Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A circadian design assist tool to evaluate daylight access in buildings for T

human biological lighting needs
Kyle Konis
School of Architecture, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper reports on the development of a simulation-based Design Assist Tool capable of assessing the cir-
Daylighting cadian performance of architectural daylighting strategies during the design process. The tool integrates GIS site
Solar architecture data, parametric modeling of multi-level building forms and multi-spectral lighting simulation of biological
Circadian lighting lighting effects into a Climate Based Daylight Modelling (CBDM) workflow capable of automatically performing
Design process
hourly (or sub-hourly) time-series evaluations over selected days throughout the year. Outputs of the tool can be
used to visually and quantitatively assess the extent to which a prospective daylighting design complies with
emerging circadian lighting requirements over an annual period using daylight. An example application of the
Design Assist Tool is presented to differentiate performance of varying building forms located on an urban site in
Downtown Los Angeles.

1. Introduction in a wide range of behavioral and physiological functions such as sleep/

The use of daylight as the primary light source in buildings has
served, historically, as a fundamental driver of decisions ranging in
scale from zoning ordinances to building massing and solar orientation,
interior layout and the configuration of individual window apertures
(among many others). In addition to serving the practical need to
support human visual tasks indoors, controlled use of daylight served to
register the daily and seasonal variation in light from the sun and sky,
thereby informing occupants of time of day and changes in exterior
weather conditions. The practical limitations of daylight as a source
also served as a limiting factor which governed allowable building
form, floorplate depth, and many other fundamental design parameters.
With the widespread diffusion of fluorescent lighting and mechanical
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) technologies in the
mid-20th century, designers became increasingly reliant on electrical
light sources for human visual lighting needs to support the much
deeper floorplate buildings made possible by emerging HVAC systems.
In contrast to pre-industrial times, where humans spent significant time
outdoors, it is estimated that adults in industrialized societies in the
21st century spend 87% of their lives indoors (Klepeis et al., 2001),
where they are subject to static and significantly lower light levels
which are often out of sync with the daily and seasonal light/dark
pattern of the astronomical day. Such conditions may be adequate for
the performance of visual tasks, but insufficient to support human
health and well-being.
A growing awareness of the link between light and health is placing
increased attention on the circadian lighting needs of building occu-
pants. The circadian system is responsible for regulating daily changes
wake, alertness level, mood, hormone suppression/secretion, and core
body temperature (among others). These functions follow a roughly 24-
hour cycle, referred to as a “circadian rhythm.” The intrinsic period of
the circadian clock requires daily resetting from an external source to
maintain entrainment with the astronomical day. The strongest cue for
strengthening and entraining circadian rhythms is exposure to light.
Light information is communicated to the circadian clock from novel
photoreceptors in the eye referred to as Intrinsically Photosensitive
Retinal Ganglion Cells (ipRGCs) (Provencio, 2000; Gooley et al., 2001;
Hannibal et al., 2002; Hattar, 2002).
The magnitude of the resetting response is dependent on the timing,
intensity, duration, wavelength, and past history of light exposures
(Lockley et al., 2003). Light that may be effective for vision may be
insufficient in spectrum and intensity for biological needs such as cir-
cadian entrainment and alertness. Insufficient light exposure, or light
exposure at the wrong time (e.g. exposure to bright light in the evening
before the natural onset of sleep), can disrupt normal circadian
rhythms, which in turn can impact performance and may lead to a
range of negative health outcomes.
The utilization of daylight rather than electrical lighting as the
primary light source for human biological lighting needs in buildings is
important for a number of reasons. First, daylight is a widely available
source of high intensity, broad spectrum light with a spectral power
distribution that aligns closely with the peak sensitivity of the human
circadian response (i.e. ~480 nm) (Brainard et al., 2001; Thapan et al.,
2001). Inside buildings, daylight from windows and skylights can
achieve orders-of-magnitude higher levels of intensity compared with
the light output from energy-code-compliant electrical lighting systems.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.020
Received 3 July 2019; Received in revised form 23 August 2019; Accepted 6 September 2019
Available online 11 September 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Konis
Apertures delivering daylight provide additional benefits via environ-
mental cues (e.g. views to the outdoors signaling time of day, orienta-
tion, outdoor weather conditions and other activities) that can increase
interest and stimulation as well as aid in maintaining spatial orientation
and way-finding indoors.
Existing Climate Based Daylight Modelling (CBDM) metrics such as
Spatial Daylight Autonomy (IES et al., 2013) which are now in-
corporated into green building rating systems (United States Green
Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) are
problematic when applied to assess daylighting performance in regard
to human biological lighting needs. These metrics were developed with
the primary goal of energy reduction (Mardaljevic et al., 2009), by
quantifying the fraction of occupied hours annually where a given
horizontal work area receives sufficient daylight to avoid the need for
electrical lighting. Such metrics are problematic because they were not
developed to account for light exposure at the vertical plane of the eye,
the timing during the day when a light stimulus is present, or the
spectral response of the circadian system. The International WELL
Building Institute has developed circadian lighting performance re-
quirements for indoor environments that address the timing, duration
and wavelength of light exposure (International WELL Building
Institute). The standard specifies minimum light intensity levels in units
of Equivalent Melanopic Lux (EML), a new photometric measure of
light intensity (Enezi, 2011) weighed by the sensitivity of melanopsin-
containing ipRGCs of the eye. The current WELL requirement for
“Melanopic Light Intensity for Work Areas,” states the following:
At 75% or more of workstations, at least 200 equivalent melanopic lux is
present, measured on the vertical plane facing forward, 1.2 m [4ft] above
finished floor (to simulate the view of the occupant). This light level may
incorporate daylight, and is present for at least the hours between 9:00 AM
and 1:00 PM for every day of the year. (IWBI, 2018).
However, it is currently challenging to evaluate daylighting per-
formance in regard to these new requirements due to the need to in-
corporate eye-level light exposure, timing of light exposure, and the
calculation of EML into an analysis workflow that takes into account
daily and seasonal variations daylight availability and the spectral in-
teraction of light sources and materials.
Recent simulation studies have been made to incorporate circadian
lighting analysis into architectural practice which can be categorized
into two general approaches, (1) multi-spectral simulation (Krzysztof,
2006; Geisler-Moroder and Dur, 2010; Inanici et al., 2015; Adaptive
Lighting for Alertness (ALFA)) using Radiance (Ward, 1994) to directly
calculate EML and, (2) annual hourly (or sub-hourly) analysis using
Daysim (DAYSIM Advanced) where the standard output of photopic
illuminance is weighed by a coefficient (typically melanopic-to-pho-
topic ratio) to estimate the level of circadian light stimulus (Pechacek
et al., 2008; Andersen et al., 2012; Mardaljevic et al., 2013; Acosta
et al., 2017; Konis, 2017; Brennan and Collins, 2018). The primary
limitation of the first approach is that a point-in-time analysis does not
take into account the daily and seasonal variation of daylight avail-
ability. The second approach is limited in that it does not account for
the full spectral interactivity of light sources and materials. Therefore,
interior surfaces are typically limited to surfaces with finishes that are
assumed to be spectrally neutral. More generally, prior studies have
been limited in scope to a single room (or a single viewpoint within a
room) rather than a complete building situated within an urban con-
text.
In addition to the need for spectrally accurate simulation of circa-
dian light stimulus in dynamic daylight environments, designers need
analysis tools that can provide a spatial understanding of a given pro-
ject’s circadian daylight performance over daily and seasonal variations
in daylight availability. In addition, designers need a means to sum-
marize and benchmark project performance to differentiate between
various design alternatives. The objective of the present study is to
address these needs through a hybrid approach which combines multi-
spectral lighting simulation with annual, hourly simulation of EML
450
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
within a parametric modelling environment commonly used by de-
signers to explore whole-building solutions.
The present study is focused on the question of how to generate,
quantitatively summarize and visually display annual whole-building
circadian daylighting performance using multi-spectral simulation in a
format that can be used to inform decision-making during design. To
address this question, A Design Assist Tool was developed using pub-
licly available geometry modelling, visual scripting and lighting simu-
lation software to execute climate-based daylight analysis of eye-level
light exposure reported in units of EML. An additional objective was to
present results in a format that can be used to assess the extent to which
a given design meets the WELL Building Standard circadian lighting
criteria using daylight over an annual period. The Design Assist Tool
can be used to quickly model projects and obtain both quantitative and
visual feedback on the circadian daylighting performance of pro-
spective design solutions to improve decision-making during the design
process.
2. Previous work
Several frameworks have been developed to apply daylighting si-
mulation techniques to predict and assess biological lighting effects in
buildings over an annual period. The earliest study Pechacek et al.
(2008) used Radiance and Daysim to calculate Daylight Autonomy
(Reinhart et al., 2006) for a single view direction (a theoretical patient
in a hospital room) using a daylight illuminance threshold of 190 lx,
which was judged as an appropriate minimum threshold for circadian
stimulus based on the circadian sensitivity curve C-lambda proposed by
Gall and Bieske (2004). Andersen et al. (2012) modified the approach
to subdivide the 24-hour day into three periods, “circadian resetting”
(6:00–10:00), “alerting” (10:00–18:00), and “light avoidance”
(18:00–6:00), to differentiate biological effects based on exposure time.
Andersen et al. was also the first to develop a visual summary of the
circadian potential of a given point (or grid of points) in a space over an
annual period. Amundadottir et al. (2013) elaborated this approach
further by developing multiple light patterns to account for the varying
effects of occupants’ movements and activities within multiple spaces in
a daylit building and applied a novel human light–response model
(Amundadottir, 2013) to account for past light exposure duration and
the non-linear response of the circadian system to light intensity. The
primary limitation of this latter approach is that it requires the design
team to make a number of assumptions for the location, activity level,
and view direction of building occupants. While these assumptions
could be reasonably made in later stages of design, it may be premature
to make such assumptions during early simulation-based investigations
of building form, prior to the distribution of program elements and
interior layout.
Most recently, Brennan and Collins (2018) developed an approach
combining annual hourly daylight simulation using Radiance and
Daysim with point-in-time Radiance simulations of electrical lighting,
where illuminance results from individual light sources are modified by
a static melanopic-to-photopic ratio and then combined into an overall
composite EML value. In general, the primary limitation of the Daysim-
based approaches described above is that they do not account for the
full spectral interactivity of light sources and materials.
Recent studies have also increased the number of color channels
beyond the conventional tristimulus color channels (Red, Green, Blue)
to 9-channel (Krzysztof, 2006; Inanici et al., 2015) and 81-channel
(Adaptive Lighting for Alertness (ALFA)) multi-spectral simulations in
order to improve the spectral accuracy of calculations of color depen-
dent lighting metrics such as EML, but are currently limited to single,
“point-in-time” evaluations. Without supplemental scripting, the pri-
mary limitation of these approaches is that they cannot be directly
applied to calculate the daily and seasonal variation in daylight avail-
ability in a space and consequently include no quantitative metrics to
report annual performance outcomes. Novel metrics have been
K. Konis
proposed to visually and quantitatively summarize the daylighting
performance of a space in regard to biological effects of light over an
annual period. The sombrero plot visualizations developed by Andersen
et al. (2012) report the average likelihood of a non-visual effect on a
scale ranging from 0 to 100% for each view location and for each of the
three times of the day. Amundadottir et al. (2017) developed an eva-
luation and visualization technique using an angular plot to represent
non-visual light effects for all view directions for a given point location
within a space, and then replicated the plot for different times of day.
This approach provides a nuanced understanding for a single point in
space but may become problematic for visualizing the annual perfor-
mance of all occupied locations in a large multi-level project. Konis
(2017) developed a novel approach to assess the duration of a minimum
daylight stimulus on a daily basis, as well as the frequency a minimum
stimulus is present over the course of a year.
The methodology presented in this paper addresses the limitations
of previous “point-in-time” and Daysim-based approaches by com-
bining multi-spectral lighting simulation with annual, hourly simula-
tion of EML within a parametric modelling environment (Robert
McNeel and Associates, 2018a, 2018b) commonly used by designers to
parametrically explore whole-building solutions. Specifically, the
methodology differs from previous approaches in the following ways:
• Integrates LARK multi-spectral lighting simulation components for
biological lighting effects (Inanici et al., 2015; Inanici, 2015) into a
CBDM workflow capable of automatically performing hourly (or
sub-hourly) time-series evaluations over user-specified days
throughout the year.
• Incorporates the calculation of quantitative summary metrics that
can be used to evaluate the extent to which the daylighting of a
given design meets the circadian lighting requirements of the WELL
Building Standard.
• Incorporates spatial mapping techniques for delineating “circadian
effective” and “biologically dark” zones which are applicable to
complex, multi-level building geometries to visualize and commu-
nicate performance outcomes to design teams.
• Utilizes an algorithmic modelling environment to enable parametric
manipulation of model geometry, material properties, and simula-
tion parameters to facilitate exploration of an extensive range of
design options.
• Results can be interpreted to assess the extent to which a given
design meets the WELL Building Standard circadian lighting criteria
using daylight over an annual period.
3. Method
A software-based Design Assist Tool was developed to execute an-
nual climate-based daylighting analysis of eye-level light exposures.
Unlike traditional calculation procedures used to determine the light
output of steady-state electrical lighting systems which require only a
single simulation, indoor daylight levels are constantly changing in
response to daily and seasonal variations in sun position and atmo-
spheric conditions. Therefore, hourly or even sub-hourly simulations
using local weather data must be performed for a series of days
throughout the year to account for the climate-based variability of
daylight. Fig. 1 presents the framework of the 5 primary stages of the
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of the design assist tool.
451
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
Design Assist Tool. Each stage is discussed in greater detail in the fol-
lowing sections.
The Design Assist Tool takes basic building information as input and
performs annual time-series simulations to calculate quantitative,
“whole space,” or “whole-building” summary performance metrics that
can be used to differentiate performance of various daylighting strate-
gies. These metrics are informed by user-specified criteria for timing,
intensity, and duration and are discussed further in Section 3.5. The
Design Assist Tool has the capability to generate customizable 2-di-
mensional spatial mappings of varying levels of “circadian effective”
and “biologically dark” zones within a project to visually identify the
extent to which daylight provides an effective circadian stimulus over a
specified analysis period (Section 3.6).
The Design Assist Tool was developed as a custom software work-
flow using the algorithmic modeling software plugin Grasshopper
(Robert McNeel and Associates, 2018b), a visual scripting/program-
ming language developed for use with the 3D computer-aided design
application Rhinoceros (Robert McNeel and Associates, 2018a), as well
as a number of additional free software tools and Grasshopper plug-ins.
These include the LARK Spectral Lighting components (Inanici et al.,
2015; Inanici, 2015) used to improve the spectral accuracy of the si-
mulations and for the calculation of melanopic illuminance, the en-
vironmental analysis plug-ins Ladybug/Honeybee (Sadeghipour
Roudsari and Pak, 2013) used for preparing model geometry and
weather data for simulation in Radiance, and the lighting simulation
engine Radiance (Ward, 1994), used for executing lighting simulations.
In addition, the free statistical computing software R (R Project for
Statistical Computing., 2018) is used for post-processing of simulation
data, and components from the free Grasshopper plug-ins Gizmo
(Spasic, 2018); Dodo (Greco, 2018); Lunchbox (Miller, 2018) and Human
(Heumann, 2019) are used for importing Geographic Information
System (GIS) data, running executable files, reading .csv data, and
adding custom line weights to visualizations respectively.
3.1. Project context and massing model generation
The first step in the workflow (Fig. 1) is to import relevant urban
environment and terrain geometry for the project site (e.g. surrounding
buildings) from publicly available GIS data repositories (Open Street
Map, 2019) as well as the project geometry generated by the user. As a
simple example of the model generation step, Fig. 2 illustrates the
minimal level of building geometry description (rectangular building
footprint) required from the user to develop a simple instance of a
massing model for circadian daylighting analysis in early stage design.
The surrounding building geometry is imported using a user-specified
radius (m) which encompasses all relevant contextual building geo-
metry that may interact with the project.
3.2. Material assignment
Fig. 3 shows the subdivision of building massing to define floors,
walls, ceilings, and window surfaces for analysis in Radiance. These
surfaces are assigned a Radiance glass material generated by the LARK
Convert SPD component based on user-specified glazing spectral data
for the desired window system. In this example, spectral data from the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Optics software tool
K. Konis
Fig. 2. Example project site located in downtown Los Angeles.
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2019) describing a double-
glazed low-E window with VLT = 0.62 was used.
3.3. Analysis grid
The light stimulus is measured vertically (e.g. in the gaze direction)
at sensors placed across a regularly-spaced analysis grid and in a radial
distribution to reflect the range of possible view directions from each
grid point. The user may specify the grid spacing, grid height (from
floor) and number of analysis vectors per point. Fig. 4 presents an ex-
ample of an analysis grid automatically generated by the Design Assist
Tool based on input floor geometry along with analysis vectors auto-
matically generated for each grid point location. In this example (as
well as in the following examples in this paper), the analysis grid spa-
cing is 3 m, the grid height is 1.2 m (approximating the eye level of a
seated occupant), and 8 analysis vectors per grid point were specified.
The 3 m grid spacing was specified the purpose of maintaining the
visibility of individual vectors for publication while providing sufficient
resolution to visualize spatial variations in daylight availability.
3.4. Annual climate data and time period of analysis
Because the daylight simulations are climate-based, the user must
specify an Energy Plus Weather (EPW) data file using the Grasshopper
File Path component. The user must then define the time period of
analysis by specifying both the daily period of interest (e.g. from 9:00 to
13:00) and the seasonal period of interest (typically from January to
December) as well as the “resolution” of time intervals (e.g. hourly or
Fig. 3. Development of preliminary courtyard massing model for analysis. Step 1: define building footprint. Step 2: define building massing. Step 3: subdivide into
floors. Step 4: assign glazing and material properties. Step 5: generate analysis grid.
452
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
sub-hourly analysis intervals, all days in month, every other day in
month, 3 days per month etc.). Similar to increasing the quality of
Radiance rendering parameters, increasing the number of “point-in-
time” simulations executed to produce annual results will lead to in-
creased simulation times.
3.5. Calculation of circadian frequency
The underlying performance metric used in the Design Assist Tool is
Circadian Frequency (CF). Circadian Frequency is defined here as the
percentage of days in the annual analysis period when a given view
vector meets or exceeds a given light stimulus threshold specified in
units of Equivalent Melanopic Lux (EML) throughout a specified daily
analysis period. Fig. 5 shows the sub-hourly results (half-hour intervals)
for the example view vector shown in Fig. 4, (highlighted in red) from
8:00 to 18:00 annually. Points shown in red indicate intervals when the
EML threshold was exceeded. In this example, 200 EML was specified as
the EML threshold and the view was considered to receive a sufficient
circadian stimulus for a given day only if the EML threshold was ex-
ceeded throughout the period of 9:00–13:00 (Fig. 5, blue lines). Note
that in this example both the EML threshold and daily period
(9:00–13:00) correspond to the criteria for work areas specified in the
WELL Building Standard circadian lighting criteria. However, the user
can adjust both the EML threshold as well as the daily analysis period as
needed to explore alternative scenarios that may be more appropriate
for a specific project. The CF metric ranges from 0% (stimulus never
present) to 100% (stimulus present for all analysis days) and is calcu-
lated individually for each analysis vector defined in the model. For the
K. Konis Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458

Fig. 4. Example sensor grid automatically generated by the design assist tool showing 3 m grid spacing and 8 vectors per grid point. The vector highlighted in RED is
used as a sample vector in Section 3.5 to illustrate the calculation of the metric Circadian Frequency (CF).

example view vector shown in Fig. 4, the daily criteria were met for
31.6% analysis days, resulting in a CF of 31.6%.
To visualize CF results spatially at the floor level, a false-color scale
is used to indicate the CF score for each vector. Warmer colors indicate
better performance, and cooler colors indicate poorer performance. For
example, view locations with a red vector indicate that a daylight sti-
mulus > =200 EML (from 9:00 to 13:00) is present for all, or nearly all
of the analysis days specified in the simulation. Such locations can be
considered “Circadian Effective” and will require little to no light
output from electrical lighting systems to supplement the stimulus
available from daylight. Alternatively, locations that have only blue
vectors can be considered as “Biologically Dark,” and will require the
use of a circadian effective electrical lighting system to ensure an ef-
fective light stimulus throughout the year. Intermediate colors (e.g.
yellow) indicate locations where daylight is often sufficient, but where
supplemental electrical lighting will be needed for a portion of the year.
3.5.1. Calculation of mean circadian frequency
To quantify performance outcomes for a given space or whole
project, it is necessary to summarize individual CF results. The metric
Mean Circadian Frequency (CFMean), is calculated as the arithmetic
mean of all individual vector CF scores for a given analysis area (e.g.
per space or per floor) and ranges from 0 to 100%, with larger values
indicating better performance. The summary metric serves to quantify
both the temporal and spatial availability of an effective circadian light
stimulus. In a theoretical context, the design objective is to achieve a
CFMean score of 100% indicating that all views assess within the project
provide a daylight stimulus above the user-specified EML threshold
throughout the year during the user-specified daily time period of
analysis. The CFMean score for the floor shown in Fig. 6 is 47.2%. Ad-
ditional summary metrics are discussed in Section 3.6.
3.5.2. Calculation of maximum circadian frequency
Maximum Circadian Frequency (Max.CF) is calculated as the max-
imum CF score among all view vectors for a given grid point location.

18

17

16

15

14
Hour

13

12

11

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Day

Fig. 5. Annual frequency of stimulus > = 200 EML for single view vector shown in red in Fig. 4. Blue lines indicate the daily time period 9:00–13:00. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

453
K. Konis
Fig. 6. Plan view showing CF results for all vectors (floor 4).
Fig. 7. Plan view showing the maximum CF result for each grid point (floor 4).
Max.CF scores range from 0 to 100% and are reported visually as shown
in Fig. 7. The Max.CF results for a given space can be used to prioritize
view orientations as well as to determine the extent to which a given
location is “circadian effective” or “biologically dark” (see Section 3.6).
The Max.CF metric is also applicable to assess the extent to which a
given daylighting design meets emerging circadian lighting design
criteria. As stated previously, the WELL Building Standard requirement
for “Melanopic Light Intensity for Work Areas,” requires designers to
demonstrate that a regularly occupied space maintains a minimum eye-
level light stimulus of 200 EML between the hours of 9:00–13:00 an-
nually over a minimum of 75% of floor area. The Max.CF score serves as
an indicator of the extent to which a given location meets the WELL
Building Circadian Lighting Criteria over an annual period using day-
light as a source. For example, a location with at Max.CF of 95% in-
dicates that daylight is sufficient to meet the WELL criteria (200 EML
from 9:00 to 13:00) for 95% of days in the year.
3.6. Mapping “circadian effective” and “biologically dark” areas
The Design Assist Tool enables users to map the performance of
areas within a project in terms of varying levels of “circadian effective”
454
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
and “biologically dark” areas. The concepts of circadian effective and
biologically dark areas were first introduced in a paper by Konis (2017)
and are briefly restated here. A circadian effective zone refers to a re-
gion where daylight availability over the year is considered sufficient to
serve as the primary light source for maintaining healthy circadian
entrainment. In an ideal design scenario, the circadian effective area
would be defined as all locations with a Max.CF score of 100%, in-
dicating the region within the project where an effective circadian sti-
mulus is provided by daylight for 100% of days throughout the year.
This region would also comply with the WELL Building Circadian
Lighting Criteria without the need for supplemental electrical lighting.
However, in a real design scenario, this ideal case is rarely achievable
due to factors of site, climate, latitude, and other project constraints
that impact building form, programming and fenestration decisions.
Therefore, it is more practical to differentiate the spatial performance of
a zone by specifying a series of Max.CF thresholds to establish and map
varying levels of performance as shown in Fig. 8. A “biologically dark”
area is a region within a project where daylight is rarely or never suf-
ficient to serve as an effective circadian stimulus. Biologically dark
zones indicate to designers the areas within a project where long-term
occupancy may be problematic for occupant health in the absence of an
K. Konis
Fig. 8. Plan view showing spatial mapping of 4 zones ranging from circadian effective (red) to biologically dark (black). The number shown in each cell indicates the
Max.CF score (0–100%). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
electrical lighting system capable of delivering sufficient output to
provide a healthy circadian stimulus.
In the example shown in Fig. 8, Max.CF thresholds of 25%, 50%,
and 75% are specified to differentiate performance into four categories
represented by the colors black, grey, yellow and red. As shown in
Fig. 8, the region of the floor plan shown in red receives a daylight
stimulus > = 200 EML between 9:00 and 13:00 for greater than 75% of
the year. This zone presents the greatest potential for utilization of
daylight as the primary source for circadian stimulus and constitutes
25.4% of floor area (Table 1). Alternatively, the region of the floor plan
shown in black, which constitutes 35.5% of floor area (Table 1) can be
labeled as “biologically dark,” and presents the greatest risk to occupant
circadian health for long term occupancy in the absence of a circadian
effective electrical lighting system. The grey and yellow regions (28.6%
and 10.6% respectively, Table 1) represent intermediate regions be-
tween the biologically dark and circadian effective zones.
The capability to visually identify and quantify varying levels of
circadian effective and biologically dark area is important in early stage
design to maximize the area of the project that comes close to com-
plying with the WELL Building Standard circadian lighting criteria
using daylight as the primary light source. Visualizations such as Fig. 8
can also inform the programming and interior layout of a project by
assigning program elements such as storage, circulation, and short-term
occupancies to poorly performing zones and prioritizing circadian ef-
fective zones for long-term occupancies. It is important to emphasize
that the thresholds (25%, 50%, 75%) are ad-hoc thresholds specified by
the author to establish a consistent benchmark that can be used to
compare performance across multiple design options for the same site
and climate, and to make general comparisons between design options.
4. Case study application of the design assist tool
The following example presents a simple case for how the Design
Table 1
Area-based circadian daylight performance.
Max.CF % of floor area
75–100% 25.4%
50–75% 10.6%
25–50% 28.6%
0–25% 35.5%
455
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
Assist Tool can be used to assess the performance of a large multi-story
12,350 m2 (132,934 ft2) commercial office building located on an urban
infill site in Downtown Los Angeles, CA. The example focuses on vi-
sualizing and quantifying how decisions related to building form impact
circadian daylighting performance in early stage design. Fig. 9 presents
three possible building forms (A, B, C) all with equal floor area. No
interior walls or other interior objects are included in order to explore
the circadian potential of each floorplate. As an exploration of building
form in early stage design, the rationale for not including interior walls
or other interior objects is to identify the optimal locations for interior
walls and other obstructions to daylight in the early stage of the design
process, prior to the interior layout and furnishings being determined.
By taking the initial step of identifying the boundaries of the most
biologically dark zones, the designer can then locate spaces such as
storage and circulation in these zones to the extent possible in order to
not compromise the daylighting potential of each floorplate.
The baseline building model (A) represents a 5-floor, rectangle-
shaped massing, with a floorplate dimension of 35 m × 68 m (115
ft × 223 ft). Model B is a 6-floor massing with the same floorplate di-
mensions as model A, but includes an elliptical-shaped 6-floor void
space. Model C represents a 7-floor massing with a void area creating a
C-shape floor plate. All models have the same total floor area. In this
example, the Design Assist Tool is used to quantify the potential ben-
efits of introducing the void spaces shown in Model B and C relative to
the baseline model A. Simulation materials and parameters are the
same for each model and are shown in Table 2.
Fig. 10 presents an isometric view of each model showing perfor-
mance outcomes for each floor. The same Max.CF thresholds of 25%,
50%, and 75% and color scale introduced in Section 3.6 are used in
Fig. 10 to differentiate between varying levels of circadian effective and
biologically dark areas. Tables 3–5, present the performance outcomes
of Models A, B and C respectively.
Despite the baseline assumption of a fully-glazed facade for all
elevations, Table 2 shows that the overall size, massing, and urban
conditions for Model A lead to a solution that achieves the highest level
of circadian daylighting performance (Max.CF75-100%) for only 10.5% of
total floor area. Comparison of Tables 3–4 shows that the void in-
troduced in Model B increases the overall amount of floor area in the
Max.CF75-100% category from 10.5% (Model A) to 19.9% (Model B),
with the greatest relative increases found on the upper floors of Model B
(floors 5–6). For Model B, nearly half (47.6%) of the floor area for floor
6 and 25.4% of floor 5 are within the Max.CF75-100% category,
K. Konis Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458

Fig. 9. Example building forms (A, baseline), (B, void) and (C, C-shape).

Table 2 Table 3
Simulation details. Results for model A.
Model data Radiance Biologically dark Circadian Effective
parameters Floor CFMean Max.CF 0–25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–100%

Project size 12,350 m2 pt = 0.15 lr = 4 5 18.7% 55.1% 24.3% 4.7% 15.9%

Latitude 34.0456 ds = 0.5 ps = 8 4 11.0% 70.7% 15.6% 3.3% 10.5%
Longitude −118.2534 aa = 0.25 st = 0.85 3 7.9% 81.5% 8.7% 1.5% 8.3%
Weather data file Los Angeles pj = 0.6 sj = 0.3 2 6.2% 84.8% 6.9% 0.0% 8.3%
Analysis period 9:00–13:00 dt = 0.5 dr = 0 1 10.5% 85.9% 5.8% 0.0% 8.3%
Samples/month 3 ad = 512 ab = 5 All floors 10.9% 77.3% 10.5% 1.7% 10.5%
Grid spacing (m) 3 dj = 0
Grid height (m) 1.2 dp = 64
Vectors/grid point 8 lw = 0.05
compared with only 15.9% of floor 5 for Model A. However, while the
EML threshold 200 ar = 16
Floor material Macbeth 13 as = 128
internal void introduced in Model B results in a relative increase in floor
Glazing material Low-E window dc = 0.25 area in the Max.CF75-100% category for the upper floors, the relative
(VLT = 0.62) improvement over Model A for the lower floors is minimal. Compared
Ceiling material Macbeth 3 av = 0 with Model B, Model C further improves the overall amount of circa-
Urban context Macbeth 1
dian effective area, with 23.9% of all floor area within the Max.CF75-
material
100% category (Table 5). In regard to biologically dark area, all three
models result in significant floor area that would rarely or never meet

Fig. 10. Isometric view of Models A, B, and C showing spatial mapping of Max.CF results for each floor in categories ranging from most frequent (red), to least
frequent (black). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

456
K. Konis Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458

Table 4 workday may be of interest. Therefore, both the EML stimulus and
Results for model B. temporal thresholds used to calculate CF can be adjusted by the user of
Biologically dark Circadian effective the Design Assist Tool.
Floor CFMean Max.CF 0–25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–100% Because the mapping of biologically dark and circadian effective
area (e.g. Figs. 8 and 10) reflect the Max.CF score for each point, the
6 63.1% 17.0% 29.7% 5.7% 47.6%
results indicate a “best case” scenario for the utilization of daylight.
5 47.2% 35.5% 28.6% 10.6% 25.4%
4 32.3% 54.5% 24.1% 5.4% 16.1%
However, in a real project, the ideal view orientation may not always be
3 22.4% 73.6% 13.2% 3.1% 10.1% practical. The metric CFMean (e.g. Tables 3–5), which takes into account
2 16.7% 79.3% 10.8% 0.0% 9.9% the contribution of all view vectors for each point for a given floor, can
1 26.3% 81.1% 9.2% 0.0% 9.7% be used as means to quantitatively understand the overall performance
All floors 18.1% 59.8% 16.9% 3.5% 19.9%
among all locations and view directions for a given floor. The user may
also view the complete vector maps for each floor (e.g. Fig. 6) to obtain
Table 5
a visual understanding of the variation in performance for each point.
Results for model C. In cases where the Max.CF score for a given location is low, the result
can be viewed as a reliable indicator of biological darkness.
Biologically dark Circadian effective
It is important to note that the CF metric does not take into account
Floor CFMean Max.CF 0–25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–100%
the potential for visual or thermal discomfort that may be caused by
7 42.8% 3.1% 33.9% 8.9% 54.2% excessive daylight transmission. It is recommended that users evaluate
6 32.1% 16.3% 36.3% 8.4% 39.0% CF in context with existing metrics for visual and thermal discomfort.
5 22.3% 34.4% 37.0% 7.4% 21.2% The Daylight Glare Probability (Wienold and Christoffersen, 2006) and
4 15.6% 51.3% 30.2% 4.2% 14.3%
3 11.8% 64.7% 20.0% 4.7% 10.5%
solar adjusted Mean Radiant Temperature (Arens et al., 2015) are ex-
2 8.9% 73.9% 14.4% 2.7% 9.0% amples for visual and thermal discomfort metrics respectively that can
1 17.6% 71.4% 17.2% 1.0% 10.4% be included and considered as additional performance criteria during
All floors 21.6% 48.0% 24.0% 4.5% 23.9% design.
Demonstration of the Design Assist Tool in this paper was limited in
scope to a single case study, where the tool was applied to differentiate
the specified circadian light criteria of > =200 EML between 9:00 and
the performance of 3 different building forms for the same urban site
13:00 using daylight as a source. For example, the floor area in the
during early stage design. Additional research is needed using an ex-
Max.CF0-25% category for Models A, B, and C is 77.3%, 59.8%, and 48%
panded set of variables (e.g. building form, orientation, interior layout,
respectively.
size, climate, latitude, material properties, etc.) to explore and improve
understanding of the applicability of the Design Assist Tool for in-
5. Discussion forming decision-making related to daylighting design for human bio-
logical lighting needs.
The Design Assist Tool represents a novel means to quantify and There is currently considerable debate over what the appropriate
visually examine the performance of a project during design in regard level of light stimulus should be inside buildings to maintain healthy
to meeting emerging circadian lighting performance criteria using circadian entrainment, and how factors of wavelength, timing, in-
daylight. As demonstrated in Section 4, the Design Assist Tool can be tensity, duration and past light history should be considered in the
used to benchmark and compare overall, or floor level differences be- development of future requirements or design guidance. There is,
tween competing design concepts. During the design process, the fun- however, a general consensus that spaces that deliver circadian effec-
damental goal is to maximize the amount of regularly occupied floor tive levels of light stimulus during the circadian-resetting period of the
area where human biological lighting needs can be met with daylight as morning are critical for the health and well-being of building occu-
the primary light source. Progress towards this goal can be explored pants. While the electrical lighting industry is actively promoting color-
during design by quantifying the area of a prospective project floor area tunable solid-state electrical lighting as an effective substitute for light
in the Max.CF75-100% and Max.CF50-75% categories. from the sun and sky, the renewed interest in the daylighting of
It is expected that nearly all new buildings seeking to utilize day- buildings to achieve green building certification (and emerging certi-
light to improve occupant health and well-being will still incorporate fications focused on health and wellness) creates a need for design tools
electrical lighting systems. The Design Assist Tool provides a means to that can assist designers in utilizing daylight as a source to meet human
identify the zones in a project that present the greatest potential for circadian lighting needs in buildings.
circadian-effective daylighting based on the performance criteria spe-
cified by the user. The relative size of such zones can then be compared
with the zones where occupants would be reliant on electrical lighting 6. Conclusions
systems. This feedback, as indicated by the color-coded zoning ranging
from circadian effective to biologically dark presented in Fig. 10, can be The objective of this research was to develop a design assist tool and
used to inform the programming and interior layout of a project as well visualization techniques capable of assessing the circadian performance
as the design, zoning and operation of daylight-responsive electrical of architectural projects in early-stage design. A simulation-based tool
lighting systems. was developed which integrates multi-spectral lighting simulation for
The Max.CF score serves as an indicator of the extent to which a biological lighting effects into a Climate Based Daylight Modelling
given location within a project meets the WELL Building Standard (CBDM) workflow capable of automatically performing hourly (or sub-
circadian lighting criteria over an annual period using daylight as a hourly) time-series evaluations over selected days throughout the year.
source. It should be noted that the WELL Building Standard compliance The Design Assist Tool facilitates the calculation of quantitative sum-
criteria for circadian lighting change periodically as the standard is mary metrics that can be used to directly assess the daylighting per-
revised and updated. In addition, it is anticipated that users may wish to formance of a prospective project during the design process relative to
specify custom (e.g. “tailored”) requirements to evaluate building meeting the circadian lighting requirements presented in the WELL
programs not currently described in the Well Building Standard or to Building Standard, or customized performance criteria specified by the
examine performance in regard to other biological lighting considera- user.
tions, such as daytime alertness, where the entire daylit period of the

457
K. Konis
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a grant from the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) Upjohn Research Initiative.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.020.
References
Acosta, I., Leslie, R.P., Figueiro, M.G., 2017. Analysis of circadian stimulus allowed by
daylighting in hospital rooms. Light. Res. Technol. 49 (1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1477153515592948.
Adaptive Lighting for Alertness (ALFA) Software. https://solemma.com/Alfa.html Last
accessed 6/28/2019.
Amundadottir, M.L., Lockley, S.W., Andersen, M., 2013. Simulation-based evaluation of
non-visual responses to daylight: proof of concept study of healthcare re-design. In:
Proceedings of 13th IBPSA Conference, Chambery, France.
Amundadottir, M.L., Rockcastle, S., Khanie, M.S., Andersen, M., 2017. A human-centric
approach to assess daylight in buildings for nonvisual health potential, visual interest
and gaze behavior. Build. Environ. 113, 5–21.
Amundadottir et al., 2013. Modeling non-visual responses to light: unifying spectral and
temporal characteristics in a single model structure. In: Proc. of CIE Centenary
Conference “Towards a New Century of Light”, pp. 101–110.
Andersen, M., Mardaljevic, J., Lockley, S.W., 2012. A framework for predicting the non-
visual effects of daylight - Part I: photobiology-based model. Light. Res. Technol.
2012 (44), 37.
Arens, E., Hoyt, T., Zhou, X., Huang, L., Zhang, H., Schiavon, S., 2015. Modeling the
comfort effects of shortwave solar radiation indoors. Build. Environ. 88, 3–9.
Brainard, G.C., Hanifin, J.P., Greeson, J.M., Byrne, B., Glickman, G., Gerner, E., Rollag,
M.D., 2001. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: Evidence for a
novel circadian photoreceptor. J. Neurosci. 21, 6405–6412.
Brennan, M., Collins, R., 2018. Outcome-based design for circadian lighting: an integrated
approach to simulation & metrics. 2018 Building Performance Analysis Conference
and SimBuild co-organized by ASHRAE and IBPSA-USA, Chicago, IL, September
26–28.
DAYSIM Advanced Daylight Simulation Software. https://daysim.ning.com/page/
publications Accessed 6/27/2019.
Enezi, et al., 2011. A “Melanopic” spectral efficiency function predicts the sensitivity of
melanopsin photoreceptors to polychromatic lights. J. Biol. Rhythms 26, 314.
Gall, D., Bieske, 2004. Definition and measurement of circadian radiometric quantities.
In: Proc. of the CIE Symposium on Light and Health, pp. 129–132.
Geisler-Moroder, D., Dur, A., 2010. Estimating melatonin suppression and photosynthesis
activity in real-world scenes from computer generated images. In: 5th European
Conference in Graphics, Imaging, and Vision and 12th International Symposium on
Multispectral Color Science, Joensuu, Finland.
Gooley, J.J., Lu, J., Chou, T.C., Scammell, T.E., Saper, C.B., 2001 Dec Dec. Melanopsin in
cells of origin of the retinohypothalamic tract. Nat. Neurosci. 4 (12), 1165.
Greco, L., 2018. “Dodo” plugin for Grasshopper. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/
dodo Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Hannibal, Jens, Hindersson, Peter, Knudsen, Sanne M., Georg, Birgitte, Fahrenkrug, Jan,
2002. The Photopigment Melanopsin Is Exclusively Present in Pituitary Adenylate
Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide-Containing Retinal Ganglion Cells of the
Retinohypothalamic Tract. RC191. J. Neurosci. 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.22-01-j0002.2002.
Hattar, S.1., Liao, H.W., Takao, M., Berson, D.M., Yau, K.W., 2002. Melanopsin-con-
taining retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity.
Science. 295 (5557), 1065–1070 Feb 8.
Heumann, A., 2019. “Human” plugin for Grasshopper. https://www.food4rhino.com/
app/human Last accessed 6/28/2019.
458
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 449–458
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy
(sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE). 2013. 14 pages. ISBN: 978-0-87995-
272-3.
Inanici, M., Brennan, M., Clark, E., 2015. Multi-spectral Lighting Simulations: Computing
Circadian Light, International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA)
2015 Conference, Hyderabad, India, December 7-9.
Inanici, M., and ZGF Architects LLP, 2015. LARK Spectral Lighting plugin to Grasshopper.
http://faculty.washington.edu/inanici/Lark/Lark_home_page.html Last accessed 6/
28/2019.
International WELL Building Institute, WELL Building Standard Circadian Lighting Design
Feature. https://standard.wellcertified.com/light/circadian-lighting-design Last ac-
cessed 6/28/2019.
Klepeis, N.E., Nelson, W.C., Ott, W.R., Robinson, J., Tsang, A.M., Switzer, P., Behar, J.V.,
Hern, S., Engelmann, W., 2001. The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS):
a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expos. Anal.
Environ. Epidem. 11 (3), 231–252.
Konis, K., 2017. A novel circadian daylight metric for building design and evaluation.
Build. Environ. 113, 22–38.
Krzysztof, W., 2006. Calculation of circadian illuminance distribution with radiance. In:
5th International Scientific Radiance Workshop, Leicester, UK.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2019. Optics 6 Software. https://windows.lbl.
gov/software/optics Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Lockley, S.W., Brainard, G.C., Czeisler, C.A., 2003 Sep Sep. High sensitivity of the human
circadian melatonin rhythm to resetting by short wavelength light. J. Clin.
Endocrinol. Metab. 88 (9), 4502–4505.
Mardaljevic, J., Heschong, L., Lee, E.S., 2009. Daylight metrics and energy savings.
Lighting Research + Technology 1–23.
Mardaljevic, J., Andersen, M., Roy, N., Christoffersen, J., 2013. A framework for pre-
dicting the non-visual effects of daylight – Part II: The simulation model. Light. Res.
Technol. 46, Issue, 4.
Miller, N., 2018. “Lunchbox” plugin for Grasshopper. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/
group/lunchbox Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Open Street Map, 2019. https://www.openstreetmap.org/about Last accessed 6/28/
2019.
Pechacek, C.S., Andersen, M., Lockley, S.W., 2008. Preliminary method for prospective
analysis of the circadian efficacy of (day)light with applications to healthcare ar-
chitecture. Leukos, J. Illuminating Eng. Soc. 5 (1), 1–26.
Provencio, I., Rodriguez, I.R., Jiang, G., Hayes, W.P., Moreira, E.F., Rollag, M.D., 2000. A
novel human opsin in the inner retina. J. Neurosci. 20 (2), 600–605.
R Project for Statistical Computing, 2018. https://www.r-project.org/Last accessed 6/28/
2019.
Reinhart, C.F., Mardaljevic, J., Rogers, Z., 2006. Dynamic daylight performance metrics
for sustainable building design. Leukos 3 (1), 7–31.
Robert McNeel & Associates, 2018. Grasshopper algorithmic modeling program for Rhino.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Robert McNeel & Associates, 2018. Rhinoceros 3-D modeling program. http://www.en.
na.mcneel.com/contact.htm Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Sadeghipour Roudsari, M., Pak, M., 2013. Ladybug: a parametric environmental plugin
for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design. In:
Proceedings of the 13th International IBPSA Conference Held in Lyon, France Aug
25–30th.
Spasic, D., 2018. “Gismo” plugin for Grasshopper. https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo
Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Thapan, K., Arendt, J., Skene, D.J., 2001. An action spectrum for melatonin suppression:
Evidence for a novel non-rod, non-cone photoreceptor system in humans. J. Physiol.
535, 261–267.
United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) rating system. https://new.usgbc.org/leed Last accessed 6/28/2019.
Ward, G., 1994. The radiance lighting simulation and rendering system. Proceedings of
SIGGRAPH 94, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp.
459–572.
Wienold, J., Christoffersen, J., 2006. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare
prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy
Build. 38 (7), 743–757.