LED lighting design strategies to enhance window appearance and increase energy savings in daylit office spaces

Vertical windows are the most common and simplest method to introduce daylight to interior spaces of office buildings, while also providing a view and connection to the outside. However, high contrast ratios between windows and surrounding surfaces can cause visual discomfort for occupants and can negatively influence their health and productivity. Consequently, building occupants may try to adapt their working environment through closing blinds and turning on lights in order to improve indoor visual comfort. Such interventions defeat the purpose of daylight harvesting systems and can increase the forecast electric lighting consumption in buildings that include such systems. A simple strategy to prevent these problematic consequences is to reduce the luminance contrasts presented by the window wall by increasing the luminance of areas surrounding the window through the sparing use of energy-efficient supplementary lighting, such light emitting diodes (LEDs). This paper presents the result of a pilot study in typical office in Brisbane, Australia that tests the effectiveness of a supplementary LED lighting system. The study shows an improvement in the appraisal of the visual environment is achieved using the supplementary system, along with up to 88% reductions in luminance contrast at the window wall. Also observed is a 36% reduction in the likelihood of user interventions that would increase energy usage. These results are used as the basis of an annual energy simulation of the test office and indicate that supplementary systems could be used to save energy beyond what is typically realised in side lit office spaces.

Improving the impact of luminance contrast on the window appearance in a conventional office room: Using supplementary lighting strategies

High contrast ratios between windows and surrounding surfaces could cause reduced visibility or discomfort for occupants. Consequently, building users may choose to intervene in lighting conditions through closing blinds and turning on the lamps in order to enhance indoor visual comfort. Such interventions increase projected electric lighting use in buildings. One simple method to prevent these problematic issues is increasing the luminance of the areas surrounding to the bright surface of windows through the use of energy-efficient supplementary lighting, such Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). This paper reports on the results of a pilot study in conventional office in Brisbane, Australia. The outcomes of this study indicated that a supplementary LED system of approximately 18 W could reduce the luminance contrast on the window wall from values in the order of 117:1 to 33:1. In addition, the results of this experiment suggested that this supplementary strategy could increase the subjective scale appraisal of window appearance by approximately 33%, as well as reducing the likelihood of users’ intention to turn on the ceiling lights by about 27%. It could also diminish the likelihood of occupants’ intention to move the blind down by more than 90%.

Integrating LED lighting design strategies with side daylighting systems to improve interior lighting design of office buildings

A high contrast ratio between windows and surrounding walls may lead to office workers visual discomfort that could negatively affect their satisfaction and productivity. Consequently, occupants may try to adapt their working environment by closing blinds and/ or turning on the lights to enhance indoor visual comfort, which can reduce predicted energy savings. The hypothesis of this study is that reducing luminance contrast ratio on the window wall will improve window appearance which potentially will reduce visual discomfort and decrease workers interventions. Thus, this PhD research proposes a simple strategy to diminish the luminance contrast on the window wall by increasing the luminance of the areas surrounding the windows using supplementary light emitting diode (LED) systems. To test the hypothesis, this investigation will involve three experiments in different office layouts with various window types and orientations in Brisbane, Australia. It will assess user preferences for different luminance patterns in windowed offices featuring flexible, lowpower LED lighting installations that allows multiple lighting design options on the window wall. Detailed luminance and illuminance measures will be used to match quantitative lighting design assessment to user preferences.

Occupant health and productivity : an Australian perspective

The issue of whether improved building services such as air quality, provision of daylight, thermal comfort etc, have a positive impact on the health and productivity of building occupants is still an open question. There is significant anecdotal evidence supporting the notion that health and productivity of building occupants can be improved by improving the quality of the indoor environment, but there are actually few published quantitative studies to substantiate this contention. This paper reports on a comprehensive review of the worldwide literature which relates health of building occupants with the different aspects of the indoor environment which are believed to impact of these issues, with a particular focus on studies in Australia, The paper analyses the existing research and identifies the key deficiencies in our existing understanding of this problem. The key focus of this research is office and school buildings, but the scope of the literature surveyed includes all commercial buildings, including industrial buildings. There is a notable absence of detailed studies on this link in Australian buildings, although there are studies on thermal comfort, and a number of studies on indoor air quality in Australia, which do not make the connection to health and productivity. Many international studies have focused on improved lighting, and in particular the provision of daylight in buildings, but again there are few studies in Australia which focus in this area.

Smart buildings for healthy and sustainable workplace: scoping study report

Deficiencies in the design and operation of office buildings can give rise to high social, environmental and economic (triple bottom line) costs. As a result, there are significant pressures and incentives to develop ‘smart building’ technologies that can facilitate improved indoor environment quality (IEQ), and more energy efficient operation of office buildings. IEQ indicators include lighting, ventilation, thermal comfort, indoor air quality and noise. In response to this, the CRC for Construction Innovation commissioned a six-month scoping study (Project no. 2002-043) to examine how different technologies could be used to improve the ‘triple bottom line’ for office buildings. The study was supported by three industry partners, Bovis Lend Lease, Arup, and The Queensland Department of Public Works. The objective of the study was to look at the history, trends, drivers, new technologies and potential application areas related to the operation of healthy and efficient office buildings. The key output from the study was a recommendation for a prototype system for intelligent monitoring and control of an office environment, based on identified market, technical and user requirements and constraints.

High quality indoor environments for office buildings

The quality of office indoor environments is considered to consist of those factors that impact the occupants according to their health and well-being and (by consequence) their productivity. Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) can be characterized by four indicators: • Indoor air quality indicators • Thermal comfort indicators • Lighting indicators • Noise indicators. Within each indicator, there are specific metrics that can be utilized in determining an acceptable quality of an indoor environment based on existing knowledge and best practice. Examples of these metrics are: indoor air levels of pollutants or odorants; operative temperature and its control; radiant asymmetry; task lighting; glare; ambient noise. The way in which these metrics impact occupants is not fully understood, especially when multiple metrics may interact in their impacts. It can be estimated that the potential cost of lost productivity from poor IEQ may be much in excess of other operating costs of a building. However, the relative productivity impacts of each of the four indicators is largely unknown. The CRC Project ‘Regenerating Construction to Enhance Sustainability’ has a focus on IEQ impacts before and after building refurbishment. This paper provides an overview of IEQ impacts and criteria and the implementation of a CRC project that is currently researching these factors during the refurbishment of a Melbourne office building. IEQ measurements and their impacts will be reported in a future paper

High quality indoor environments for sustainable office buildings

The quality of office indoor environments is considered to consist of those factors that impact occupants according to their health and well-being and (by consequence) their productivity. Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) can be characterized by four indicators: • Indoor air quality indicators • Thermal comfort indicators • Lighting indicators • Noise indicators. Within each indicator, there are specific metrics that can be utilized in determining an acceptable quality of an indoor environment based on existing knowledge and best practice. Examples of these metrics are: indoor air levels of pollutants or odorants; operative temperature and its control; radiant asymmetry; task lighting; glare; ambient noise. The way in which these metrics impact occupants is not fully understood, especially when multiple metrics may interact in their impacts. While the potential cost of lost productivity from poor IEQ has been estimated to exceed building operation costs, the level of impact and the relative significance of the above four indicators are largely unknown. However, they are key factors in the sustainable operation or refurbishment of office buildings. This paper presents a methodology for assessing indoor environment quality (IEQ) in office buildings, and indicators with related metrics for high performance and occupant comfort. These are intended for integration into the specification of sustainable office buildings as key factors to ensure a high degree of occupant habitability, without this being impaired by other sustainability factors. The assessment methodology was applied in a case study on IEQ in Australia’s first ‘six star’ sustainable office building, Council House 2 (CH2), located in the centre of Melbourne. The CH2 building was designed and built with specific focus on sustainability and the provision of a high quality indoor environment for occupants. Actual IEQ performance was assessed in this study by field assessment after construction and occupancy. For comparison, the methodology was applied to a 30 year old conventional building adjacent to CH2 which housed the same or similar occupants and activities. The impact of IEQ on occupant productivity will be reported in a separate future paper

Measuring the effect of patient comfort rounds on practice environment and patient satisfaction : A pilot study

Hourly rounding in the acute hospital setting has been proposed as an intervention to increase patient satisfaction and safety, and improve the nursing practice environment, but the innovation has not been adequately tested. A quasiexperimental pretest post-test non-randomized parallel group trial design was used to test the effect of hourly patient comfort rounds on patient satisfaction and nursing perceptions of the practice environment, and to evaluate research processes and instruments for a proposed larger study. A Patient Satisfaction Survey instrument was developed and used in conjunction with the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Results on patient satisfaction showed no significant changes. Significant changes were found for three of the five practice environment subscales. Consistent with the aim of a pilot study, this research has provided important information related to design, instruments and process that will inform a larger sufficiently powered study.

The use of high dynamic range luminance mapping in the assessment, understanding and defining of visual issues in post occupancy building assessment

The international focus on embracing daylighting for energy efficient lighting purposes and the corporate sector’s indulgence in the perception of workplace and work practice “transparency” has spurned an increase in highly glazed commercial buildings. This in turn has renewed issues of visual comfort and daylight-derived glare for occupants. In order to ascertain evidence, or predict risk, of these events; appraisals of these complex visual environments require detailed information on the luminances present in an occupant’s field of view. Conventional luminance meters are an expensive and time consuming method of achieving these results. To create a luminance map of an occupant’s visual field using such a meter requires too many individual measurements to be a practical measurement technique. The application of digital cameras as luminance measurement devices has solved this problem. With high dynamic range imaging, a single digital image can be created to provide luminances on a pixel-by-pixel level within the broad field of view afforded by a fish-eye lens: virtually replicating an occupant’s visual field and providing rapid yet detailed luminance information for the entire scene. With proper calibration, relatively inexpensive digital cameras can be successfully applied to the task of luminance measurements, placing them in the realm of tools that any lighting professional should own. This paper discusses how a digital camera can become a luminance measurement device and then presents an analysis of results obtained from post occupancy measurements from building assessments conducted by the Mobile Architecture Built Environment Laboratory (MABEL) project. This discussion leads to the important realisation that the placement of such tools in the hands of lighting professionals internationally will provide new opportunities for the lighting community in terms of research on critical issues in lighting such as daylight glare and visual quality and comfort.

Will insulation always bring benefits in energy saving and thermal comfort?

Building insulation is often used to reduce the conduction heat transfer through building envelope. With a higher level of insulation (or a greater R-value), the less the conduction heat would transfer through building envelope. In this paper, using building computer simulation techniques, the effects of building insulation levels on the thermal and energy performance of a sample air-conditioned office building in Australia are studied. It is found that depending on the types of buildings and the climates of buildings located, increasing the level of building insulation will not always bring benefits in energy saving and thermal comfort, particularly for internal-load dominated office buildings located in temperate/tropical climates. The possible implication of building insulation in face of global warming has also been examined. Compared with the influence of insulation on building thermal performance, the influence on building energy use is relatively small.