4.2 Article

Prediction of discomfort from glare from daylight in classrooms

Journal

LIGHTING RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/14771535231173291

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Daylighting is desirable in classrooms but can be challenging due to the risk of discomfort from glare. Existing metrics for evaluating glare from daylight have not been validated for classroom settings. A previous study found that Daylight Glare Probability (DGP) had better predictive power for glare discomfort in classrooms, but correlated weakly away from window light sources. This investigation aims to improve the DGP equation to better predict glare discomfort in classroom settings.
Daylighting is desirable in classrooms but can pose a challenge to classroom illumination when there is a risk of discomfort from glare from windows and sunlight. There are several metrics in use for the evaluation of discomfort from glare from daylight, but none has yet been validated based on the field-of-view conditions of classrooms. A previous study found that Daylight Glare Probability (DGP) produced a relatively better predictive power of the reported discomfort from glare in a classroom compared to other metrics. However, the metric tended to correlate weakly with the reported glare in positions away from the window light source in a classroom. This prompted the current investigation on the possibility of improving the DGP equation. The modified equation produced a significantly better fit to the subjective glare evaluations from a dataset comprising 184 evaluations from 49 participants collected in a classroom. The results suggest that DGP can be improved to predict the reported discomfort from glare for the conditions of board-based work in a classroom, particularly when a logarithmic form of the adaptation term is integrated in the equation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available