,
considering both the visual comfort and EE criteria. The approach adopted to evaluate
daylighting in the classroom is based on the daylight factor (DF), workplane daylight
illuminance level (IL) and uniformity ratio (UR) parameters affected by the internal fixed
drapes through the integration of computational and in situ measurements according to the
daylighting codes and credits required by the law and respective standards comprising of the
MS1525:2019: Sections 4.4 and 6.2, and the environmental assessment systems: GBI NREB
v1.1 EQ8 criteria, and also the BREEAM health and wellbeing category Hea 01 Visual
comfort issue (see Table 1).

2.2 Visual comfort and workplane lighting codes for classrooms in Malaysia
The British Standards Institution (BS EN 12665, 2011) defines visual comfort as “a subjective
condition of visual well-being induced by the visual environment”. Visual comfort
assessment has been conducted based on the relationship between the human needs and
OHI Building research
47,1 establishment’s
Malaysian standard 1,525 Green building index environmental assessment
Criteria (MS1525:2019) (GBI) rating tools method (BREEAM)

Category -Architectural and Passive Lighting, visual and Health and wellbeing
design strategy acoustic comfort
170 -Lighting
Credit name -Section 4.4 daylighting NREB v1.1 EQ8 Hea 01 visual comfort
-Section 6.2 general
principles of efficient
lighting practice
Intent -To design with emphasis on To provide a good level of To encourage and recognise
daylighting daylighting for building projects that maximise
-To provide a suitable visual occupants opportunities for good
environment within a daylighting, artificial lighting
particular space i.e. and occupant controls to
sufficient and suitable ensure best practices in visual
lighting for the performance performance and comfort for
of a range of tasks and building occupants
provision of a desired
appearance
Average DF 1–3% ≥30% of the NLA has a Average daylight Factor 2%
requirements DF in the range of 1.0– and Minimum Area (m2) to
3.5% as measured at the comply 80% (1 point)
working plane (1 point)
50% of the NLA has a
daylight factor in the
range of 1.0–3.5% as
measured at the working
plane (2 points)
Average IL 300–500 lux 300–500 lux for 90% of At least 300 lux and Minimum
Table 1. requirements NLA as measured at the Area (m2) to comply 80% (2
Criteria for the working plane (1 point) points)
assessment of daylight UR The uniformity of the task N/A A uniformity ratio of at least
in MS1525:2019, GBI requirements illuminance shall not be less 0.3 (1 point)
and BREEAM than 0.7

the light environment factors (Carlucci et al., 2015). Critical factors affecting the level of visual
comfort on workplane in a classroom area include illuminance and its UR, DF, glare,
directionality of light, colour appearance and colour rendering, flicker, view through the
window or daylight opening to the outdoor environment (Szokolay, 2014; Galal, 2019; Cantin
and Dubois, 2011; Carlucci et al., 2015).
The experimental measurement and evaluation of the adequacy of lighting as a
qualitative-quantitative method depends on the IL, DF and UR (Cantin and Dubois, 2011;
Szokolay, 2014; Dubois et al., 2016). Thus, in this research, these three factors are evaluated as
the most adequate and yet sufficiently detailed factors in a visual assessment of workplane
area in the classroom.
2.2.1 Illuminance level (IL). Every country has its own lighting codes for the IL in
classrooms but it all ranges from 300 lux up to 500 lux and they originate from the European
Standards (CEN/TC, 2002; Galal, 2019). Therefore, achieving 300 lux can be the minimum
requirement for daylighting application and a threshold of 500 lux as the maximum amount,
as the acceptable IL specified by MS1525:2019, GBI NREB v1.1 EQ8 and BREEAM Hea 01.
 2.2.2 Daylight factor (DF). The advantage of the DF as an indicator of daylighting The workplane
performance is that it expresses the efficiency of a room and its fenestration as a natural daylight
lighting system (Ahuja, 2013). DF is defined as the ratio of the internal horizontal illuminance
at one point to the unobstructed external horizontal illuminance (Equation 1) measured under
distribution
the standard CIE overcast sky (Figure 1) (Lim et al., 2017; Pollock et al., 2009; Cantin and quality
Dubois, 2011).
Einternal 171
DF ¼ 3 100% (1)
Eexternal

DF 5 Daylight factor (%)

Einternal 5 internal horizontal illuminance on the workplane (Lux)
Eexternal 5 external horizontal illuminance measured under CIE overcast sky (Lux)
According to MS1525 (Table 2) and GBI NREB v1.1 EQ8, the acceptable lighting range is
between 1.0 to 3.5% and 1.0–3.0%, respectively (GBI, 2011; MS1525, 2019). BREEAM – health

Figure 1.
Daylight factor

DF (%) Lighting Glare Thermal comfort

>6.0 Intolerable Intolerable Uncomfortable

3.5–6.0 Tolerable Uncomfortable Tolerable
1.0–3.5 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Table 2.
<1.0 Perceptible Imperceptible Acceptable Daylight factors and
Source(s): MS1525 (2019) impact
OHI and wellbeing credit Hea 01 requires the average DF value of 2.0% for classrooms
47,1 (BREEAM, 2017).
2.2.3 Uniformity ratio (UR). UR is defined as the ratio of the minimum illuminance to the
average illuminance on the workplane and is a major contributor to lighting quality (Dubois
et al., 2016). According to MS1525, the UR of the task illuminance shall not be less than 0.70.
BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit Hea 01 suggested a minimum UR of 0.3 for schools
and pre-schools’ spaces, but no point has been allocated for this indicator in the GBI NREB
172 rating system.

2.3 Daylight availability of the test classroom

The climate zone in Malaysia is easily comprehensible because the seasonal variation is
rather small; every day is approximately the same for the whole year (Tang and Chin, 2013).
Tang and Chin (2013) further clarified that the typical cloudy sky condition of Malaysia that
diffuses the direct sunlight, created an entire bright sky dome similar to an overcast sky
condition throughout the year. Moreover, the total percentage of external illumination in
Malaysia that falls above 10klux during working hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) is 93%, and this has
resulted in a high possibility of the exploitation of daylighting in buildings in this climatic
zone (Ahmed, 2000; Zain-Ahmed et al., 2002; Dahlan et al., 2009).
The test classroom (TADIKUM) belongs to a pre-school building located at the main
campus of the University of Malaya (UM) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Figure 2 shows the
external view and layout plan of the classroom (dimensions: 4.80 3 5.70 3 2.85 m, area:
25.75 m2). The latitude and longitude of the site are 38N and 1018E, respectively. The daily
operating hours of classrooms are from 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
Transparent envelope is characterised by single glazing with a metal frame. The
classroom’s window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is around 28% on North, East and South facing
façades, which is considered ideal to allow optimum indoor daylight based on the standard
requirement by ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (WWR ≤ 40% of gross wall area) (ASHRAE, 2019).
Table 3 presents the characteristics of windows and the daylight availability of the
classroom (aD,max). Windows 1–5 have been covered with frosted window film from inside,
and window 6 has been completely blocked by fixed drapes from inside and recycle cartons
from outside (Figure 3).
The maximum depth of the daylight area of the classroom through vertical façades of all
three orientations which have been calculated based on the standard formula (Equation 2)
derived from the new version of CEN/TC (2017). The equality of height of window lintel
values (2.10 m) on all three orientations of the facades (north, east, west) have resulted in the

Figure 2.
Test classroom and
location of onset HOBO
U12 Devices (A-D
points)
 Window size (w 3 h) Sill height hLi hTa aD,max
The workplane
No m2 Glazing type Orientation (m) (m) (m) (m) daylight
distribution
1 0.7 3 1.2 6 mm clear North 0.90 2.10 0.50 4
glass quality
2 0.7 3 1.2 6 mm clear North 0.90 2.10 0.50 4
glass
3 0.7 3 2.0 6 mm clear East 0.10 2.10 0.50 4 173
glass
4 0.7 3 1.2 6 mm clear East 0.90 2.10 0.50 4
glass Table 3.
5 0.7 3 1.2 6 mm clear East 0.90 2.10 0.50 4 Window size, glazing
glass type, depth of daylight
6 4.1 3 2.0 6 mm clear South 0.10 2.10 0.50 4 area and WWR of the
glass classroom

Figure 3.
(a) Exterior blocked
window, (b) interior
blocked window and (c)
location of blocked
window

equality of the daylight area depth of 4.0 m (Table 3) in all the orientations. As the dimensions
of the length and width of the classroom are 4.8 3 5.7 m, the aD,max of 4.0 m will be able to fully
cover the area and therefore the baseline condition of the classroom is considered as a daylit
area.
a D; max ¼ 2:5 3 ðhLi  hTa Þ (2)

aD,max 5 maximum depth of the daylight area (m)

hLi 5 Lintel height (m)
hTa 5 height of the ask area (m)

3. Methodology
An important approach used in this research method design was to set up a virtual model to
simulate the daylight condition of the classroom as the baseline (pre-occupancy) without user
modification, subsequently the simulation for the existing (post-occupancy) condition along
with the in situ measurement were carried out, both of which were based on the current
situation and characteristics of the building. Thereafter, the comparison between the existing
condition simulation results and data collection of in situ measurement was carried out to
evaluate the accuracy of the software to compare baseline and existing computational
assessment results (Figure 4).
OHI 3.1 In situ measurement
47,1 Four Onset HOBO U12 (Figure 5a) were placed inside the classroom to log indoor light
intensity. As illustrated in Figure 2, the devices were located at each of the four corners of the
room with the wall zone of 1.00 m and a workplane height of 0.50 m above the ground. One
HOBO-USB micro station data logger (H21-USB) was placed on the rooftop of the nearest
building to TADIKUM (Figure 5b–d) to log outdoor light intensity. Indoor lighting
illuminance values were measured in lux as a typical unit for measuring indoor lighting. Solar
174 radiation sensor measured the light intensity in W/m2 unit for measurement outdoors. There
was an approximated conversion factor of 0.0079 W/m2/Lux for the Sun (Long et al., 2017)
which has been used in this study to relate these units.
The Solar Radiation Smart Sensor is a light sensor (silicon pyranometer) for use in outdoor
environments with a measurement range of 0–1,280 W/m2 over a spectral range of 300–
1,100 nm. This sensor reports the average light intensity over a user-set set logging
interval from a minimum of 1.0 s. The indoor/outdoor measurements have been conducted at
12.00 p.m. under an overcast sky condition as the dominant sky condition in Malaysian
tropical climate.

3.2 Simulation approach

To conduct the computational approach of this study based on the determination of factors
mentioned in section 2.2, an open-source software, DIALux evo 8.2, was adopted. DIALux evo

Measurement & Analysis Process

Experimental Measurement
Field Measurement
Daylight modeling of the
Baseline & Existing Scenarios
DIALux Simulation
Simulation Validation
Investigated Criteria

Point DF, Point Workplane IL, ADF, AIL, UR

Figure 4.
Visual comfort assessment based on the GBI,
Research measurement
MS1525, & BREEAM; Calculation of energy
and analysis process
consumption & cost; CO2 emissions

Figure 5.
(a) Data logger – HOBO
U12 located at Point D
inside the classroom;
(b) HOBO USB Micro
Station Data Logger
(H21-USB), (c) Solar
Radiation Smart
Sensor (Silicon
Pyranometer) S-LIB-
M003, (d) Micro Station
Data Logger location
on rooftop of the
adjacent building at
UM campus area
is a complete and extensible simulation environment for daylight simulation of building and The workplane
urban complexes (Bin, 2019) and takes into account the CIE models for clear, cloudy and daylight
overcast skies. DIALux evo is a validated and benchmarked software program against CIE
171:2006 – test case to assess the accuracy of lighting computer programs (CIE – Commission
distribution
Internationale de l’Eclairage, 2006). DIALux evo software is also compliant with the general quality
requirements of MS1525, GBI and European Directive particularly BREEAM Hea 01 on the
daylight simulation of building.
3.2.1 Performance metrics for daylight simulation. As stated by Dilaura (2011), DF is the 175
most widely used metric for daylight performance in buildings. In Malaysia, there is hardly
any variability of season that changes the daily availability of daylight. As broadly discussed
in Tang and Chin (2013), due to the fact that the DF is computed based on an overcast sky
condition (where daylight is distributed from all directions of the sky dome), and the tropical
sky of Malaysia is similar to an overcast sky condition, it is reasonably accurate to use the DF
as a daylight availability indicator in this climate zone. DIALux evo has been credibly
validated for CIE overcast sky (Chien and Tseng, 2013) to calculate DF parameters. The
reflectance factors’ values applied in the simulations are presented in Table 4. Light loss
factor (LLF) or maintenance factor is set to 0.80.
3.2.2 Simulation settings and daylight parameters. In order to develop an accurate
simulation model for daylight performance, outdoor and indoor parameters should be taken
into account precisely. The simulation parameters and settings applied in the analysis are
summarised in Table 5.

4. Results and discussions

In the analysis, 4 points (A, B, C, D) in the classroom in three different scenarios were assessed
for a comparison of results i.e. baseline simulation (Figure 6), existing simulation (Figure 7)
and in situ measurement of the existing condition (Table 6). The data illustrated in Table 6,
clearly shows how the gap between measured and simulated parameters was little and

Interior surface/element Reflection factor (%)

Table 4.
Walls (Paint, Light Green) 50 Specifications and
Ceiling (Paint, White) 70 reflection factor values
Floor (Mortar) 20 of the interior surfaces
Source(s): Neufert and Neufert (2012) of the classroom

Parameters Value

Location Kuala Lumpur (3.208 N 101.708 E)

Reference sky type Overcast sky
Date and time 16/08/2020 12:00 p.m. (Peninsular Malaysia’s standard time)
Zenith luminance 8,103 cd/m2
Ambient condition Clean
Clearance height of room 2.85 m
Workplane height 0.50 m [for children]
Floor area 25.75 m2
Wall zone 1.00 m Table 5.
Glazing type Single clear 6 mm thickness glass Simulation settings
OHI acceptable; thereby the calculation model was considered validated to perform the
47,1 simulations discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Effect of internal fixed drapes on IL

It was discovered that internal fixed drapes in existing condition had considerably affected
the quantity of the daylighting; IL. Similar reduction trends to the level of workplane
illuminance were observed: Point B with the highest IL of 678 lux was reduced to 53% in
176 simulation and 52% in measurement results; point A with the lowest IL of 317 lux was
reduced to 118 lux (62%) in simulation and 122.2 lux (61%) in measurement scenario; and
point C has the maximum reduction of 65% in both simulation and measurement reading
results, from 600 lux to 208 and 208.9 lux, respectively.
The assessment results indicated as follows:
4.1.1 Workplane IL and average IL assessment of baseline condition.
(1) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (510 lux) in baseline
condition (without internal fixed drapes) were in and above the range of 300–500 lux
in accordance with MS1525:2019.

Figure 6.
Daylight illuminance
level (IL) distribution
on the workplane in
baseline condition at
points A, B, C and D
(AIL (lux): 510, min IL:
107, max IL: 2078; more
than 90% of NLA was
within the
acceptable range)

Figure 7.
Daylight illuminance
level (IL) distribution
on the workplane in
existing condition at
points A, B, C and D
(AIL (lux): 208, min IL:
42, max IL: 790; only
5% of NLA was within
the acceptable range)

Point Workplane IL (lux) Point DF (%)

Baseline Existing Existing Baseline Existing Existing
Table 6. Time Points simulation simulation measurement simulation simulation measurement
Point workplane IL and
Point DF values in 12 A 317 118 122.2 2.8 0.57 0.35
baseline and existing p.m. B 678 316 319.3 2.3 0.68 0.91
simulations and in situ C 600 208 208.9 2.6 0.64 0.60
measurement D 445 191 185.3 3.1 0.92 0.53
 (2) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (510 lux) in baseline The workplane
condition (without internal fixed drapes) were in and above the range of 300–500 lux daylight
in accordance with GBI NREB – EQ10 for 90% of NLA as measured at the working
plane; 1-point credit was achieved.
distribution
quality
(3) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (510 lux) in baseline
condition (without internal fixed drapes) were above 300 lux and complied with the
BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit HEA1 criterion: at least 300 lux and 177
minimum area of 80% of the NLA is above 300 lux; all 2-point credits were achieved.
4.1.2 Workplane IL and average IL assessment of existing condition.
(1) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (208 lux) in existing
condition (with internal fixed drapes) both in simulation and in situ measurement
were equal and out of the range of 300–500 lux and did not comply with MS1525:2019.
(2) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (208 lux) in existing
condition (with internal fixed drapes) both in simulation and in situ measurement
were equal and out of the range of 300–500 lux and did not meet the GBI NREB –
EQ10 requirement and only 5% of NLA is within the range; no-point credit was
achieved.
(3) Workplane IL of all the points and average IL of the classroom (208 lux) in existing
condition (with internal fixed drapes) both in simulation and in situ measurement
were equal and did not comply with the BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit
HEA1 criterion: at least 300 lux and minimum area of 80% of the NLA were not
achieved; no-point credit was achieved.
Workplane IL and average IL assessment of each measuring point and the classroom area, in
existing condition did not meet the acceptable range of IL required by the law and standards
as the main and first parameter in daylight quantity evaluation. Thus, as a holistic approach,
this study evaluated other parameters, i.e. DF and UR, to assess the effect of fixed drapes on
the quantity and quality of daylight in the classroom.

4.2 Effect of internal fixed drapes on DF

The analysis (Tables 6 and 7) indicated that internal fixed drapes in existing condition had
excessively affected the daylighting efficiency of the classroom. For instance, DF of Point D
with a maximum amount from 3.1% in baseline simulation (Figure 8) was decreased to 0.92%
(70%) in the existing simulation (Figure 9) and 0.53% (80%) in in situ measurement (Table 6);
point B with a minimum amount of DF of 2.3% was reduced to 0.68% (70%) on simulation
and 0.91% (60%) based on the measurement; DF of point A has the most reduction rate of
80% in simulation and 88% in in situ measurement. The results of the analysis are presented
in Table 6.
The assessment results indicated as follows:
4.2.1 DF assessment of baseline condition.
(1) Point daylight factor (PDF) of all the points and ADF of the classroom (2.7%) in
baseline condition (without internal fixed drapes) were in the range of 1.0–3.0% in
accordance with MS1525:2019.
(2) PDF of all the points and ADF of the classroom (2.7%) in baseline condition (without
internal fixed drapes) were in the range of 1.0–3.5% in accordance with GBI NREB –
EQ8 and more than 50% of the NLA was within the range; all 2-point credits were
achieved.
 47,1
OHI

178

Table 7.

standards’

BREEAM)
requirements
Daylight assessment
based on the law and

(MS1525:2019, GBI and

ADF (%) Average IL (lux) UR
Area/ Baseline Existing Existing Area/ Baseline Existing Existing Area/ Baseline Existing Existing
Standards simulation simulation measurement Standards simulation simulation measurement standards simulation simulation measurement

Classroom 2.7 0.7 0.6 Classroom 510 208 208 Classroom 0.62 0.56 0.58
MS1525 U ✗ ✗ MS1525 U ✗ ✗ MS1525 ✗ ✗ ✗
1–3% 300–500 shall not
lux be less
than 0.7
GBI credit U ✗ ✗ GBI credit U ✗ ✗ GBI credit – – –
(2 Points) (1 Point) N/A
BREEAM U ✗ ✗ BREEAM U ✗ ✗ BREEAM U U U
(1 Point) (2 Points) (1 Point)
Note(s): The pass mark (U) indicates that the criteria have met the requirements that were mentioned in Table 1, the failure (✗) mark indicates that the criteria have not met even
the minimum requirements, and N/A refers to the non-applicability of a criterion in specific standard/rating tools requirements
 (3) Average PDF of all the points and ADF of the classroom (2.7%) in baseline condition The workplane
(without internal fixed drapes) comply with BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit daylight
HEA1 criterion; 2.0% ADF and minimum area of 80% of the NLA is within the range;
1-point credit is achieved.
distribution
quality
4.2.2 DF assessment of the existing condition.
(1) PDF of all the points and ADF of the classroom in existing condition (with internal
fixed drapes) in simulation (0.7%) and in situ measurement (0.6%) were out of the 179
range of 1.0–3.0% and did not comply with MS1525:2019.
(2) PDF of all the points and ADF of the classroom in existing condition (with internal
fixed drapes) in simulation (0.7%) and in situ measurement (0.6%) were out of the
range of 1.0–3.5% and did not meet the GBI NREB – EQ8 requirement, and only 5.0%
of NLA was within the range; no-point credit was achieved.
(3) Average PDF of all the points and ADF of the classroom in existing condition (with
internal fixed drapes) neither in simulation (0.7%) nor in situ measurement (0.6%)
complied with the BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit HEA1 criterion: 2.0% ADF
and minimum area of 80% of the NLA was not achieved; no-point credit was
achieved.
The quantity of PDF values of all the points and ADF of the classroom area in the existing
condition have significantly dropped down and did not meet the requirements of the law
(MS1525) and respective standards (GBI and BREEAM).

Figure 8.
Daylight factor (DF)
distribution on the
workplane in baseline
condition at points A,
B, C and D (ADF: 2.7%,
min DF: 1.76%, max
DF: 3.96%; minimum
area of 80% of the NLA
was within the
acceptable range)

Figure 9.
Daylight factor (DF)
distribution on the
workplane in existing
condition at points A,
B, C and D (ADF:
0.63%, min DF: 0.44%,
max DF: 1.12%; only
5% of NLA was within
the acceptable range)
OHI 4.3 Effect of internal fixed drapes on UR
47,1 The assessments presented in Tables 6 and 7 show that internal fixed drapes in the existing
condition have slightly affected the quality of the daylighting; UR. The trend of reduction in UR
is smoother than that of DF and IL; the results demonstrate that all the analysed simulations
of baseline (0.62), existing (0.56) and in situ measurement (0.58) values are almost identical (Table 7).
The assessment results have indicated as follows:
4.3.1 UR assessment of the baseline condition.
180
(1) UR value of the classroom (0.62) in baseline condition (without internal fixed drapes)
is slightly lower than 0.7 and does not meet the MS1525:2019 requirement.
(2) UR value of the classroom (0.62) in baseline condition (without internal fixed drapes)
is greater than 0.3 and complies with the BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit
HEA1 criterion; 1-point credit is achieved.
4.3.2 UR assessment of the existing condition.
(1) UR value of the classroom in existing condition, (with internal fixed drapes) neither in
simulation (0.56) nor in in situ measurement (0.58) is greater than 0.7 and does not
meet the MS1525:2019 requirement.
(2) UR value of the classroom in existing condition (with internal fixed drapes), both in
simulation (0.56) and in situ measurement (0.58), is greater than 0.3 and complies with
the BREEAM – health and wellbeing credit HEA1 criterion; 1-point credit is achieved.
The values of UR as a major contributor to the lighting quality of the workplane have failed to
fulfil the requirement by MS1525; however, it is in compliance with the BREEAM rating tools
requirement in both baseline and existing conditions of the classroom. In addition, results of
the analyses of IL and DF as the major daylight quantity indicators in baseline condition were
in accordance with MS1525 and the GBI and BREEAM rating tools.
Table 7 shows detailed daylight analyses results and assessments based on MS1525, GBI
and BREEAM. The table specifies that a baseline scenario can achieve all of the requirements
by MS1525, GBI and BREEAM with the exception of the UR requirement by MS1525 (with a
slight difference) which has resulted from small differences between minimum and average
lux in the room, and existing scenario failed to achieve any point from MS1525, GBI and
BREEAM except UR requirement by BREEAM criterion.
Figures 6–9 visualise the distribution of daylight IL and DF across the classroom on
a workplane area (desk height 0.50 m) in baseline and existing scenarios. Figure 6 (IL) and
Figure 8 (DF) show an uneven but acceptable distribution of daylight on workplane surfaces
in the baseline scenario, while Figure 7 (IL) and Figure 9 (DF) show an equal distribution but
below the minimum level of lighting as required by the law and respective standards.
Figure 10 illustrates a comparison of trends of the aforementioned parameters (IL, DF) as
crucial factors in daylight assessments in both baseline and existing scenarios. The trends
indicate that the application of internal fixed drapes and frosted window film on glazing to
combat thermal discomfort and glare had significantly dropped down the workplane lighting
level quantity by a minimum of 52% to a maximum of 88% deduction; and the NLA
percentage had decreased from a “more than 90%” to a “less than 5%” area. These significant
deductions have transferred the classroom from a well-daylit area to a poor-daylit room;
increasing the dependency on artificial lighting during daylight hours. The charts depict that
the amount of IL and DF had declined from above and within an acceptable range, into a
below acceptable range, in almost all points. The wasteful behaviour had also affected the UR
of the room; although by a narrow margin of 10%, but showed a decline nonetheless. These
improper modifications on windows and sacrificing natural daylight had not only negatively
affected the quantity of daylight absorption (IL and DF) but also its quality (UR); and finally The workplane
resulted in an increased artificial lighting dependency and electricity consumption in the daylight
classroom.
Comparison between numerical results of the existing simulated model output and
distribution
measured data in IL assessment reasonably demonstrates the accuracy and validity of this quality
numerical simulation method; with a minimum of 0.4% and a maximum of 2.9% differences
between the measurement and simulation results. In the DF assessment however, the values
of the existing measurement and simulation results are all below 1% and close to their 181
respective values but the trends are fluctuated compared to the IL trends. With reference to
the fact that the CIE Standard overcast sky in simulation, CIE 110–1994, has a rotationally
symmetrical luminance distribution (CIE – Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 1994;
Mardaljevic, 2012) and is either independent of or slight brightening towards the sun (Li et al.,
2016) regardless of the compass orientation of the building (Mardaljevic, 2012), the minor
fluctuation between the simulated and in situ measured DF is inevitable and negligible in this
case study that windows are facing three different orientations.

4.4 The energy consumption for the artificial lighting in the classroom
In subsection 2.3, results of the calculations indicated that the baseline classroom is a well-
daylit space based on the room and its fenestrations’ dimensions. In addition, subsection 2.1
reported that in general, daylight is invariably available from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in Malaysia.
Furthermore, graphs in Figure 11 showed that during the operating hours of TADIKUM
classrooms (10.00 a.m.–4:30 p.m.) the average daylight availability in Kuala Lumpur is above
20,000 lux. As the required light level (illuminance) for workplane areas in classrooms are
300–500 lux (based on MS1525, GBI, BREEAM), the requirement would thus be completely
fulfilled in the baseline scenario through the exploitation of natural light and without using
artificial lighting throughout the entire operating hours over the whole area of the classroom
on normal days.
Findings on visual comfort assessments (sections 4.1–4.3) declared an extent of the
adverse user behaviour impact on the adequacy of daylight on the workplane and ultimately
causing full dependency of the space in using artificial light for illumination throughout the
entire operating hours in the daytime in the existing scenario.
The conventional fluorescent lamp used in Malaysia is known as the T8 type and consumes
36 watts (46 watts including the use of conventional magnetic ballast) (Li et al., 2016); likewise,
the lighting system of the TADIKUM classroom includes four batten type of T8 fluorescent
lamps. Table 8 shows the daily energy consumption of the lighting system of the classroom in

800 4.5
WORKPLANE ILLUMINANCE LEVEL (LUX)

700 4

3.5
600
Figure 10.
3
500 The assessment of
POINT DF (%)

Accepted 2.5 daylight distribution in

400 Range Accepted the classroom in three
2
Point B
Range different scenarios;
300
1.5 baseline simulation,
Point C
200 existing simulation and
Point D 1 Point B existing in situ
Point A Point C
100 0.5 Point D measurement based on
Point A
IL (left) and DF (right)
0 0
Baseline Existing Existing Baseline Existing Existing
parameters on a
Simulation Simulation Measurement Simulation Simulation Measurement workplane area
BUILDING CONDITIONS BUILDING CONDITIONS
OHI the existing condition which is 1.2 kWh, costs RM 0.52 and generates 0.70 kg CO2 emissions.
47,1 However, the classroom has the potential to exploit daylight throughout its entire operating
hours and eventually a significant reduction of 100% energy usage and emissions have
resulted from the use of artificial lighting on normal days throughout the year.
It was reported in Quick Facts (2019) that, based on Malaysia’s most recent educational
statistics, the total number of schools in Malaysia (pre-schools, primary and secondary
schools) amounted to 36,249 schools with 236,267 classes, out of which 25,200 are pre-schools
182 with 36,249 classes. Considering the usage of a rather out-dated lighting system of T8
fluorescent lamps in the Malaysian schools, for example TADIKUM, it is demonstrated, as
per Table 9, that the total daily electricity usage (43353.80 kWh), cost (RM18858.90) and CO2

Figure 11.
Diffuse daylight
availability from the
test reference year
(TRY) weather data.
TRY weather data is
based on 21 years of
data from the Malaysia
Meteorological Station
developed by
Universiti Teknologi
MARA (UiTM) and the
Danish International
Assistant (DANCED)

Total
*
power of Emission CO2
Number of lighting Daily energy Cost factor (kg emissions
Type of luminaire luminaires system (W) usage (kWh) (RM*) CO2/MWhe) (kg)

T8 1 3 36W (46 W 4 184 (184 3 6.5)/ 0.52 585 0.70

including the use of a 1,000 5 1.2
Table 8.
conventional magnetic
Specification and daily
energy usage of the ballast) without any
current artificial cover (batten type)
lighting system in the Note(s): *RM: Ringgit Malaysia, the price was calculated based on the current electricity tariff in Malaysia
TADIKUM classroom effective 1 January 2014 (43.5 sen/kWh); *Emission factor (CDM, 2017)

Table 9.
Daily energy usage,
cost, CO2 emissions of Number of Total power of Daily Emission CO2
the current artificial pre-school Number of lighting energy Cost factor (kg CO2/ emissions
lighting system in the classes luminaires system (W) usage (kWh) (RM*) MWhe) (kg)
pre-schools’
classrooms in Malaysia 36,249 144,996 6,669,816 43353.80 18858.90 585 25,362
emissions (25,362 kg) of using this particular lighting system in the current situation amounts The workplane
to a significant waste of energy, money and the generation of air pollution, clearly developed daylight
by unsustainable user behaviour within the building.
distribution
quality
5. Conclusion
This study addressed a retrofitting process of nZEB renovation from the point of view of
visual comfort and energy efficiency in a classroom, comparing pre- and post-occupancy 183
scenarios. Daylight quality and quantity in both baseline and existing conditions of the
classroom based on DF, workplane daylight IL and UR parameters and compliance with the
law and respective standards, namely MS1525:2019, GBI and BREEAM, were assessed and
compared accordingly. The dimensions of the classroom are 4.8 3 5.7 m, the aD,max of 4.0 m
covers the entire area, and WWR is 28%, which is within the required threshold limit by
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 to allow optimum indoor daylight. The following significant findings
were derived from the study:
(1) Results of the analyses (Table 7) indicated that the baseline condition with an ADF of
2.7% and an AIL of 510 lux achieved all points in conformity with the regulating law
and respective standards, and only a UR value with a slight difference (0.62) had not
met the minimum requirement by MS1525:2019 (0.7). Notwithstanding this, it
achieved points from BREEAM. According to the results of the in situ measurement
and computational analyses, the baseline condition was considered as a well-daylit
area with the ability to exploit daylight without using any artificial light throughout
the operating hours of the classroom (10.00 a.m.–4.30 p.m.) and reduce artificial
lighting energy usage for up to 100% on normal days.
(2) In contrast to the baseline condition, results of the existing condition analyses
(Table 7) have revealed to the extent of how improper and wasteful user behaviour
had adversely affected the visual comfort and energy usage in classrooms. By
installing internal fixed drapes to control heat transfer and glare, the values of all the
above-mentioned parameters significantly dropped down and failed to pass the
requirements; i.e. ADF reduced to 0.7%, AIL to 208 lux and UR to 0.56. Consequently,
the area turned into a poor-daylit area with full dependency on artificial lighting
during the classroom’s entire operating hours.
(3) The results have disclosed the significant impact of daylight exploitation in the pre-
schools’ classrooms that can improve the daily cost and performance of clean energy,
up to RM18858.90 and a reduction of 25,362 kg of CO2 emissions in Malaysia.
(4) It was proved that the role and impact of occupant behaviour during the post-
occupancy phase on visual comfort and EE in retrofitting process, were evidently
critical and crucial and equally important with the building design, construction and
technology.
(5) The findings of this research, the luminance measurement results, including DF, were
carried out under the CIE overcast sky, which served as a reasonably accurate and
dominant sky condition in Malaysia’s tropical climate. As calculations under the CIE
overcast sky were not influenced by the glazed surface orientation, these findings can
be generalised into all directions in this particular climate.
This comparison study documented evidence that can be used as a starting point towards
nZEB refurbishment for classroom daylight analysis to provide a pathway for proper visual
comfort. This starting point, along with EE target to reduce CO2 emissions, can be used by the
occupants/school boards for moving schools towards nZEB via exploitation of daylight and
OHI its integration with artificial light; because, more often than not, building users are not aware
47,1 of climate change issues at their fingertips. EE and user behaviour interact with and are
influenced by each other and need to be embedded in all areas and levels of the retrofitting
processes to sustain the transition towards nZEB.
This research examined visual comfort and EE through field measurement and
simulation analyses of daylight parameters such as DF, IL and UR based on law and
respective standards. Future research can focus on daylight’s psychological and
184 behavioural aspects to assess pupils’ visual comfort, performance and satisfaction;
subjective measurements and questionnaires are expected to accurately address these
issues.

References
Ahmed, A.Z. (2000), Daylighting and Shading for Thermal Comfort in Malaysian Buildings, University
of Hertfordshire, Hatfield.
Ahuja, A. (2013), Integrated M/E Design: Building Systems Engineering, Springer Science & Business
Media, New York.
Amundadottir, M.L., Rockcastle, S., Khanie, M.S. and Andersen, M. (2017), “A human-centric approach
to assess daylight in buildings for non-visual health potential, visual interest and gaze
behavior”, Building and Environment, Vol. 113, pp. 5-21, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.033.
Ashrae, S. (2019), Standard 90.1-2019. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2019,
Atlanta, GA.
Ballarini, I., De Luca, G., Paragamyan, A., Pellegrino, A. and Corrado, V. (2019), “Transformation of an
office building into a Nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB): implications for thermal and visual
comfort and energy performance”, Energies, Vol. 12, p. 895, doi: 10.3390/en12050895.
Bernardo, H., Antunes, C.H., Gaspar, A., Pereira, L.D. and Da Silva, M.G. (2017), “An approach for
energy performance and indoor climate assessment in a Portuguese school building”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 184-194, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.014.
Bhusal, P., Tetri, E. and Halonen, L. (2006), “Quality and efficiency of office lighting”, 27th
International AIVC Conference, pp. 20-22.
Bin, C. (2019), The Natural Light and the Daylight Factor in a Non-residential Building-Case Study of
the Classroom of an Educational Center, Politecnico di Torino - Universidad Politecnica de
Madrid, Madrid.
BREEAM (2017), BREEAM International Non-domestic Refurbishment 2015 - Technical Manual
SD225 1.4. SD225 BRE Global.
Bs En 12665 (2011), Light and Lighting. Basic Terms and Criteria for Specifying Lighting
Requirements, British Standards Institution, London.
Cantin, F. and Dubois, M.-C. (2011), “Daylighting metrics based on illuminance, distribution, glare and
directivity”, Lighting Research and Technology, Vol. 43, pp. 291-307, doi: 10.1177/
1477153510393319.
Carlucci, S., Causone, F., De Rosa, F. and Pagliano, L. (2015), “A review of indices for assessing visual
comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building integrated
design”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 47, pp. 1016-1033, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.
2015.03.062.
Catalina, T. and Iordache, V. (2012), “IEQ assessment on schools in the design stage”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 49, pp. 129-140, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.09.014.
CDM (2017), “2017 CDM electricity baseline for Malaysia”, in Malaysian Green Technology
Corporation, M. O. E., Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC),
Malaysian Green Technology and Climate Change Centre, Selangor.
Cellai, G., Carletti, C., Sciurpi, F. and Secchi, S. (2014), Transparent Building Envelope: Windows and The workplane
Shading Devices Typologies for Energy Efficiency Refurbishments. Building Refurbishment for
Energy Performance, Springer, Cham. daylight
CEN/TC (2002), Light and Lighting - Lighting of Work Places - Part 1: Indoor Work Places, European
distribution
Committee for Standardization, Brussels. quality
CEN/TC (2017), Standard CEN/TR 15193-2, Energy Performance of Buildings - Energy Requirements
for Lighting - Part 2: Explanation and Justification of EN 15193-1, Module M9, CEN-CENELEC
Management Centre, Brussels. 185
Chien, S.C. and Tseng, K.J. (2013), Simulation-assisted Daylight Performance Analysis in a High-Rise
Office Building in Singapore, Center for Research in Energy Systems Transformation (CREST),
Berkeley, UC.
CIE - Commission Internationale De L’eclairage (1994), CIE 110-1994 - Standardization of Luminance
Distribution on Clear Skies, CIE, Vienna.
CIE - Commission Internationale De L’eclairage (2006), CIE 171 - Test Cases to Assess the Accuracy of
Lighting Computer Programs, CIE, Vienna.
Dahlan, N.D., Jones, P.J., Alexander, D.K., Salleh, E. and Alias, J. (2009), “Daylight ratio, luminance, and
visual comfort assessments in typical Malaysian hostels”, Indoor and Built Environment,
Vol. 18, pp. 319-335, doi: 10.1177/1420326X09337041.
Dilaura, D.L. (2011), “Illuminating engineering society”, The Lighting Handbook: Reference and
Application, 10th ed., Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, New York.
Doulos, L., Kontadakis, A., Madias, E., Sinou, M. and Tsangrassoulis, A. (2019), “Minimizing energy
consumption for artificial lighting in a typical classroom of a Hellenic public school aiming for
near Zero Energy Building using LED DC luminaires and daylight harvesting systems”, Energy
and Buildings, Vol. 194, pp. 201-217, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.033.
Dubois, M. and Blomsterberg, A. (2011), “Energy saving potential and strategies for electric lighting in
future North European, low energy office buildings: a literature review”, Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 43, pp. 2572-2582, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.001.
Dubois, M., Gentile, N., Amorim, C.N.D., Geisler-Moroder, D., Jakobiak, R., Matusiak, B., Osterhaus, W.
and Stoffer, S. (2016), Monitoring Protocol for Lighting and Daylighting Retrofits: A Technical
Report of Subtask D (Case Studies), T50, D3, doi: 10.1177/1477153510393319.
Galal, K.S. (2019), “The impact of classroom orientation on daylight and heat-gain performance in the
Lebanese Coastal zone”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 58, pp. 827-839, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.
2019.07.003.
GBI, Green Building Index (2011), Non-residential Existing Building (NREB) Tool, Green Building
Index, Kuala Lumpur.
IEA (2011), International Energy Agency - 25 Energy Efficiency Policy Recommendations, International
Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA (2020), Tracking Buildings 2020, International Energy Agency, Paris.
Inanici, M. and Hashemloo, A. (2017), “An investigation of the daylighting simulation techniques and
sky modeling practices for occupant centric evaluations”, Building and Environment, Vol. 113,
pp. 220-231, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.022.
Li, D., Li, C., Lou, S., Tsang, E. and Lam, J. (2016), “Analysis of vertical sky components under various
CIE standard general skies”, Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 25, pp. 703-711, doi: 10.1177/
1420326X15587128.
Lim, G.-H., Hirning, M.B., Keumala, N. and Ghafar, N.A. (2017), “Daylight performance and users’
visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 141,
pp. 175-185, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.028.
Lojuntin, S.A. (2017), “Near zero-energy buildings in Malaysia”, in SEDA (Ed.), BSEEP National
Conference 2017 - Towards Near Zero Energy Buildings, Kuala Lumpur, Convention Centre:
OHI Building Sector Energy Efficiency Project (BSEEP), Environment and Energy Branch, Kuala
Lumpur.
47,1
Long, Y.-S., Hsu, S.-T. and Wu, T.-C. (2017), “Requirement of Artificial Lighting Simulator for
Evaluation Emerging PV Performance Rating under Indoor Environment”, 2017 IEEE 44th
Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), Washington, DC, USA, IEEE, pp. 476-479, doi: 10.
1109/PVSC.2017.8521500.
Mardaljevic, J. (2012), Daylight, Indoor Illumination and Human Behavior, Springer, New York, NY,
186 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_456.
MESTECC (2018), Malaysia’s Third National Communication and Second Biennial Update Report
Submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in September 2018,
Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change, Putrajaya.
MS1525 (2019), “Energy efficiency and use of renewable energy for non-residential buildings – code of
practice (third revision)”, in Malaysia, D.O.S. (Ed.), Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI).
Neufert, E. and Neufert, P. (2012), Architects’ Data, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.
Nocera, F., Lo Faro, A., Costanzo, V. and Raciti, C. (2018), “Daylight performance of classrooms in a
mediterranean school heritage building”, Sustainability, Vol. 10, p. 3705, doi: 10.3390/
su10103705.
Ouf, M., Issa, M. and Merkel, P. (2016), “Analysis of real-time electricity consumption in Canadian
school buildings”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 128, pp. 530-539, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.
07.022.
Paone, A. and Bacher, J.-P. (2018), “The impact of building occupant behavior on energy efficiency and
methods to influence it: a review of the state of the art”, Energies, Vol. 11, p. 953, doi: 10.3390/
en11040953.
Pellegrino, A., Cammarano, S. and Savio, V. (2015), “Daylighting for Green schools: a resource for
indoor quality and energy efficiency in educational environments”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 78,
pp. 3162-3167, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.774.
Pollock, M., Roderick, Y., Mcewan, D. and Wheatley, C. (2009), Building Simulation as an Assisting
Tool in Designing an Energy Efficient Building: A Case Study, Building Simulation, Glasgow.
Quick Facts (2019), “Quick facts 2019 Malaysia educational statistics”, in Division, E.P.A.R. (Ed.),
Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya: Educational Data Sector, Educational
Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia, available at: https://www.moe.
gov.my/muat-turun/penerbitan-.
Roslizar, A., Alghoul, M., Bakhtyar, B., Asim, N. and Sopian, K. (2014), “Annual energy usage
reduction and cost savings of a school: end-use energy analysis”, The Scientific World Journal,
Vol. 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/310539.
Rousselot, M. and Pollier, K. (2018), “Energy efficiency trends in buildings”, Policy Brief Odyssee-Mure.
Salleh, M.N.M., Kandar, M.Z., Sakip, S.R.M. and Johari, N. (2015), “Users’ perception of energy
efficiency in school design”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 170, pp. 155-164.
Szokolay, S.V. (2014), Introduction to Architectural Science: The Basis of Sustainable Design, Taylor &
Francis, London.
Tang, C. (2017), “Development of JKR/BSEEP technical passive design guideline for the Malaysian
building”, Sustainable Building and Built Environments to Mitigate Climate Change in the
Tropics, Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49601-6_14.
Tang, C. and Chin, N. (2013), Building Energy Efficiency Technical Guideline for Passive Design,
Environment and Energy Branch, Public Works Department Malaysia Headquarters, Kula
Lumpur.
Tzempelikos, A. (2017), “Advances on daylighting and visual comfort research”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 100, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.002.
United Nations Environment Programme (2020), 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and The workplane
Construction: Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction
Sector, Nairobi. daylight
WBCSD (2009), The Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Transforming the Mmarket, Energy Efficiency in
distribution
Buildings - World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Atar Roto quality
Presse, SA.
Zain-Ahmed, A., Sopian, K., Abidin, Z.Z. and Othman, M. (2002), “The availability of daylight from
tropical skies—a case study of Malaysia”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 25, pp. 21-30, doi: 10.1016/ 187
S0960-1481(00)00209-3.

Corresponding author
Norhayati Mahyuddin can be contacted at: hayati@um.edu.my; Mozhgan Samzadeh can be contacted
at: mozhgan.s@um.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com