Machine Learning Algorithm-Based Tool and Digital
Framework for Substituting Daylight Simulations in Early-
Stage Architectural Design Evaluation
Kacper Radziszewski, Marta Waczyńska
Gdańsk University of Technology
Gdańsk, Poland
kacper.radziszewski@pg.edu.pl, marwaczy@student.pg.edu.pl
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to examine the new method of
obtaining the simulation-based results using
backpropagation of errors artificial neural networks. The
primary motivation to conduct the research was to
determine an alternative, more efficient and less time-
consuming method which would serve to achieve the results
of daylight simulations. Three daylight metrics: Daylight
Factor, Daylight Autonomy and Daylight Glare Probability
have been used to verify the reliability of applying the latter
into an early stage architectural design process.
The framework was based on the computationally
generated data sets build on various office models variants
followed by daylight simulations. In order to predict the
simulations values based on the given office parameters
with artificial neural networks algorithm, a specific tool
was designed as an alternative to computer simulations. The
designed tool and simulations results were compared
against computing time and values differences. The above
findings of the research proof the reliability of the new
methods as a tool during an early-stage architectural design
process likewise conventional daylight simulations.
Author Keywords
Daylight simulation; machine learning; artificial neural
network
ACM Classification Keywords
1.6.1 SIMULATION AND MODELING;
CONNECTIONISM AND NEURAL NETS;
APPLICATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
Lightning conditions are one the most important factors in
the process of utilizing office spaces. The primary daylight
measurements and strategies play a fundamental role in the
early decision-making stage of design process, e.g. the
SimAUD 2018 June 05-07 Delft, the Netherlands
© 2018 Society for Modeling & Simulation International (SCS)
volume metrics, the orientation to cardinal directions and
the function distribution in the building. From the early
beginning of forming a place for living, the history of
architecture has been strictly connected with the
development of daylighting. The daylight defines a spatial
form which controls (the air flow, heating, humidity,
temperature), strongly visible particularly in the
architecture of ancient, gothic and baroque buildings [1].
The sufficient daylight strategies were essential before the
daylight was supplemented by artificial light in 19th century
[2]. Moreover, the daylighting was also a thesis for
theoretical investigation as Le Corbusier underlay the
significance of the topic as one of three key regulations
during projects development. Nowadays, apart from basic,
visual and aesthetic factors, daylight plays an important role
in minimizing building energy consumption. The most
advanced research regarding thermal comfort and
microclimate shows its impact on working conditions in
buildings, in compliance to sustainable architecture design
principles. The latest findings in physiology field also
investigate a positive long-term effect of the daylight on
individual well-being due to the fact that they prevent
acquired human health disorders like myopia or controlling
the circadian rhythm by daylight-based molecular
mechanism [3].
The importance of applying efficient daylighting practice in
buildings, signify a growing interest in using computational
daylight simulations which become the most accessible way
to evaluate lighting conditions in the interior. Nevertheless,
1.2.6 the authors consider this method as time-consuming and
1.6.3 complex.
The primary motivation to conduct the research was to
reduce the time of computing calculation processes and
proper 3D model preparation by applying more time-
efficient algorithms. The following research investigates the
idea of replacing the simulation engine with machine
learning algorithm.
3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Simulations
Several methods of evaluation daylight in buildings have
been established, i.e. physical models, photography, on site
measurements, rules of thumb, regulations, guidelines or
computational simulations. In the recent years there has
been a considerably, growing interest in computational
daylight simulations as the most accessible way to obtain
comprehensive and valid information about buildings
daylight conditions. The direct motive for using daylight
simulation methods is to simplify the design process and
validate it during its early stage. Not only to the
computational tools accelerate the daylight calculations, but
also they appear to be the only reliable simulation method.
Furthermore, complexity of the geometry of the space
makes them difficult to calculate illuminance manually [4].
After having considerate the daylight requirements and the
building specifications, from the very first phase we are
able to ensure orientation, massing, space planning, sizing
and shaping of apertures in the building to provide
acceptable luminous environment in interiors, attaching
weight to sunlight (illuminance from the direct sun) and
daylight (illuminance from the dome) factors [5]. The
acknowledge and implementation of simulation-based
daylighting tools might become a powerful tool in
developing a comprehensive strategy for the building.
One of the major drawbacks to exploiting this method is the
fact that the process is complex and time-consuming. DIVA
performs simulations on 3D models, by operating on the
physically-based simulation system DAYSIM using
Radiance [6]. This system uses light-backwards ray-tracing
method, to obtain simulation results [7], which commonly
requires long computation times [8].
The purpose of the article is to examine the methods to
expedite simulation calculation time by replacing
simulations systems implemented in DIVA with machine
learning algorithms. The recent review in literature on this
topic examines predicting illuminance in office buildings
[9], solar radiation [10] and energy management [11] using
artificial neural network.
2.2 Machine Learning Algorithms
The research investigates the concept of replacing the
simulations with machine learning supervised algorithm-
error backpropagation multilayer artificial neural network
[12].
Machine learning algorithm is a set of methods to
automatically detect data patterns in order to predict future
data or to perform decision making under uncertainty.
There are two main machine learning algorithms types:
supervised learning and unsupervised learning. In the
supervised learning approach, the goal is to learn a mapping
from inputs data to the corresponding output data. Based on
the input data, trained system predicts the new values. The
4
second type of machine learning approach is unsupervised
learning, in which the data set is composed solely of a given
inputs, and the goal of the algorithm is to find patterns in
the data set [13].
The most commonly used type of machine learning
algorithm is artificial neural network. It is a biologically
inspired computational model which consists of processing
elements and connections between them with weights
bound to the connections, which form the “memory” of the
system by a process of learning [14]. Neural networks
mimic the human brain architecture of neurons and
connections between them in a form of synapses.
The first neuron mathematical model was proposed in 1943
by McCulloch and Pitts as a binary device with binary
inputs and outputs [15]. The first developed version of
Artificial Neural Network was proposed by the
psychologist Frank Rosenblatt in 1958 called perceptron
[16]. Later in 1975 Werbos introduced back propagation of
error artificial neural networks algorithm, accelerating the
training of multi-layer networks [17]. Since this day,
backpropagation of error artificial neural networks has
found an application in various disciplines: Pattern
recognition, Handwriting recognition, Speech recognition,
Artificial Creativity, Computer vision, Virtual reality and
Image processing, Automated Car Steering etc. [18].
2 METHODOLOGY
The method was fully based on the computationally
generated data sets, which consist of various office models
variants followed by daylight simulations. The generated
data set composed of office spaces geometrical parameters
and corresponding simulations results were utilized as
supervised learning algorithm training data. Based on
trained artificial neural network, as an alternative to
simulations, tool was designed. The goal was to collate
result obtained with simulations and machine learning
algorithm in order to juxtapose differences in computing
time and results values (figure 1.).

Figure 1. Diagram of a main process
To validate the method, three primary daylight parameters
dealing with daylight availability and visual comfort (Mean
Daylight Factor, Daylight Autonomy and Daylight Glare
Probability) have been taken into consideration. This
metrics were established by authors as the most compelling
in order to predict a primary overlook of conditions in the
office buildings.
2.1 Mean Daylight Factor
Daylight Factor (DF) is strictly the ratio of internal to
external illuminance determined under a sky luminance
distribution. That conforms to the CIE Standard overcast
sky pattern [19]. Accordingly to the definition DF
calculations were conducted under CIE overcast sky
condition. The selected sky pattern is not analyzing direct
sunlight entering the office space [20].
2.2 Daylight Autonomy
Daylight Autonomy (DA) is a daylight availability metric
which uses work plane illuminance as an indicator of
whether there is sufficient daylight in a space so that an
occupant can work by daylight alone [21]. The study has
been conducted under climate-based various sky conditions
that occurs in the selected location. The calculations have
been collected over a year period for hourly values of the
solar radiation and the meteorological elements.
5
2.3 Daylight Glare Probability
Daylight Glare Probability (DGP) is occurring when
observer is faced with a very high luminance in the visual
field. The parameter is investigating the probability of
appearing visual discomfort working conditions,
simultaneously supporting designing comfort offices [22].
The analysis has been performed under climate-based
various sky conditions for over a year time during
scheduled occupancy time between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Due
to the diversity of the workplace distribution in the office
spaces, the location of the measurement point has been set
in the center of each generated office room.
3 MACHINE LEARNING-BASED DESIGNED TOOL
The research objective was to predict the mean DF, mean
DA and DGP values with a data set consisting of
geometrical dimensions of the given office space without a
need of simulation. In order to develop a fast computing
tool, the time-consuming simulations have been replaced by
machine learning algorithm. The backpropagation of errors
artificial neural networks was selected as an algorithm to
conduct the research on. This process requires both input
and output training set data in order new values based on
the given examples.
3.1 Data Collection
The research explores the idea of training the machine
learning algorithm with simulations results, without a need
of collecting a large set of on-site daylight measurements.
The simulations have been conducted in DIVA.
Input data
A set of 2763 random office spaces has been generated, as
an algorithm input data. Each of the evaluated offices has
been modelled based on the seven normal distributed
random parameters (figure 2.) used as an artificial neural
network input vectors divided into the 4 basic groups. Due
to the parameters required for specific simulations types,
DF and DA does not count the simulation time, presented in
the 4th group :
1. Office space dimensions (simulation types: DA,
DF, DGP):
 Length [range of: 3.0 to 10.0m]
 Width [range of: 3.0 to 10.0m]
 Height [range of: 3.0 to 4.0m]
2. Window parameters (simulation types: DA, DF,
DGP):
 ratio of window and the corresponding wall areas
[0.0 to 1.0]
 Window horizontal location [0 to 1(as a ratio of
wall length)]
 Window vertical location [0 to 1(as a ratio of wall
height)]
3. Orientation (simulation types: DA, DF, DGP):
  Cardinal direction [0 to 2pi]
4. Time and Date (simulation types: DGP):
 Occupancy time: [8am to 18pm]
 Date: [1 to 365]
Apart from the provided nine input parameters, which took
part both in training the artificial neural network and
simulations, four fixed parameters, which are required by a
simulation engine have been selected:
 Localization: Denver, U.S.A., 39°45′43″N
104°52′52″W
 Office furniture layout, evenly distributed over the
area, with a density of one workstation per 5m2
 Optical material properties: selected and set as
typical values for office building available by
default in daylighting and energy modeling plug-
in DIVA 4: (GenericInteriorWall_50,
GenericCeiling_70, GenericFloor_20,
OutsideGround_20, OutsideFacade_35,
Glazing_DoublePanel_LowE_Argon_65,
250cdm2_screen, GenericFurniture_50)
The foregoing fixed parameters of location, office furniture
materials and layout have been selected by the authors. That
makes the tool less universal, but on the other hand easier to
evaluate its accuracy. Due to the simplification of the
discussed problem simplification, provided samples have
only window opening possible on a single wall.
Additionally, physical dimensions for a random office
space are set within the provided range, which enables a
prediction of rooms outside the range.
Figure 2. Averaged random input data set normal distribution.
Output data
In order to train the artificial neural networks a data set of
simulations’ results (daylight metrics) have been collected
(Figure 3.), creating the output data set. The paper examines
a possibility of predicting the simulations results for three
daylight metrics: DF, DA, DGP. Each of the simulated
daylight parameters values have been collected for all
generated office spaces, creating a data for supervised
artificial neural network training. DF simulation calculates
the ratio between internal and external illuminance
6
represented as percentage. DA is represented as a
percentage of annual daytime hours that a given point in a
space is above a specified illumination level set for 300 lux,
recommended by the European Daylight Standard (prEN
17037) and represented as the area percentage. DGP shows
the probability of people being affected by discomfort
glare, represented as the percentage value [23]. The
possible range for each of the simulated daylight metrics
was set from 0 to 100.
The Data Set resulted in the following values:
 DA [range of 0 to 100%, average of 15.83%]
 DF [range of 0.001 to 17.51%, average of 0.73%]
 DGP [range of 0 to 41.1%, average of 16.17%]
Figure 3. Comparision of simulation results domains and average
vaules.
3.2 Machine Learning Algorithm Selection and
Model Training
During the research a supervised learning method was
applied according to the problem structure. In the respond
to the collected data structure and problem type, the
following research is based on the back propagation of error
artificial neural networks algorithm.
Selected artificial neural network algorithm requires setting
its parameter in order to minimize the predictions error.
Several network parameters were set by the trial and error
method: number of hidden layers and corresponding
neurons count per layer, neurons activation function,
learning rate and number of learning cycles. Input and
output data were beforehand remapped into the number
range from 0 to 1.0 and divided into the two parts: 2963
training sets and 200 testing sets. For each of the simulation
types (DA, DF, DGP) separate artificial neural network has
been trained, minimizing calculated Mean Square Error
[24] to 0.004 (DA), 0.002 (DF), 0.008 (DPG). Each of the
trained artificial neural networks separate architecture has
been set. DA network consisted of 7 input parameters,
previously shown in point 3.1, 2 hidden layers with sigmoid
activation functions of 5 and 6 neurons per hidden layer.
DF artificial neural network architecture has been
 Figure 4. Plot chart comparison of simulation and tool results (DF, DA, DGP).
composed of 7 input parameters, 2 hidden layers of 3 and 5
neurons per layer with tanH activation function. Due to the
number of input parameters required by DGP calculation
being extended to 9 parameters by time and date factors,
artificial neural network has been set with 2 hidden layers,
of 10 and 8 neurons with tanH activation function.
Successfully trained networks allowed to make calculation
based on the new input values set and to receive predicted
simulations results. Previously separated 200 test data sets
have been compared with the results predicted by the
trained network. From three simulation types the
considerable difference occurs while comparing the DGP.
That resulted in the maximum difference of 17% in one of
the layouts, where the average difference has been found
several times lesser of 2.477 %. DA maximum values
difference of 13.1% should be as well considered as
significant, while its average value equals 1.825 %. The
best results have been found in comparison of simulation
results and predicted values for DF simulation, where
maximum difference was approximate to 0.5% and its
average value below 0.1%. Even DA and DGP predictions
maximum differences were significant, their median
differences were smaller than 1.5% being reliable results.
Figure 5. Comparison of simulated and predicted values of test data.
7
4 RESULTS
Five diverse office layouts with different orientations have
been generated for the final detailed comparison of results
and computing time differences between simulations and
machine learning aided predictions, in order to evaluate
research approach. Predicted by the designed tool values
and simulations results differences for five selected
examples have been minor (2.82 for DA, 0.15 for DF, 1 for
DGP). The authors of the research claim that ehe
differences in values are insignificant and admissible to
discount. The obtained comparisons results lead to the
conclusion that values predicted by the tool are reliable to
utilize and apply into early-stage design processes, likewise
conventional daylight simulation.
During the research both the computing time and
corresponding predictions were compared. Daylight
simulations time is based on its calculation quality,
geometrical complexity, selected algorithm and processing
unit capability, whereas artificial neural network prediction
is always processed with the same number of inputs and
network architecture, resulting in unnoticeable computing
time differences while predicting the results. The advantage
of the utilizing machine learning approach is its computing
time difference, which for the given five examples on
Figure 6. Detailed set of chosen office models, comparison of simulation and Artificial Neural Networks results and computation time.
average resulted in simulation/prediction computing time
ratio of 32.16 (DA), 2.88 (DF) and 16.72 (DGP). The
presented approach results in significant computation time
boost and minor predicted values differences.
Average
Average
Simulation time ratio
value dif. [%]
[sim./ann]
Daylight
2.8194 31.16
Autonomy
Mean Daylight
0.1514 2.88
Factor
Daylight Glare
1.06 16.72
Probability
Table 2. Simulation and designed tool values differences and
computing time ratio.
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
What should be underlined is a possibility to reduce the
results error by optimizing the artificial neural networks
architecture and providing additional examples of a training
set or applying other supervised learning algorithms.
Moreover, the research is based on a narrow set of variants
for training, which makes the tool limited. Expanding the
training set by more complex office plan layouts, materials
selection, workstation variants, various time, date settings
and geographic locations will create a far more universal
design tool. Additionally application of backpropagation of
errors algorithm has limitations: sensitivity to the number of
hidden layers and its neurons count resulting in underfitting
or overfitting, as well as memory consumption, which may
be solved by applying different machine learning algorithm.
What is more, many different simulation types could be
researched on the possibility of being substituted by
machine learning based algorithms. Apart from being
trained on the prepared data sets, networks can be
continually updated by the users of software simulations
8
results in a cloud data base, enhancing networks prediction
accuracy and variants range. Computing time reduction
allows the efficient application of evolutionary algorithms
to optimize offices layouts based on the DF. Five diverse
office layouts with different orientations have been
generated. That requires generating a large set of variants
during each of the optimizing algorithms iterations and
creating a considerably less time- consuming design tool.
It is recommended that further research should be expanded
by additional conditions: shading systems, external
geometries, different values of optical materials properties
etc. In terms of proposal for European Daylight Standard
(prEN 17037), further research should also regard the urban
context. This approach has the potential to be applied into
existing as well as rooms being designed.
The rooms parameters have been all generated and
presented in numbers for using machine learning
algorithms, not regarding 3D modelling in any steps. It
expands the tool’s usage accessibility for broader audience,
without the necessity of preparing the 3d model.
REFERENCES
1. Derek, P., Daylighting, Natural light in architecture.
Architectural Press Oxford (2004), 7.
2. Chepchumba, N.F., History of daylighting strategies: a
comparative analysis across the periods, Luminous
Environment 2013/14 (2013).
3. The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 2017
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureate
s/2017/press.html. As of 19 December 2017.
4. Hu, J., Olbina S., History of daylighting strategies: a
comparative analysis across the periods. Luminous
Environment 2013/14 (2013).
5. Yencey, J. L.,The daylighting design process – tools for
predicting daylight and techniques for making sound
decisions about daylight during design, Best 2 – The
Daylighting Design Process – SESSION EE7-1 (2010).
6. Jakubiec, J.A., Reinhart Ch. DIVA 2.0 Integrating
daylight and thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D,
DAYSIM and EnergyPlus. Proceedings of Building
Simulation (2011), 2202-2209.
7. Ward, G.J., The RADIANCE Lighting Simulation and
Rendering System. Computer Graphics - Proceedings of
‘94 SIGGRAPH conference (1994), 459-472.
8. Reinhart, Ch., Wienold, J., The daylighting dashboard – a
simulation-based design analysis for daylit spaces.
Proceedings of SimBuild (2010), 410-418.
9. Kazanasmaz, T., Günaydin, M., Binol S. Artificial neural
networks to predict daylight illuminance in office buildings.
Building and Environment 44 (2009), 1751-1757.
10. Priya, S.S., Iqbal M.H., Solar radiation prediction using
artificial neural network. International Journal of Computer
Applications, Vol 116 – No. 16 (2015), 28-31.
11. Haganesh, B., Senthil Kumar, P., Meenambal, T.,
Sustainable Energy Management by Optimizing Daylight
with Artificial Neural Network. International Journal of
Engineering & Technology (IJERT) Vol.1. Issue 6 (2012)
12. Nielsen, A.M., Neural Networks and Deep Learning.
Determination Press (2015).
13. Murphy, K.P., Machine Learning a Probabilistic
Perspective. The MIT Press (2012), 1-24.
14. Kasabov, A.M., Foundations of neural networks, fuzzy
systems, and knowledge engineering. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (1996), 251-260.
15. MCCulloch, W.S., Pitts W.H., A logical calculus of
immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of mathematical
biophysics volume 5 (1943), 115-133.
16. Rosenblatt, F., The perceptron: a probabilistic model for
information storage and organization in the brain.
Psychological Review Vol. 65, No. 6 (1958), 386-407.
17. Werbos, P. J., Beyond Regression: New Tools for
Prediction and Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. PhD
thesis, Harvard University (1974).
18. Chaudhary, K.R., Goals, Roots and Sub-fields of
Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Information
Technology and Computer Science Vol.4, No.6 (2012),
19. Mardaljevic, J., Christoffersen, J.,Raynham, P., A
proposal for a European standard for daylight in buildings.
Proceedings of Luxeuropa Conference (2013).
20. Kensek, K., Suk, J.Y., Daylight factor (overcast sky)
versus Daylight Avability (clear sky) in computer-based
Daylight Simulations. Journal of Creative Sustainable
Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE Vol. 1 (2011).
21. Reinhart, Ch., Mardalievich, J., Rogers, Z. Dynamic
Daylight Performance Metrics for Sustainable Building
Design. LEUKOS vol 3 no 1 (2006), 7–31.
22. Boyce, R. P., Human Factors in Lighting. CRC Press
(2014), 172-180.
23. Wienold, J., Christoffersen J., Evaluation methods and
development of a new glare prediction model for daylight
environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and
Buildings 38 (2006), 743–757.
24. Lehmann, E.L., Casella G., Theory of Point Estimation.
Springer (1998).