Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Investigating Daylighting Effectiveness and Occupants’ Visual Comfort of

Façade in Office Buildings in Wolaita Sodo Town, Ethiopia.

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

A Thesis Submitted to
The Department of Architecture
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in

Environmental Architecture
Office of Post Graduate Studies
Adama Science and Technology University
Adama
November 2019
Investigating Daylighting Effectiveness and Occupants’ Visual Comfort of
Façade in Office Buildings in Wolaita Sodo Town, Ethiopia.
Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire
Advisor: Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.)
A Thesis Submitted to
The Department of Architecture
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in

Environmental Architecture
Office of Post Graduate Studies
Adama Science and Technology University
Adama
November 2019
APPROVAL OF BOARD OF EXAMINER
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by
Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Investigating
Daylighting Effectiveness and Occupants’ Visual Comfort of Façade in Office Buildings,
in Wolaita Sodo Town, Ethiopia.” and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify
that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the Degree of
Master’s in Environmental Architecture
_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Supervisor /Advisor Signature Date
_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Chairperson Signature Date
_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date
_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

External Examiner Signature Date
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this MSc Thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a
degree in any other university, and all sources of material used for this thesis have been duly
acknowledged.
Name: Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire
Signature:_______________________________________________________
This MSc Thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as thesis advisor.
Name: Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.)
Signature:______________________________________________________
Date of submission:………..
ADVISOR’S APPROVAL SHEET
To: Architecture Department
Subject: Thesis Submission
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Investigating Daylighting Effectiveness and
Occupants’ Visual Comfort of Façade in Office Buildings, in Wolaita Sodo Town,
Ethiopia.” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s in
Environmental Architecture, the Graduate program of the department of Architecture, and has
been carried out by Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire ID. No A/PR 15267/10 under my supervision.
Therefore, I recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby he/she
can submit the thesis/dissertation to the department.
Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.) ______________ ________________
Name of major Advisor Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank almighty God, my heavenly father and my savior, Lord Jesus Christ for
enabling me in life through this research works at first. Support to conduct this research has
provided by Adama science and Technology University. I am grateful to my advisor Eshetu
T.Gelan (Phd), in the department of Environmental Architecture, for identifying the opportunity
for this study, for his kindly advising and support as the study was planned and implemented. I
would like to thank Mr.jemal Salih , the department chief and Mis Kasech for their kindly
support with some facilities. Inspirations and guidance I had to start and succeed in Master
degree is supplied through my mentor and my life coach, Kidus Tekalign, so I feel grateful to
have him, leaders, and all Christ family members in my lifetime.
I would like to acknowledge those who participated in providing the required data and
cooperating with kindly responses. I would like to thank Miss Afomia, measurements of
illuminace level implemented in this thesis relies on lux meter was accessed through her. I feel
privileged to have had on opportunity to meet and work with my classmates, Adisalem Guta,
Dereje Girma, Noad Bekele, Geda Tura, Wondrad Fantahun., Natnale Nomemsa for their
cooperation in sharing strong ideas and for discussion during the study.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge support from my family and friends: thanks to my friend
Tsion Lemma for her persistence love, encourage and for her advice that I am done with my
thesis and thanks to my family Tesfaye Mamire, Abaynesh Fola and brothers: Teshome, Desta,
Melkamu and sister, Tamenech for their support.
- i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLE ......................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURE ......................................................................................................................vi
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of problems ....................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Main research questions .............................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Specific research questions ............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 General objectives ....................................................................................................... 3
1.4.2 Specific objectives....................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Significance of the study.................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.7 limitations .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.8 Organization of the Report................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................................... 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Day lighting ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Physical Properties of Daylight ................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Role of Day lighting .................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Daylight Factors .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2.4 Measuring Units of Light Level – Illuminance ......................................................... 10
2.3 Visual comfort ................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Glare .......................................................................................................................... 11
- ii
2.3.2 Visual Comfort vs. Human Performance .................................................................. 12
2.3.3 Main Parameters of Visual Comfort and Visual comfort indices ............................. 12
2.4.5 Benefits of Visual connections to outdoors............................................................... 13
2.4 Sustainable façade elements, materials and solar control ................................................ 15
2.4.1 Windows / glazing..................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2 Solar shading ............................................................................................................. 19
2.4.3 Photovoltaic............................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Dynamic lighting and shading strategies ......................................................................... 20
2.5.1 Automated Venetian blinds ....................................................................................... 21
2.5.2 Electrochromic Glazing............................................................................................. 22
2.5.3 Automated fabric shade screens ................................................................................ 22
2.5.4 Fixed External Shading Systems ............................................................................... 23
2.6 Simulation Tools for Daylight and visual comfort .......................................................... 24
2.7 Climate-Based factors choosing Facades systems ........................................................... 26
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................... 27
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 27
3.1. Descriptions of the study area ......................................................................................... 27
3.2 Case buildings selection and Characteristics .............................................................. 30
3.2.1 Fenestration characteristics and control strategies on study buildings ..................... 33
3.3 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 33
3.3.1 Sample design /Participants ................................................................................. 34
3.3.2 Identifications of parameters ............................................................................... 34
3.3.3 Selections, justifications of research methods ..................................................... 36
3.3.4 Procedures ................................................................................................................. 37
3.4 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 38
3.4.1 Questionnaire surveys tools ...................................................................................... 38
3.3.2. Physical data Measurements ................................................................................ 39
3.3.3. Simulations tools ................................................................................................. 40
3.5 Data analysis techniques .................................................................................................. 40
3.5.1. Survey data analysis methods .................................................................................. 40
3.5.2. Analysis of Physical data (Lux meter) ..................................................................... 41
3.5.3 Simulation analysis ................................................................................................... 41
- iii
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................... 42
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 42
4.1 Results .............................................................................................................................. 42
4.1.1 Occupant subjective responses for daylighting assessment ...................................... 43
4.1.2 Physical data measurements ...................................................................................... 52
4.1.3 Simulation analysis ................................................................................................... 57
4.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................................... 71
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 71
5.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 71
5.2 Recommendations and future study ................................................................................. 73
5.3 Design guidelines for daylight performances and visual comfort ................................... 74
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 83
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix 1; Surveys tool (Questionnaires and interviews) .................................................. 86
- iv
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1. U and R-value for 4mm thick glass, with 12mm air space ......................................... 15
Table 2.Shading coefficient for typical windows ...................................................................... 16
Table 3.Typical values of high performance glass .................................................................... 17
Table 4. Building characteristics of lighting systems and automated fenestration systems ...... 33
Table 5. Constant and variable parameters in study .................................................................. 35
Table 6. Common used research methods comparison ............................................................. 37
Table 7. Rate of occurrence for the sky conditions present at the time of survey ..................... 42
Table 8. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables. ........................................................ 43
Table 9. Descriptive statistics for selected general workplace assessment variables. ............... 44
Table 10. Descriptive statistics for selected Lighting and general IEQ assessment variables .. 45
Table 11. Descriptive statistics for selected visual comfort ...................................................... 48
Table 12. Descriptive statistics for selected period of visual discomfort and shading (work type
characteristic) variables. ............................................................................................................ 49
Table 13. Access to daylight vs. Satisfaction of overall lighting conditions relationships ....... 61
Table 14. Access to daylight vs. Satisfaction with personal workspaces .................................. 62
Table 15. Distance to the window and occupants' overall level of satisfaction with their
workspace .................................................................................................................................. 62
Table 16. Relationship of access to daylight and productivity .................................................. 65
- v
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1. Research outline and hierarchy of study ...................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Visible light spectrum: Relative spectral perception of brightness .............................. 8
Figure 3. Health benefits of access to natural views with window proximity........................... 14
Figure 4.Comparison: Double Glazing- Double Low-E Glazing and Triple Low-E ................ 19
Figure 5.Automated Venetian blinds ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 6. Types of fixed external shading system ..................................................................... 23
Figure 7. Recent research methods for daylighting in authentic worldwide resources during the
last few years (1993–2015)........................................................................................................ 25
Figure 8. Location Map of study area, Wolaita Sodo town, SNNPR, Ethiopia ........................ 27
Figure 9. Weather data of Wolaita Sodo (temperature, precipitations and radiations) ............. 28
Figure 10. Survey building Sites of central business area; Google image. On April 10, 2019.
................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 12. Exterior and interior views of study Building 2: Commercial bank Building ........ 31
Figure 11. Exterior and interior views of building 1; Dashen Bank ......................................... 31
Figure 13. Exterior, interior and atrium views of study Building 3 .......................................... 32
Figure 14. Lux meter: Illuminance measuring instrument ........................................................ 39
Figure 15. Assessment of Satisfaction with lighting environments .......................................... 46
Figure 16. Satisfaction with overall visual comfort and visual connection to outdoor ............ 46
Figure 17. Satisfaction with shading in workspaces and with used technology........................ 51
Figure 18 occupants responds for visual discomfort and their control (white board and shelves)
................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 19. Daylight illuminance values (lux) at two different interior depths (meter) at each
space on sunny, clear sky, May 2019. ...................................................................................... 53
Figure 20. Daylight illuminance level (lux) at two different interior depths (meter) at each
space on intermediate sky, May 2019. ...................................................................................... 54
Figure 21. Office room setting for physical data measurements ............................................... 55
Figure 22. Daylight illuminace for five months on intermediate sky conditions ...................... 55
Figure 23. Conceptual simulation analysis for building 1 ......................................................... 58
Figure 26. Light penetration at interior workspaces in building 1 ............................................ 63
Figure 27. Light distribution and occupant's light control in building 2(a) and building 3(b) .. 68
Figure 28. Some of views in study buildings through glazing (left): Building 2 and (right)
Building 3 .................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 29. Stereographic sun path for Wolaita Sodo and (right) optimization orientation/Best
and worst/ (6°5′ N latitude / 37°5′ E longitude) ....................................................................... 75
Figure 30: climatic context: monthly Temperature and solar radiations simulation results. .... 75
Figure 31 Outdoor comfort analysis .......................................................................................... 76
Figure 32. Interaction between Elements and Facade Orientation ............................................ 77
Figure 33. Grouping modules and an overview of facade development ................................... 78
- vi
Figure 34. (Above) shading system and (below) Assembly of Modules structures for
sustainable facade ...................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 35. Construction details and modules explore ............................................................... 80
Figure 36. CLT (cross-laminated timber) panel ........................................................................ 81
Figure 37 .................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 38 .................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 39. A+C (shared office): Interior room dimensions / façade prototypes ....................... 82
- vii
ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
CO2: Carbon Dioxide
CREST: Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology
DA : daylight autonomy (%)

DA average: daylight autonomy density ratio
DGP: daylight glare probability (%)
EPA: Environmental Protection Authority
GBC: Green Building Council
HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
IAQ: Indoor air quality
NAPA: climate change national adaption program of action (NAPA) of Ethiopia
RGB: RGB colors’ reflectance

Rs: specular reflectance
SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment
SHGC: Solar Heat Gain Coefficient

Td: diffuse transmission
UDI: useful daylight illuminance (lx)
UDIaverage: useful daylight illuminance density ratio
VC: visual comfort
VCI: visual comfort indices
WWR: window to wall ratio (%)
- viii
ABSTRACT
Most people spent over 85% of their lives inside buildings. In case, one of the determinants of
human performance in indoor environment is quality of light. These realities of modern life and
the increasing need to better understanding created the opportunities to study and improve the
health of building occupants (i.e. lighting, comfort and daylighting strategies). The introduction
of daylight into buildings has great potential to positively impact building occupants and to
reduce energy use. Nonetheless, if daylighting designs are poorly perceived, the luminous
environment may lead to issues such as visual discomfort/ glare, headaches, or eyestrain and
dissatisfaction with job performances. In case, to design and operate a building to make full use
of daylight with creating comfortable visual environments at offices remains a challenge. The
purpose of this research was to examine effectiveness of daylighting and visual comfort with
facade in three office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town, with a wet summers and dry winters -
semi arid climate. The investigation was conducted using three methods;-subjective evaluation,
field measurements/lux meter and simulation tools. In total, 55 occupants were responded form
three buildings. This paper discusses findings from evaluation of occupants' subjective visual
comfort perceptions (thermal was not scope of study), occupants’ satisfactions with daylight &
workspaces, productivity, shading control of luminous environments. 68% of the participants
complained about the visual environment. 60% of the participants experienced direct sunlight
on their workspaces/ faces and ranked for disturbing or intolerable glare. The discomfort
periods of visual environments was occurred when it was over comfortable threshold zone in
office spaces (500lx) and under (300lx).for instance, on clear sky, Glare/bright space (>80% of
day) and Gloomy /darken space (<20%) for <4m from window. Generally, the concerned with
the role of building skins (glazing, solar shadings) in relation to natural light and the
importance of sustainable facade as this plays an important role in subtropical climates, like
Wolaita Sodo where the facade has a direct impact on the visual comfort and indoor
environmental quality. Current glazing and building facades mostly used in case buildings were
resulted with various complaints. Therefore, as core concept of environmental architecture, it
is crucial that designers understand daylighting strategies, shading, and corresponding human
perceptions of comfort.
Key words: Daylighting, glare, lux, productivity, sustainable façades, simulations, visual
comfort
- ix
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
The evolving office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town created opportunities for architects and
engineers to explore the glass materials and other façade constructions. However, current trend
of glass façade, and construction trends in town need to critically question its performance and
occupants’ comfort. In addition, an advancement of technology made modern buildings possible
to use glass façade and shading systems widely with transparency and treatments. Glass material
as façade is chosen without understanding its unique visual effect and performance. However,
large glazed areas allow direct solar radiation with much natural light penetration in workspaces
which may affect indoor environmental quality (IEQ) (Wurm 2007).
Consequently, façade strategies that control solar loads while transmitting sufficient daylight to
minimize the need for electrical lighting have the potential to significantly improve energy
performance and comfort indoors compared to conventional office buildings. Building facades,
as environmental mediator and exterior enclosures , is the most significant contributors to the
energy conservation and comfort parameters of any buildings (Annalisa 2018). One of the
determinants of human performance in indoor environment is quality of light. A growing body
of daylight studies within the built environment suggest that natural light and quality outdoor
views can positively influence one's psychological and physiological health, sense of wellbeing,
and workplace productivity (Figueiro et al. 2002a). In the design for the century, the use of
daylight to reduce energy consumption and enhance Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is one
of the most common claims made for commercial office buildings promoted as “sustainable”,
“energy efficient,” “green,” or “high performance.” (Kyle Konis, Selkowitz 2017).
To help designers achieve the benefits of daylight, researchers have developed both dynamic
daylighting metrics that help designers to understand dynamic daylight behaviors and advanced
technologies that dynamically control the luminous environment. Even though these advances,
the literature is supplied with evidence of occupant on discomfort resulting from daylighting
(Day et al. 2019). To understand occupant experiences in use of daylight and satisfaction with
indoor environments quality in workspaces, this research aimed to examine sustainable façade
- 1
for daylighting effectiveness and visual comfort in office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town, with
in semi-arid climate (hot winter, and cold summer).
1.2 Statement of problems

The current trends of the use of glass façade and general construction in office buildings
promoted to have freedom on use of glazing which allows daylight entry and visual contact.
People and professionals appreciated most buildings in Wolaita Sodo town only by criteria of
volume, height, shape or painting, and appearance without understanding how buildings affect
the environments and occupant comfort. Random observation showed most of the offices
environments in Wolaita Sodo used movable indoor shading devices (plastic louvers) and there
is no fixed exterior shading devices to have control, which have impacts on occupants comfort
and indoor environmental quality. In addition, there are negative impact of glass facade on
outdoor public spaces, nearby buildings and drivers. However, these issues made to rise
questions on the sustainable indoors and performance of existing and upcoming glass facades.
As reported on the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), interior environments,
especially those of offices where occupants spend considerable amounts of time sitting, have a
bad status for acting as curators of bad health, accounting for the fact that most people spend
over 90% of their lives inside buildings or their cars (Klepeis et al. 2001). When considering the
implications of ill-designed office spaces, sick building syndrome (SBS), Building Related
Illness (BRI), and other forms of physical discomfort, can become apparent to building
occupants when simply using their designated space for its intended purpose (Laumbach 2008).
The reality of modern life and the increasing need to better understand how designers and
building infrastructure can work together presents opportunities to study and improve the health
of building occupants (i.e. lighting and daylighting strategies).
Even researchers have developed different daylighting metrics and shading controls to achieve
benefits of daylight, there were occupants’ discomfort with visual environment and use of
glazed curtain walls and large windows on building facades. Glare and overheating are some of
the most common complaints’ of occupants related to daylighting. Glare, negative aspect of
light, happens due to high contrast either directly or by reflection that creates both discomfort
and disability (Melaku 2016). It was demonstrated the substantial benefits of daylights but when
daylighting designs are poorly conceived, the luminous environment in offices may lead to
- 2
issues such as visual discomfort/ glare, headaches, or eyestrain and dissatisfaction with job
performances (Day et al. 2019).
Buildings were rarely studied in use to determine if the daylighting design strategies
implemented achieve the intent of creating a sufficiently daylit and visually comfortable work
environment from the perspective of building occupants or how occupant behavior affects the
level of daylight availability and energy reduction predicted during design. So, this research
explores to fill such gaps by investigating the glazing and façade systems for effective
daylighting and occupants’ visual comfort in workspaces.
1.3 Research Questions

1.3.1 Main research questions
How effective are current glass façade and shading systems for indoor day lighting and visual
comfort in offices buildings in Wolaita Sodo town?
1.3.2 Specific research questions

i. What is the relationship between daylight performance and occupants ‘perceived
satisfaction within personal office workspaces?
ii. How visual discomfort/ glare from glass facades affects the occupants over a range of daily
and seasonal variation in sun and sky conditions?
iii. What are the possible approach to measure visual comfort and performance of glass facades
in the evolving office buildings of Wolaita Sodo town?
1.4 Objectives
1.4.1 General objectives
The general objectives of the study is to examine effectiveness of building façade for indoor day
lighting and visual comfort in three office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town.
1.4.2 Specific objectives

i. To evaluate the quality of visual environment in office buildings with daylighting
ii. To understand occupant satisfaction and the perceived productivity from the building’s
visual environment for work performance in office settings
- 3
iii. To evaluate effectiveness of daylighting control on daylight availability and visual comfort
of current glass façade systems over a range of daily and seasonal variation in sun and sky
conditions.
iv. To understand a method for collecting measures of occupant subjective assessments paired
with physical measurements using a lux-meter device within five months
1.5 Significance of the study

The current practice of architecture in Wolaita Sodo in terms of glass / facade usage and
occupants’ satisfactions was studied in order to understand its effect on indoor visual
environments. Investigating effectiveness of daylighting and visual comfort in offices buildings,
have crucial significances. These are:
1) For occupants: the study enhances the healthier and productive working environments with
effective day lighting and visual comfort for occupants. Optimized indoor space with
daylighting has positive impacts on people's task performance, comfort, sense of wellbeing and
enhances their circadian rhythms. (Kong et al. 2018). The goal of this paper is to utilize a user
set to understand how daylight performance and façade systems ultimately affect the user
experience.
2) For researchers and academic: Due to the limited consensus for how IEQ/indoor
environmental quality/ parameters such as daylight sufficiency, visual discomfort, and view
should be measured, assessed, and relatively valued in dynamic daylit environments, it is
important for post occupancy evaluation methods to incorporate techniques for acquiring
subjective feedback from building occupants.
3) For government: To improve the design guidance and assumptions for comfort and
satisfaction used in the design of future projects. These lead to achieve a more sustainable
interior. Generally, numerous Studies for day lighting found dual goal of accessing daylighting,
increased occupant satisfaction (enhanced Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)) and decreased
building energy use. This have great impact on sustainable design standards and guidelines
around the world (Li 2010).
- 4
1.6 Scope
The study focused on the daylighting effectiveness and visual comforts through façade systems
in office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town. The thesis scope comprises spatial, thematic and
temporal scopes. The study addressed the performance of glass facade and construction and its
effect on visual comfort of its users, (remind thermal comfort is not scope of this study). In
addition, the study also explored environmental parameters of sustainable façade, glass material,
types, and effective shading design strategies.
Three evolving office buildings, located in Wolaita Sodo town, with climate having semi-arid
(hot winter, autumn and cold summer) were evaluated to understanding occupant experiences
in daylight offices and satisfaction with indoor environments quality. Different floors selected
for survey, simulations and physical data record. The period of the survey was from April 21 –
August 20, 2019.
1.7 limitations
Some of limitations conducting this study were the period of investigation may be better if the
annual data were recorded but it was limited to five months that cased to focus only three
buildings. The organization of the school and schedule with advisor were challenging for
expectation of required feedbacks. Investigation of environmental architecture required
laboratory instruments: - it was difficult to access real physical measurement device that was
plug in site and more advanced simulation tools, however lux meter was facilitated late time.
The other constraints were finance. In addition, lack of prior studies on related topics in the local
context was also a challenge to put point of reference with detailed sight. Some occupants didn’t
notice and there some challenges with willingness of responses.
1.8 Organization of the Report

This thesis is composed of six chapters according to the hierarchy of the study. Chapter 1
contains Introduction. Chapter 2 deals about comprehensive review of literatures. Chapter 3
discusses research methodology, which is the foundation of the entire paper. Chapter 5 is
concerned with results and discussions. Finally, chapter 5 presents conclusions,
recommendations and future research ideas. The figure 1.shows the outline of the study.
- 5
Introduction
Research Objectives Research Questions
Chapter 1 Area of interest
Specific and general
Literature Review
Chapter 2
Comprehensive review of literatures and prior studies focused on ( effective

daylighting, visual comfort and views, theoretical and conceptual review)
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
Identifying and justifying research design
Computer Simulation Questionnaire, Observation Physical measurement

(experimental study)
(Input)Weather files, Survey study on Occupants' visual
orientation, light comfort in workspaces (objective Measuring amount of light using
radiations contour assessments) lux meter on office
Chapter 4
Categorize Output values
Results and Discussions
-under visual comfort,
occupant productivity
Chapter 5 -Analyzing simulation graphs,
tables and numerical values
Conclusion and Recommendation
Guidelines and strategies
Figure 1. Research outline and hierarchy of study
- 6
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This paper reviews the literatures on role of sustainable facades to achieve effective daylighting
and visual comfort. Generally, the reviews starts with theoretical backgrounds, which includes
similar works in global level, and then it comes to theoretical background, reviewing according
to the context of Ethiopia and in to context of Wolaita Sodo town.
2.2. Day lighting

As illustrated on the challenge of defining “effective daylighting,” daylighting performance is
often defined differently by different stakeholders in the design and use of the building or
operational life-cycle of buildings. building occupants may judge the daylighting performance
of the building based on their perception of daylight sufficiency, visual comfort, and available
views (Kyle Konis, Selkowitz 2017)
Daylighting is known as an important element in architecture as well as a useful strategy in

energy optimization of buildings. The amount of daylight entered to a building from the
openings is related to creation of space illumination, yielding in visual comfort enhancement. It
is significant to address the daylight both outside and inside of buildings as well as recognizing
its impact on saving electrical energy (DH. 2010). Daylight, and corresponding operable
controls that manage preferred lighting conditions, can positively impact human health,
wellbeing, and productivity by stimulating the human circadian rhythm, which can lower
depression, improve sleep quality, reduce lethargy, and prevent illness. Additionally,
daylighting provides a connection to the outdoors and can increase restoration and improve
visual comfort (Day et al. 2019)
2.2.1 Physical Properties of Daylight

Light is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is perceived by our eyes. Modern physics
recognizes two properties in electromagnetic radiation: waves and particles. Natural light, or
white light – the only kind that enables the eye to distinguish colors precisely consists of visible
electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths ranging from 380 – 780 nm (figure 2). Light
is a radiant energy that stimulates the visual sense. The visual sense is one of the most important
senses in all creatures which enables them to recognize their surrounding objects(Nazanin
- 7
Nasrollahi 2016). The color sensation experienced by the eye depends on the spectral
composition of the light received and the sensitivity of the eye.
Figure 2. Visible light spectrum: Relative spectral perception of brightness

Source: lighting hand book by (Zumtobel Lighting GmbH, 2018) p.7
The quality and quantity of daylight change with location, time of day and weather conditions.
Reliable daylight prediction method is developed by CIE (Commission International
del’eclairage) after many years of luminance distribution measurement of real sky. According
to CIE, three sky conditions, namely clear sky, intermediate sky and overcast sky were
investigated.
2.2.2 Role of Day lighting

Some of the factors contributing to occupant satisfaction in buildings include visual connections
to the outside, thermal comfort, air quality, acoustics, access to daylight, and visual comfort.
Daylight with matching operable controls that manage preferred lighting conditions, can
positively impact human health, wellbeing, and productivity by stimulating the human circadian
rhythm, which can lower depression, improve sleep quality, reduce lethargy, and prevent illness
(Figueiro et al. 2002b).
There most benefits of day lighting is physiological benefits. Ultraviolet radiation is essential to
human health. It prevents rickets, helps keep the skin in a healthy condition, widens the
capillaries of the skin, reduces blood pressure, quickens the pulse rate and appetite, stimulates
energetic activity, produces a feeling of well-being, reduces fatigue, and may even increase
work output (Boubekri 2008).
The second role is Psychological benefits in which, direct sunshine in the interior environment
is one of the strongest psychological benefits. Some direct sun in proper location and quantity
is stimulating and desirable. A view to the exterior is another psychological benefits to building
occupants. (Boubekri 2008).
- 8
The third is daylight for Productivity and health. Personal daylighting controls provide
occupants with an improved sense of control over indoor air quality, ventilation, and daylighting
as well as a perceived decreased severity of sick building syndrome. According to a study that
monitored productivity in relation to controllable daylit environments, occupants who were
exposed to daylight, and those who could control their environment with various daylighting
strategies, were 15% more productive with work-related tasks. In this case, access to daylight
and productivity were correlated, thus reinforcing the concept that occupants should have access
to operable daylighting controls to increase thermal comfort, visual comfort, and productivity
(Day et al. 2019).
Furthermore, daylight is a sustainable development strategy to increase the visual comfort,

energy optimization and development of the green buildings. Access to natural light create both
pleasurable indoor environment and allow the residents to have their visual connection with the
outdoors. Daylight is the best resource for colorful renders (Cheung H-D 2008).
Light has a triple effect (Zumtobel 2018): Light for visual functions which are Illumination of
task area in conformity with relevant standards, Glare-free and convenient. Light for emotional
perception, which includes Lighting enhancing architecture, Creating scenes and effects. Light
creating biological effects: Supporting people’s circadian rhythm, Stimulating or relaxing.
Finally, all of these reasons are effective in the adaptable relationship between the environment
and the design of light dynamics, which is highly dependent on the space and time.
2.2.3 Daylight Factors

The natural light that provides illumination inside a room is usually only a small fraction of the
total light available from a complete sky. The level of illuminance provided by the sky varies as
the brightness of the sky varies so it is not possible to specify daylight by a fixed illuminance
level in lux. The acceptable amount of daylight is determined based on functional requirements
of the room, seasonal changes, environmental and geographical conditions, building positions
and requirements of the occupants. Conditions of brightness considerably change as moving
from the interior space to the exterior environment or vice versa.
The amount of entering daylight to the space is calculated by the daylighting factor formula (1)
(Nazanin Nasrollahi 2016):
- 9
DF= SC +ERC+ IRC…..Equation 1
Whereas DF is daylight factor, SC is sky component, ERC is externally reflected component
and IRC is internally reflected component. The daylight reaching a particular point inside a
room is made up of three principal components Daylight factor. The three components arrive at
the same point by different types of path, 1) Sky component (SC): the light received directly
from the sky. 2) Externally reflected component (ERC): the light received directly by reflection
from buildings and landscape outside the room.3) Internally reflected component (IRC): the
light received from surfaces inside the room. Recommended daylight factors for general office
interiors where daylight from side windows as major source of light is 5 (average daylight factor)
and 2 (minimum).
2.2.4 Measuring Units of Light Level – Illuminance

Light Level or Illuminance, is the amount of light measured in a plane surface (or the total
luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area). The work plane is where the most important
tasks in the room or space are performed Illuminance is measured in foot candles (ftcd, fc, fcd)
or lux (in the metric SI system). A foot candle is actually one lumen of light density per square
foot; one lux is one lumen per square meter. (NSF (National science foundation, 2015).
 1 lux = 1 lumen / sq meter = 0.0001 phot = 0.0929 foot candle (ftcd, fcd)
 1 phot = 1 lumen / sq centimeter = 10000 lumens / sq meter = 10000 lux
 1 foot candle (ftcd, fcd) = 1 lumen / sq ft = 10.752 lux
Common and Recommended Light Levels Indoors: The outdoor light level is approximately
10,000 lux on a clear day. In the building, in the area closest to windows, the light level may be
reduced to approximately 1,000 lux. In the middle area its may be as low as 25 - 50 lux. Earlier
it was common with light levels in the range 100 - 300 lux for normal activities. Today the light
level is more common in the range 500 - 1000 lux - depending on activity. For normal office
work, pc work, study library, groceries, show rooms, laboratories, light level is 500 lux. For
precision and detailed works, the light level may even approach 1500 - 2000 lux.
2.3 Visual comfort

The balance of daylight transmission and window views for occupants with the prevention of
glare is a central performance objective for effective daylighting. Visual comfort refers to being
- 10
free from sensitivity, pain and distraction. It is a condition where human eyes receive a suitable
amount of light without making an effort to visualize some tasks, which strongly relate to the
illumination levels inside the space either artificial or natural light sources. Visual comfort in a
space is directly related to surface contrast and diversity of brightness (David 2011). The focus
on visual comfort has traditionally been light levels, contrast, and glare. Glare is the result of
extreme contrast in a given field that causes scratch around the eyes in human. Visual comfort
for a glared radiation depends on the relationship between brightness and size of the source,
situation of the object in the vision field and adaptability of the observer's eyes (Nazanin
Nasrollahi 2016).
2.3.1 Glare
Glare, in particular, is a serious source of visual strain that can prevent the viewer from executing
his task (disability glare) or cause a significant decrease in visual performance (discomfort glare).
Generally, glare can be divided into three categories: (1) disability glare, (2) discomfort glare,
and (3) veiling glare. Discomfort glare is defined as “a sensation of annoyance caused by high
or non-uniform distributions of brightness in the field of view.” Alternatively, the Commission
Internationale de l’Ećlairage (CIE) defines discomfort glare as “visual conditions in which
there is excessive contrast or an inappropriate distribution of light sources that disturbs the
observer or limits the ability to distinguish details and objects.” (Kyle Konis, Selkowitz 2017)
Factors of visual discomfort: The extent of the problem expresses the need for reliable tools
to predict potentially uncomfortable visual conditions in buildings (Hirning et al. 2017):-
 Daylight is a dynamic source that fluctuates in colour, intensity, direction and viability,
making field studies difficult to conduct between different climates;
 Visual discomfort can be experienced in more than one way (e.g. direct view of the sun or
veiling contrast on a monitor can both cause glare but each provides very different visual
stimulus);
 Environmental factors such as qualitative aspects of window view, window access,
interactions of daylight with interior architecture and electric lighting design, seasonal and
location specific factors impact on visual comfort perception
- 11
 Occupant-based factors, such as: age, vision diagnosis, awareness of lighting, the time of
day, view direction, long term exposure, task difficulty and blind use can also influence
individuals' perception of visual comfort
2.3.2 Visual Comfort vs. Human Performance

One of the determinants of human performance in indoor environment is quality of light.
Numerous study has been conducted to compare the effects of different lighting conditions on
health, productivity, well-being and alertness level. Concerning human perception, illuminance
level is the most important characteristics of light to be considered (Melaku 2016)
2.3.3 Main Parameters of Visual Comfort and Visual comfort indices

The visual environment should permit occupants to see objects clearly, without strain, in
pleasantly toned surroundings. There are parameters of visual comfort for which architects play
a dominant role which are the level of illumination of visual tasks, the harmonious distribution
of light within a space, the ratios of illuminance within a building, the absence of unwanted
shadows, an exterior view, good color interpretation, pleasant tones of light, and the absence of
glare (Phillips 2004).
There are some basic methods to measure the visual comfort in workspaces, those are physical
measures /illuminance level, simulations and survey tools. Environmental conditions and
properties of façade elements that effect Visual comfort are Orientation, Window properties,
size, location and shape, Glass thickness and color, Visual transmittance, reflectance.
For Visual comfort indices, the research on VC /visual comfort is dominated by studies on
analyzing the presence of adequate amount of light where discomfort can be caused by either
too low or too high level of light as glare. Quantifying the amount of light can be grounded on
the pragmatic factors below (Tabadkani, Banihashemi, and Hosseini 2018):
Useful daylight illuminance (UDI); is the annual percentage of illuminance values on the
reference point within the comfortable range of 100–2000 lx. The maximum bound bound
represents the percentage of the time when an oversupply of daylight leads to visual discomfort,
and the lower bound represents when there is the shortage of daylight
Daylight autonomy (DA); this is defined as the percentage of the occupied hours in a year when
the minimum illuminance is provided with the sole daylight. In the literature, particularly in the
- 12
European standard of EN 12464-1 a reference value of 300 lx is recommended on the task area
for a typical user (ECS 2011)
Continuous daylight autonomy (DAcon); an improvement method of DA, in which the available
amount of natural light is further calculated at a given point of a space during occupation hours.
Spatial daylight autonomy (sDA). According to Illuminating Engineering Society of North

America (IESNA 2012), sDA describes how much an interior environment receives sufficient
daylight of 300 lx in more than 50% of its occupied hours.
Annual sun exposure (ASE) metrics, which form a clear picture of daylight spaces and visual
comfort ultimately. ASE provides the balance as a proxy for direct sunlight, an indicator of
potential illuminance problems where it should be less than 10% during occupied hours. It
measures the percentage of floor area that receives at least 1000 lx for at least 250 occupied
hours per year, which must not exceed 10% of floor area.
The comfort criteria of glare is proposed by four main domains: 1) Imperceptible glare (DGP <
0.35), 2) Perceptible glare (0.35 < DGP < 0.4), 3) Disturbing glare (0.4 < DGP < 0.45) 4)
Intolerable glare (0.45 < DGP).
2.4.5 Benefits of Visual connections to outdoors

Facades that maximize individual access to the natural environment; The most significant step
that designers, engineers, and building managers can take to move toward healthier and more
sustainable buildings is the commitment to increasing individual contact with the outside
environment. The emerging field of “biophilia” has identified the importance of access to nature
to human well-being exploring a range of qualities of the natural environment: views, daylight,
sunlight, fresh air, breezes, access to outdoor spaces and activities, circadian rhythms, seasonal
and daily climate variations, and nature’s sounds, smells and habitat(Volker Hartkopf, A. A.
2010).
There is significant debate about the importance of indoor daylight or sunshine for human health
or performance, there seems to be a growing consensus that access to views is significant. The
seminal work of scholars showed seated views of nature and proximity to windows are being
linked to reduced length of stay after surgery, reduced sick building syndrome, increased
performance at task, and overall improved emotional health. In a 1990 survey of over 2,000
- 13
employees in two buildings at the US Department of Energy, for Building Performance
identified 10–20% lower sick building symptoms among employees with seated views of
windows, controlling for rank. Regardless, there is a measurable benefit to ensuring that a
workforce has fewer health symptoms across the board. Window proximity correlates to a 5–
25% reduction in health complaints among 2,000 workers in two US office buildings, controlled
for rank (Volker Hartkopf, A. A. 2010)
Figure 3. Health benefits of access to natural views with window proximity.

Source: (Volker Hartkopf, A. A. 2010)
Window View of Nature is for occupant Health: In a 1984 observational field study at a
Pennsylvania hospital, Ulrich identifies an 8.5% education in postoperative hospital stay (8.7
days vs. 7.96 days) for gall bladder surgery patients who had a view of a natural scene from
their hospital room, as compared to those with a view of a brick wall. Patients with a view of a
natural scene also received fewer negative evaluations from nurses and took fewer strong
analgesics (Ulrich RS 1984).
Benefits of window view of nature for productivity; In a 2003, building case study of the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Call Center, identify a 6–7% faster Average
Handling Time (AHT) for employees with seated access to views through larger windows with
- 14
vegetation content from their cubicles, as compared to employees with no view of the outdoors
(Group 2003).
2.4 Sustainable façade elements, materials and solar control

For effective daylight and visual comfort, sustainable façade elements includes (window+
photovoltaic+ solar shading). The conceptual design of the skin must consider the basic
arrangement of the various functions incorporating a number of elements including solar
shading, photovolaics, windows and materials (which is interconnected with all the elements).
2.4.1 Windows / glazing

Windows are the primary interface between the office worker and the external environment and
are not only a potential source of daylight and view, but also of sunlight, glare and potential
overheating. Good lighting is crucial for occupant satisfaction, normal office work place should
have light level at least 500 lx/m2. Window location, shape and size and the glazing type will
determine the amount of light from outside that enters a building and how far that light
penetrates into the core of the building (Melina Forooraghi 2015).
To fully specify and evaluate a window system, mainly the glazing, it is necessary to specify
the characteristics and factors considered in Selection of glass, these are:
1) U- values, Thermal transmittance: measures the heat transmission through a building material
or a façade assembly, which is measured in W/m2K, are usually used to define thermal
performance of glazed parts of facades assemblies. Heat loss is also quantified in terms of
thermal resistance or R- value. R = 1/U-value or R= m2k/w. The lower u-factor, the lower heat
transferred through glass. The amount of solar radiation transmitted through the skin of a
building is a function of the available radiation, area, orientation, and heat transmission
characteristics of the exposed skin. Solar gain through glazing can be as high as 85% of the
incident radiation (Melaku 2016).
Table 1. U and R-value for 4mm thick glass, with 12mm air space
U – value (w/m2k ) R – value (m2k/w)
Single 5.4 - 5.8 0.18 - 0.17

Double 2.8 -3.0 0.36 - 0.30
Double with low E coating 1.7 - 2.0 0.59 - 0.50
Source: (David button & Brian Pye, 1993)
- 15
2) Daylight shading coefficient of glass: The thermal performance of a glass building is
determined by its shading coefficient. The value indicates how the glass is thermally insulating
(shading) the interior when there is direct sunlight on the panel or window. It is a value ranging
from 1.00 to 0.00.The lower the rating, the less solar heat is transmitted through the glass, and
the greater it’s shading ability (Melaku 2016).
Table 2.Shading coefficient for typical windows
Glass Type Shading Coefficient

Glass + frame
Single, clear 0.69 – 0.73
Bronze 0.53 – 0.62
Green 0.50 – 0.61
Gray 0.48 – 0.60
reflective 0.17 -0.28
Double, clear 0.60 – 0.70
Bronze 0.43 – 0.53
Green 0.40 – 0.52
Gray 0.38 – 0.51
HP green 0.33
Reflective 0.12 – 0.20
Double – low E ,clear 0.32 – 0.60
Bronze 0.23 – 0.48
Green 0.27 – 0.47
Gray 0.21 – 0.46
HP green 0.25 – 0.39
Source: (ASHRAE, 1997), used in thesis paper of (Melaku 2016)
3) VLT (Visible light transmission of glazing) or Glass Visible Transmittance (Tvis-glass); is

factor that determines the visual performances of glazing. It indicates Percentage of the visible
portion of solar spectrum that is transmitted through given products. VT is expressed as a
number between 0 and 1. The higher the number, the more light is transmitted. visual
performance is influenced by several factors like tinting and low e-values.
4) RHG (Relative Solar Heat Gain): indicates how much of the sun’s energy striking the
window is transmitted through the window as heat. It is combined effects of shading coefficient
and U-values. As the SHGC increases, the solar gain potential through a given window
increases.
- 16
Types of Glass and its Performance
Sustainable or high performance glazing: It is one that can contribute optimizing energy
efficiency and at the same time enhance light penetrations. Sustainable glazing has low U-value,
low shading coefficient and high VLT (Visual Light Transmittance) and it is ideal choice for
today’s energy stressed buildings. Benefits of sustainable or high performance glazing were it
can save energy as 30-40% compared to conventional glass, typical payback was 3-4 years and
it can provide access to daylighting which can enhance occupant comfort and productivity
(Srinivas 2010).
Table 3.Typical values of high performance glass
Source: (Srinivas 2010), High performance glass: Saint-Gobain
Current researches and technologies aimed at maximizing the performance of glass in terms of
light transmission, heat blocking and safety issues. In terms of thermal performance and safety
glasses are classified as:
 Laminated glass - a transparent sheet of polymer is sandwiched between two or more layers
of glass to protect ultraviolet rays and reduces vibration.
 Insulating glass - glass layers are separated by sealed dry air or gas space for thermal
insulation and condensation control
 Coated glass - covered with low- emissive (low – E) coatings which reflects radiation.
 Tinted glass - composed of minerals which colors the glass to absorb radiation.
 Wire glass – a wire mesh is inserted between glass plates to enable the glass stick together
during crack.
According to factor of visual quality, or light transmittances there are two of the most famous
glazing solutions: Low-Emissivity (highly-insulating glass) and solar control glass (Melina
Forooraghi 2015).
- 17
i) Low-Emissivity (Low-E) glass is specially treated with a transparent coating. Are designed
to reduce heat from long wave radiations. Clear glass have emissivity of 0.84 which means it
absorbs 84% of long wave radiation and reflects 16% but low –E coating have emissibilty of
0.35 which means 65-96% of long wave radiation is reflected back to atmosphere. It also
reduces the heat transfer from the warm (inner) pane of glass to the cooler (outer) pane, thus
further lowering the amount of heat that escapes from the window. It controls indoor
environments during summer /cold, and winter hot times. The Low-e double glazing window
could reduce cooling energy demand by 6.4% annually compared with single clear glazing.
With its environmental performances, glass is a recyclable product. Even at the end of the
lifecycle of the window this valuable resource is not lost and can be recycled. This recycled
glass, when melted again to produce new glass products, helps further reduce the CO2 emitted
by manufacturing facilities (Lee, C., Hong 2012)
ii) Solar Control Glass: is a high performance coated product that reflects and radiates away a
large degree of the sun’s heat while allowing daylight to pass through a window or facade. It
units are typically double-glazed and therefore combine both Low-E and solar control properties,
to maximize insulation in cooler periods and solar control properties in summer. It can achieve
g-values as low as 0.15. In practice, offices can be completely glazed with glass with g-values
as low as 0.301.
1
http://www.glassforeurope.com/images/ cont/165_14922_file.pdf
- 18
Glazing insulation performance: U-value
Glazing cost per square meter
Added embodied energy
Figure 4.Comparison: Double Glazing- Double Low-E Glazing and Triple Low-E
Source : climate adaptive façade (Melina Forooraghi 2015). (U-value is for complete glazing
unit, including glass panes, inert gas and low-e coating)
2.4.2 Solar shading

Need for solar control and occupants’ workspaces: Two climatic factors were majorly
influence indoor environments: those are solar radiation and air temperature yet wind and
humidity also have an effect. Solar radiation may cause severe overheating which dramatically
increases air conditioning load in addition to occupant discomfort. "One of the first tasks of an
architect is to determine when solar heat input is desirable and
when solar radiation is to be excluded. The next step will then be to provide the appropriate
solar control mechanism. A prerequisite of designing the solar control is to know the sun’s
position at any time of the year and then to relate it to the building." (Donald Watson, et al,
1997)
- 19
It has been proved that the use of shading device could affect the users’ visual comfort;
preventing glare, increasing useful daylight availability (between 100~2000lux) and create a
sense of security. Recent research shows that properly designed external shading can reduce
solar heat gain through glazing by up to 85%2. Realizing these potential benefits, a varied of
shading configurations have been invented and put in the market, such as fixed, manual and
automatic movable, internal and external shading device. The design of the solar shading system
must take into account the orientation of the building. Solar control glazing and internel systems
are suitable for use on all sides.
Vertical louvers perform well on east and west facades. Horizontal louvers and permanent
projections can be used effectively on south facades. External screening can be between 3-5
times more efficient than internal systems, but internal systems can be adjusted by the user and
operate independently of the weather (Hausladen, G., de Saldanha 2006). Detail was discussed
in section 2.5.
2.4.3 Photovoltaic
Photovoltaic systems use cells to convert sunlight into electricity. PV cells can be made from
various so called semiconductor materials. Current trends in energy supply and use are
unsustainable – economically, environmentally and socially. As concept of environmental
architecture, facade surfaces are well suited to the integration of photovoltaic. Photovoltaic
installations are in the process of becoming even more common in office buildings facades. The
ideal is to make PV have optimum orientation and maximizing the amount of power.
2.5 Dynamic lighting and shading strategies

Since daylight, illuminance fluctuates throughout the day of seasons, strategies to filter, to
diffuse, or block light are used to make interior spaces more friendly and hospitable. Such
strategies embrace (a) horizontal or vertical blinds, which rotate to block light; (b) complex
technologies placed within glazing to reduce penetrating solar radiation; and (c) shades of fabric,
plastic, or paper that can be located to entirely or moderately block or enhance light in office
workspaces.
2
BPD (2009) Solar Shading Systems. [Online] Available from:
www.passivent.com/downloads/solar_shading_systems. pdf [Accessed:29th March 2015].
- 20
The power of access to views of outdoors were understood when considering the qualities of
different shading strategies. Visual comfort is attained by providing effective daylight, views
and glare control. Daylighting theories commonly link with view preservation theories in ways
that can greatly affect building occupants in positive ways, supporting a reduction of stress and
potential for increased productivity when exposed to natural views (Ulrich et al. 1991). There
are plentiful daylight-managing applications (interior shades or exterior structures) function to
obstruct or diffuse direct access visually to the outdoors.
Recently, there are a number of non-geometrical solar control technologies like photochromatic
or thermo-chromatic glasses. The most effective method of solar control is the use of external
shading device, which provides a barrier to solar radiation before it would reach the glass
window. This was explained well in the 2nd international conference on sustainable and healthy
buildings, in Korea (Kim 2009). There are some terminology regarding the various types of
dynamic shading strategies such as automated venetian blinds, electrochromic glass, and
automated fabric shade screens, which have described in terms of their ability to filter light,
technical specifications, and the quality of light received when in use and their effects on visual
comfort.
2.5.1 Automated Venetian blinds

Horizontal slats that pivot to filter penetrable light characterize venetian blinds. Venetian blinds
provide a solution that quickly and easily controls the amount of light entering the interior of a
space, which commonly used across both residential and commercial applications. They utilize
a cord ladder system to hold individual slats /boards that turn to shear the amount of light that
can filter between each horizontal element. Most automated venetian blind systems function
using indoor and/or outdoor sensors that monitor overall illuminance levels and adjust according
to pre-programmed or commissioned set points. However, because of their simplicity, they do
not always fully protect users from glare or intense light from passing through gaps, especially
on the east and west facades of buildings. In addition, they causes a divisions and obstructive
/block of light instead of allowing usable daylight to be filtered and utilized (Day et al. 2019).
- 21
Figure 5.Automated Venetian blinds
Source: (Day et al. 2019).
2.5.2 Electrochromic Glazing
There are many types of “smart glass” currently on the market, including photochromic,
thermochromic, gas-chromic, and liquid crystal technologies. Electro chromic Glazing (EC)
describes glazing systems, which using the principal properties of electrochromism, implement
glass that changes color or opacity (i.e. visible light transmittance or VT) when switched with
an electrical current. Similar to the effect of photo-tinting films used on eyeglasses,
electrochromic glass limits the amount of solar radiation passing through building glazing, and
if used properly, can greatly improve the interior environment. EC glazing provides a
daylighting solution that can block many of the uncomfortable aspects of natural light, and yet
still preserve views to the outdoors and it is an emerging technology that is being used more
frequently across design disciplines.
2.5.3 Automated fabric shade screens

Automated fabric shade screens consist of semi- or completely opaque screens made of
engineered solar fabric. Automated rollers adjust the position of these screens to block
penetrating light and solar radiation to the interior. The rollers are operated by electrical current
- 22
that is hardwired to the building and managed by solar sensors. Automated screening systems
offer an active solution to varying daylight quality throughout the day, responding automatically
to the light levels coming through a window (or hitting the exterior of a building).
The very advantages of these screens were to mitigate the heat gain that heavily glazed buildings
face, as well as provide a solution that aids visual comfort for building users, it is an aid in usable
daylight maximization, reducing glare and thermal discomfort, while protecting the building
from drastic heat loss or gain from windows.
2.5.4 Fixed External Shading Systems

The studies focused on the approaches for designing building facades that overlook exceptional
scenery and views, which requires special care not to obstruct the view to the outdoors. It
explored how the shading devices achieved a satisfactory performance for daylighting, view and
glare. The shading types were divided into five: (A) Vertical louvers (B) Horizontal louvers. (C)
Eggcrate (D) Diagird louvers. (E) Diagrid with horizontal louvers (Wageh and Gadelhak 2017).
For each, the most effective variables were identified which are represented in “modular size”,
“shading angle” and “shading thickness”
Figure 6. Types of fixed external shading system

Source: (Wageh and Gadelhak 2017).
- 23
The results parametric modelling of these shading system showed the combined shading of an
external diagrid structure and a horizontal overhang offered the best performance followed by
the diagrid shading and eggcrate and horizontal shadings.
2.6 Simulation Tools for Daylight and visual comfort

Due to environmental conditions, daylight is recently an added factor in the simulation process.
Accordingly, the ASHRAE Standard emphasis the utilization of daylight in a specific space for
the purpose of energy conservation. Developing daylight simulation became demanded topic
with almost similar importance of building modeling simulation. Numerous articles have
studied independent variables like building height, ratio of a building height to street's width,
SVF, roof shape, building façade, building elevation, materials reflectivity, streets orientation,
urban blocks and their impacts on dependent variables, brightness amount, daylight factor,
visual comfort and energy consumption. While conducting such studies, simulations software
of daylight and brightness have been used on both interior and urban scale (Nazanin Nasrollahi
2016)
As it was shown in comparison figure 7, of methods, 1st is field measurement, 2nd Radiance
software, 3rd Relux, 4th questionnaire survey and 5th is DAYISM were most frequently used
methods /simulation tools for daylighting. In 2004, Relux software, according to as a brightness
simulation software, is to accurately model the illuminance of interior daylight for various sky
conditions, type of geometry and room configuration. Computer-based simulation tools are now
available to do quick and accurate assessment of a building’s thermal and day lighting
performance. A description of a few simulation tools is presented in this research in order to
identify their capacity and use for local case study and design proposal were;
Autodesk Ecotect Analysis: Ecotect is a tool designed to aid in the simulation, analysis and
optimization of high performance buildings, and is especially useful in sustainable building
design projects 3. It allows architects and engineers to test and evaluate design strategies and to
study alternatives and make decisions earlier to deliver more achievable, resource-efficient
building designs. Measure and improve environmental design factors early on with our
conceptual building performance analysis
3
Emma Ozsen, Building Design Analyst and Sustainability Consultant www.buildgreen.mu
- 24
Figure 7. Recent research methods for daylighting in authentic worldwide resources during the
last few years (1993–2015)
Source: (Bhavani R, Khan M., 2011), “Advanced Lighting Simulation Tools for Daylighting
Purpose”
Other method is Energy Plus which is a modular, structured software tool based on the most
popular features and capabilities of BLAST and DOE-2.1E. It is primarily a simulation engine;
input and output are simple text files. This tool grew out of a perceived need to provide an
integrated simulation for accurate temperature and comfort prediction. This integrated solution
provides more accurate space-temperature prediction, crucial for system and plant sizing, and
occupant comfort and health calculations.
Third one is Relux, which is a software for dynamic light simulations based on pre-calculated
HDR images. Thus, dynamic light control can easily be simulated, as if the luminaire groups
were actually being dimmed. Daylight can be incorporated in the process, such as through a
sequence of calculations for a certain time and state of the sky. Relux simulation includes energy
information in the calculation, achieving through the availability of sufficient daylight
- 25
2.7 Climate-Based factors choosing Facades systems
Climate-specific guidelines must be considered during the design process of sustainable or high-
performing building enclosures. Strategies that work best in hot and arid climates are different
from those that work in temperate or hot and humid regions. In order to provide occupants with
a comfortable environment, a facade must fulfil any functions, such as providing views to the
outside, allowing daylight to interior spaces, blocking unwanted solar heat gain, protecting
occupants from outside noise and temperature extremes, and resisting air and water penetration
(Aksamija and C 2013).
The same scholar demonstrated, approach for designing of the sustainable building façade in
the following steps: 1) Climate considerations: Minimize or eliminate west facing glazing to
reduce winter and fall afternoon heat gain. Orient most of the glass to the north, shaded by
vertical fins if there are essentially no passive solar needs. 2) Building orientation: Orienting
and developing geometry and massing of the building to respond to solar position is one of the
basic methods for sustainable façade. However, the problem of west facing façade in these type
of climatic conditions is that, it will consume large amount of heat energy and created discomfort
indoor environments. Therefore, maximum percentage of west side surface area should be
opaque. Northeast facing façade can be designed with maximum glazing percentage.
3) Façade materials properties: Type of material to be used in the building should have minimum
heat transfer coefficient and should have minimum embodied energy in its construction and
installation of framing. Façade should have maximum thermal resistance which can prevent
building from heating. Embodied energy is the total energy required for the extraction,
processing, manufacture and delivery of building materials to the building site. 4) Wall
assemblies: Due to wind velocity and temperate weather conditions in this region, the glazing
type (single, double or others) should have to be considered. Therefore double skin façade is
proposed to be used.
- 26
CHAPTER THREE
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This sections presents the materials and methods used to investigate effectiveness of daylighting
and occupants’ visual comfort in office buildings, in Wolaita Sodo town. The methodology was
presented in sequences to have scientific study. It starts with the Description of the a study area,
and describes research design, Identification of constant and variable parameters, procedures,
Data collections of survey, physical data and simulations and Data analysis techniques
3.1. Descriptions of the study area

The study area is located in the region of southern nation and nationalities of Ethiopia,
particularly in Wolaita Sodo town(figure 8) . Wolaita Sodo city is located between 6°54′ to 6°49′
North latitude and 37°45′to 37°46′ East longitude with an elevation between 1,600 and 2,100
meters (5,200 ft and 6,900 ft) above sea level. Wolaita Sodo city is located 386 km south of
Addis Abeba and covers 32004083.26 m2. The topography of the land characterizes an
undulating feature that favors for the existence of different climatic zones in the area (Census
2007)
Ethiopia
Wolaita Sodo
Town
SNNPR
Figure 8. Location Map of study area, Wolaita Sodo town, SNNPR, Ethiopia
- 27
Located in the tropics at high altitude, Wolaita Sodo possesses a well-moderated Subtropical
highland climate (Koppen Cwb), with a pronounced pattern of wet summers and dry winters.
Despite being located in the Northern Hemisphere, Sodo is actually cooler in the "summer" than
the "winter" due to much higher rainfall in the high-sun season, a phenomenon common to
Sodo's region4. The average temperature in Sodo is 19.3 °C and average Precipitation is 148.4
mm. (Climate-Data.org., 2019). Pick max. Temperature is 28.8 °C on February and pick Min.
Temperature is 11.6 °C, which is on July. The temperatures are highest on average in February,
at around 21.2 °C. At 16.8 °C on average, July is the coldest month of the year. In Wolaita Sodo,
the least amount of rainfall occurs in December. The average in this month is 23 mm. In July,
the precipitation reaches its peak, with an average of 223 mm.
Figure 9. Weather data of Wolaita Sodo

(temperature, precipitations and
radiations)
Source: Climate-data.org/Meteonorm 7
4
"Soddo, Ethiopia Weather Averages". World Weather Online. Retrieved May 25,2019.
- 28
N
Building 3: Sodo Administration
Building 2: commercial Bank
Building 1: Dashen Bank

Figure 10. Survey building Sites of central business area; Google image. On April 10, 2019.
Source: Google map (6°5′ N latitude / 37°5′E longitude and field -camera).
- 29
3.2 Case buildings selection and Characteristics
Emerging central business area at central sub city of Wolaita Sodo town was focus of the study
(figure 10). This area was selected due to the current government interest for renewal, which is
primarily showed up with evolving glazed office constructions (mainly administrative offices,
banks and insurances). With prospective sampling, three offices buildings were selected in this
area and were labeled as Building 1, Building 2 and Building 3. The buildings for the field study
was selected based on the following criteria: a) offices are exposed to radiation due to orientation,
low glass material performance, more glazing cover of building, and absence of external shading
systems, b) they have higher number of occupants and they are serving as a point of convergence
of multidisciplinary purposes. Therefore, supporting the satisfaction and performance of the
occupants is a key requirement for the building indoor environment, including the visual
environment.
Building 1: Dashen bank building
Dashen Bank building is four story office building built between 2002 and 2005, Figure 11 .
The building has heptagonal shape glazing is facing to main asphalt road and façade face to East,
North and Northwest. It primarily utilizes an open-office plan with transparent partitions and
the second floor open office was selected for study. Although manager office, break areas are
located at the corners of floor, occupants near the corners of the building have access to views
through two exterior facades (East and North) and some amount of bilateral daylight illuminance.
However, there are additional white board at side of glazing that protects direct sun heat but
obstructs views.
Building 2: Commercial Bank of Wolaita Sodo district
Commercial bank Building-Wolaita zone district is five-story office building built between 2004
and 2007 (figure 12). Its footprint is rectangular and its façade faces southwest, Southeast, East
and approximately North. Building 2 primarily utilizes an open-office floor plan with
unobstructed views to windows, see Figure 12. Occupants only have exterior views through
windows on one façade, however single glazing transfers direct sun heat into room. There is
manual temporarily shading at interior that moves to side. These conditions eliminate views
through more than one facade and prevent bilateral daylight for occupants. So, there is
discomfort at interior working environments at sunny days.
- 30
Figure 11. Exterior and interior views of building 1; Dashen Bank
Figure 12. Exterior and interior views of study Building 2: Commercial bank Building
- 31
Building 3: Sodo Administrative building
This building is administrative offices built between 2009 and 2013, which has 5 story, figure
13. Its footprint is approximately rectangle with wide atrium at entrance and its facade face
south, southwest and, west. The buildings mostly features open plan and most occupants have
unobstructed views to the exterior. The second floor was selected for survey, computer
simulations and physical data measurements.
During sunny days, the large glazed façade at south and southwest causes glare effect to the
interior and outside environment. High differences in internal illuminance on working spaces
during the time of intensive sunshine cause discomfort at working environments. the computer
simulation output is compared with some of the findings of observations and questionnaire
survey inputs.
Figure 13. Exterior, interior and atrium views of study Building 3
- 32
3.2.1 Fenestration characteristics and control strategies on study buildings
Table 4 provides key information relevant to shading system (façade) performance in each
building.
Table 4. Building characteristics of lighting systems and automated fenestration systems
Building 1 Building 2 Building 3

Glazing Light Blue tinted glazing Clear glazing Light green tinted
Transmittance glazing
Shading Material Plastic manual control Plastic Manual Plastic Manual
Properties in upper plane; white control at upper control on upper
board at interior side, plane plane
Window to Wall 70% 60% 50%
Area Ratio
Ceiling Height 3.00m 2.75m 2.90m
Window sill height 0m 0m 0-0.50m
Window head height 3.00m 2.75m 2.85m
Maximum occupant 9.00m 5.50m 11.20m
distance from window
Lighting System & Direct-indirect LED Direct-indirect LED Direct-indirect LED
Control fixtures; no fixtures; no fixtures; no
daylighting control daylighting control daylighting control
Office layout Open office cubicles; Open office Open office
2m height partitions cubicles; 2m height cubicles;
partitions
Façade orientation East, Northeast South West, south South, south west
east, East, north east
Generally, there are not defined fenestration system at exterior in all three buildings except
there are manual, temporary plastic shading at interior space.
3.3 Research Design

Decisions regarding what, where, when, how much, by what means concerning an inquiry or a
research study constitute a research design. A research design is the arrangement of conditions
for collection and analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research
purpose with economy in procedure (Selltiz 1962). It contains a clear statement of the research
problem or procedures and techniques to be used for gathering information and methods to be
used in processing and analyzing data.
- 33
It combines the methods of research involving collecting, analyzing and integrating quantitative
(literature, secondary data from sectors, physical measurements, simulations) and qualitative
(questionnaire survey, interviews and field works) research. This research carry out an
exploratory research on the effectiveness of effective day lighting and visual comfort in office
buildings. Then it describes some analytical study for guidelines. It aims to explore the ways in
which the building envelope can impact on the sustainability of the building and ultimately,
towards achieving sustainable buildings for effective daylight and visual comfort.
3.3.1 Sample design /Participants

According to Daryle W. Morgan methods, the recommended sample size for a occupants of 64
in three buildings, a confidence level of 99%, and a margin of error (degree of accuracy) of 3.5%
would be 55 (Krejcie 1970). According to purpose research, survey sample of 55 occupants on
three buildings was selected to participate in this four-week field study in mid-April to -May
2019. In building 1, from 18 employees on 2nd floor, 15 was selected for the questionnaire survey
and interviews. In building 2, from 22 employees on 2nd and 3rd floor, 20 was selected for the
questionnaire survey and interviews. In building 3, from 24 employees, 20 was selected for the
questionnaire survey and interviews.
3.3.2 Identifications of parameters

Identifying the constant and the variable parameters is very important to get into field study
measurements and survey to analyze the effective daylighting and visual comfort of building
façade/glazing system. As explored through literature review, the variables were selected for
software simulation and survey study for daylight and visual comfort have been used on both
interior spaces and some of urban scale. From these parameters, the valuable parameters for the
context of this study were listed on table 6 and described in following section:-
- 34
Table 5. Constant and variable parameters in study
Constant Parameters Variable parameters Confounding factors
 Weather Data and  Building Orientation  Participant view direction

Location  Time of Simulation (when viewing computer
 Room height  Locations of office floor monitor)
 Building façade  daylight factor  Facade orientation
materials  visual comfort  Participant depth from
 SVF (sky view factor)  Occupant control of facade
 Sample Office Model roller shades  Exterior sky conditions
 Office Furniture
Constant Parameters
i)Weather Data and Location: The evolving offices area of Wolaita Sodo town was study area.
Weather data of the city has been collected which defines the sun position (solar altitude and
azimuth angles) and the sky conditions. The climatic details would be imported, which includes
all relevant information. ii) Room height of the building: the height of the room were kept
constant, hence change in room height would affect the volume of the space which in turn
directly related to amount of daylight and visual comfort.
iii) Facade Material: Properties and layers of glass materials (single or double or other..) were
identified and kept constant throughout the simulation process. Sustainability of the materials
through their impacts on environments were under considering. Iv) Sample Office Model: Open
plan offices were chosen as their design is very critical in terms of the large space, how the
daylight is distributed in the space, the solar radiation effect due to perimeter and interior
workstation location distance from the façade/glazing.
Variable Parameters
i) Building Orientation: in order to investigate the effect of the sun position on the buildings’
facade and how it would influence the indoor and outdoor luminous environment, building was
tested. ii) Time of Simulation: the simulation would be conducted in different times of the day,
days of the month in order to get an overview about the influence of changing time. Clear,
intermediate and overcast sky conditions were basic parameters. iii) Location of Office Floor
- 35
Confounding factors: These are used to group study participants, schedule monitoring phases
during the field study, and as controls during data analysis. Thus; Participant view direction
(when viewing computer monitor), Facade orientation, Contribution of electrical lighting to
illuminance at the work plane, Participant depth from facade (e.g. core vs. perimeter zone),
Exterior sky conditions (clear, overcast and cloudy), Seasonal changes in solar position
3.3.3 Selections, justifications of research methods

The methodological objective of this research was to pair subjective responses with physical
measures of environmental variables to compare subjective outcomes with existing criteria for
success or failure. Additional was to study occupant behavior and subjective assessment without
significant intervention in the environmental conditions and patterns of behavior in real office
work environments. Daylight and visual discomfort conditions in a daylit space are highly
variable because of daily and seasonal changes in sun and sky conditions as well as the changing
position of shading devices.
Investigating the impact of facade on effective daylighting and visual comfort has been
performed by various methods throughout the research history in this field. Nevertheless, there
were five commonly used methods by the researchers, which are the experimental and numerical
methods, real simulation, questionnaires, case studies methods and computer simulation. These
were some of methods identified on previous paper reviewed during literature (Melaku 2016).
Real Simulation, which is often considered as accurate methodology, consists of a real sun and
sky simulators that could be adjusted in existing building, which is installing simulator on site.
Advantages of this method is that a physical real model is very close in feeling to real conditions
with a high precession accompanied by output photos to document the results. Numerical and
experimental methods consists of mathematical formulas and equations to calculate and obtain
the relationship between attributes, succeeding it with an experiment to verify the results. The
experiment could be done with different measuring equipment, in this study, light meter could
be used.
Questionnaires survey are often used to collect raw data about the topic which could be further
analyzed into useful information. Case studies are the conventional methods to measure and
analyze existing buildings performance. Computer simulation is the most advanced method to
obtain the required output values and give quantitative results.
- 36
Table 6. Common used research methods comparison
Research cost Time needed Accuracy Experience needed

Real simulation very expensive time consuming Accurate result High experience
Experimental Expensive time consuming Most accurate Adequate experience
Questionnaire Affordable Minimum time Less accurate Less experience

Case study Affordable Time Least accurate Adequate experience
consuming
Computer Affordable Minimum time Nearly accurate Software experience
simulation
Of these five commonly used methods, after comparing the advantages and disadvantages in
terms of cost, time, accuracy and experience needed, three of them were selected to deal with in
this study. These are questionnaires survey, computer simulation (Ecotect) and experimental
(Light meter).
3.3.4 Procedures
On the days of the field study, weather was categorized as falling into one of the three conditions:
Clear sky, intermediate/ partly cloudy (overcast), and cloudy. Occupants of three buildings were
approached in their workspace where they were working at the time and invited to participate.
The occupants in each building was surveyed at different times with the similar cloud conditions.
About 90% occupants approached agreed to participate and 10% did not notice about the issues
of study.
Physical data, i.e, illuminance levels were measured at three locations- computer screen,
keyboard, and primary work surface /table/ (as identified by the occupant). These measures were
repeated for more lighting conditions; “ceiling lights off - shades fully open”, “ceiling lights on-
shades fully open”, “ceiling lights on-shades half closed”, and “ceiling lights on-shades fully
closed”. In the analysis part, the measured data was held at “ceiling lights off-shades half closed”
and as it is work spaces in most cases. Follow-up interviews were carried out afterwards for an
- 37
understanding of reasons that caused discomfort and more details of the visual environment
control behavior of the participants.
Simulations was carried out using selected software for this study. The input data was collected
by field measurements, from municipal offices with some modifications, weather data from
meteonorm 7 (energy plus) for the selected study area. Then, the files was imported to Ecotect
and Relux. The results from these simulation tools has compared with survey data out puts.
3.4 Data Collection

3.4.1 Questionnaire surveys tools
The questionnaire survey were identified and organized in order to achieve the specific
objectives of the study. This study focuses on the visual comfort and lighting perceptions of
building occupants in relation to the individual building façade (shading strategies) and glazing.
They were developed form data base of assessing visual environments. As such, survey
questions relevant to this paper were categorized into five categories: The detail questionnaireS
was listed on Appendix 1.
1) demographics
2) general working environment assessment (e.g. distance to window),
3) Lighting and general indoor environmental quality (IEQ) assessment (including i.e.
daylighting/lighting, satisfaction, control and productivity
4) Visual comfort (visual connections, reflections, glare, contrast, brightness)
5) shading and control systems /work type characteristics; (e.g. shading control)
Both open-ended and closed-ended questions were included on the survey. Satisfaction
responses were assessed through a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from “strongly disagree”
(1) to “strongly agree” (5). Multiple choice and yes/no responses were used throughout the
survey as well. Open-ended interviews were conducted with occupants in the buildings,
building designers and other related professionals in different fields. The surveys also included
design, constructability, operation, and market questions.
- 38
3.3.2. Physical data Measurements
Environmental based study was analyzed through field measurements. For this research, to
analysis and quantify the effective day lighting and visual comfort, the physical data was
measured. In case, luminous conditions were quantified in each space (workspace, table and
computer screen) using a set of physical measurements. The research specifically acquired
physical data to measure daylight availability throughout the space, view to the exterior, and the
potential for glare.
The illuminance at the working plane (table) is measured using lux-meter (light-meter), which
is a handy instrument with a sensor (Figure 14). This measurement is usually taken at 0.80
meter above the floor. The illumination level at the working plane vary with depth from façade
/glazing at workspaces and with sky conditions of the day.
The measurement was taken in April-August, 2019, from 8:00am up to 5:30pm in every 30
minutes interval. The data was measured by clear sky and intermediate sky conditions. The
equipment were put on the same place for every measurements, in order to register constant
output data. The data measured on May was more concern of the analysis of this study. The time
limitation for the research was in consideration at time of analyzing this data.
Sensor
Display
Figure 14. Lux meter: Illuminance measuring instrument
- 39
3.3.3. Simulations tools
A number of building simulation software have been developing rapidly to enhance options that
are more flexible and accurate for day lighting and visual comfort, according to study made
during the literature review. The computational analysis and simulation category reviews
researches focusing mainly on environmental simulation for daylight; it also involves small
description and presentation of the existing digital application and plug-in used by architects to
do this type of simulation. The simulations was selected for façade design for daylighting and
visual comfort in working environments. Currently, simulation tools are very important to
integrated environmental parameters into buildings, since many architects want to test internal
spaces before the construction phase.
Familiar Simulation tools namely, Ecotect and Relux are used in this study because of their
ease of operation and better accuracy in terms of data analysis and interpretation. Three
buildings at Wolaita Sodo city were selected to analyses daylight and visual comfort through
these simulation tools with respective to study parameters. Specifically, one open office room
from each buildings were identified for the simulations.
3.5 Data analysis techniques

The methods of analysis that are commonly used to summarize and organize the data in a most
effective and meaningful way. The analysis phase is basically transforming the input data into
output of quantitative and qualitative results. It has been concluded from the type of quantitative
data collected by survey and the physical measurements that has be performed through by lux
meter and simulations by Ecotect software.
3.5.1. Survey data analysis methods

All valid responses were coded and exported to SPSS 20 for data analysis. The survey included
both quantitative and qualitative variables, which has analyzed accordingly. For this study, a
mixed method approach was used to fully understand the responses of occupant behavior. This
methods was proposed according to (Creswell 2014), quantitative and qualitative data were
analyzed separately.
The satisfaction items of overall workspaces, general lighting conditions, access to daylight and
amount of light on workspace, were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
dissatisfied to 5 = strongly satisfied). The degrees of visual comfort and visual connection to
- 40
outdoor were also rated on a five-point Likert-type scale of the bright aspect. Amount of glare
/Visual discomfort level was rated using (4= comfortable, 3 = perceptible, 2 = disturbing, and 1
= intolerable). The environmental variations that were expected to have impacts on occupants'
lighting experience, the workstations were grouped based on the distance between workstations
and the façade), and seating orientation.
The results presented in this paper depends on two specific statistical tests. First, Chi square
tests were conducted to determine whether a statistically significant relationship exists between
two different ordinal variables. A standard level of significance equal to 0.05 was used (p <
0.05). Second, measure of Pearson's correlation was then generated to indicate the strength of
association between the two variables as well as the direction of those relationships (i.e. positive
or negative). Survey participant open-ended responses were also analyzed.
The collected data analyzed by using the describing method of the data by using other analyzing
tools and document analysis such as Microsoft Excel, chart drawing, and related. Finally, the
data was interpreted by giving necessary descriptions about each one of the data analyzed.
3.5.2. Analysis of Physical data (Lux meter)

First, the illuminance level of light was taken onsite, at workspaces and recorded within 30
minutes interval. Then the result was checked with standard lux for office workspaces. In
addition, Microsoft Excel sheets is also used for analysis of the recorded numerical results of
actual measurement tools (light meter). The results of quantitative data measurements was
displayed by the table, charts and graphs.
3.5.3 Simulation analysis

The simulation of day lighting and visual comfort in selected buildings were analyzed using
Software: Ecotect. The analysis includes climate analysis of the site, sun path diagram,
orientation, sun angles, radiation amount, temperature (daily, monthly, annually) using Ecotect
integrated with related environmental parameters. In addition, Energy plus and Meteonorm 7
were used to process climate /metrology data. Software produces graphical output data and gives
minimum, maximum and average values of several parameters of different cases. Finally, the
output data from the above different tools is compared and discussed in chapter four.
- 41
CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

“In our whole career, we are going to produce two dozen, three dozen buildings, we don’t make
that much effect on the world, but, if it’s seen as a prototype, that spins off more kind-of ideas
like that, then you realize that it actually has huge, huge potential. . . Some people may like the
building and some not, but it’s much less important than asking what the building does and does
not do.”
-Thom Mayne, Principal, Morphosis5
This section presents and discusses the key results from analysis of the indicators used to
examine daylighting effectiveness and visual comfort in three office buildings, in Wolaita Sodo
town. It includes occupant’s overall subjective responses, measured daylight illuminance by lux
meter, simulations of daylighting sufficiency and mapping the radiations by using Ecotect. To
keep the analysis relatively concise, these tables focus only on responses considered to be within
the scope of the all-encompassing research question or specific objectives considered in this
paper. (Remind that thermal comfort issues were not discussed in this paper since they were
outside the scope of the research question.)
4.1 Results
The descriptive data of survey, physical measurement and simulations data were presented in
this section. The descriptive statistics from each of the three buildings were presented on Table
7 through Table 12. Table 7 shows the quantity of observed sky conditions during the survey.
The majority of surveys (48%) were conducted under intermediate sky conditions. The data
reflects the typical weather pattern of a semi-rid climate, with intermediate skies the dominant
condition (Ahmed et al. 2002)
Table 7. Rate of occurrence for the sky conditions present at the time of survey
Count Ratio (%)

Clear sky 14 25
Intermediate 26 48
Overcast 15 27
5
Design: Greening the Federal Government, Season 2 : Ep. 2 (25:17).
- 42
The next section present detailed statistical analyses, measured physical data, a brief review of
relevant open indeed responses. These analyses focused and performed to support the
overarching research objectives. To establish first a relationship between survey variables as
well as the strength and direction of the relationships, two key tests were utilized. Statistical
analysis was run on the data using SPSS. Table 8, 9,10,11, 12 presents descriptive statistics for
demographics, general workplace assessment questions, Lighting and general IEQ assessment,
visual comfort and work type (visual discomfort and occupant shading system), respectively.
This data reflects an analysis of all survey respondents with in each of three buildings.
4.1.1 Occupant subjective responses for daylighting assessment

Table 8 lists the demographic responses to the questionnaires. Mean of Gender is 1.2 in Building
1, 1.0 in Building 2 and 1.15 is men (1=men and 2=female). This showed from 55 participants
in all building, about 80 % participated on survey were men. The 70% of occupants (mean of
2.33) were aged between 25 to 35 years. Occupant time working in all three buildings were
between 1and 3 years in three buildings. Time working in their current working spaces is more
than 4 months.
Table 8. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables.
Building Statistic Variable and Response Key

Gender Age Time_wking_in_ Time_wking
current_bldg in_current_ws
1 = male 1= < 20 1 = < 1 yr 1= < 3mths
2 = female 2= 21 - 30 2 = 1–2 yrs 2= 4-6 mths
3 = 31 - 40 3 =3-5 yrs 3= 7-12 mths
4= 41 - 50 4 = 5 + yrs 4=>1years
5= 51+
Building 1 Count 15 15 15 15
Mean 1.20 2.33 2.0 3.0
Std. Dev. 0.41 0.48 0. 654 0.92
Mean 1.10 2.50 2.35 3.45
Std. Dev. 0.307 0.51 0.74 0.944
Mean 1.15 2.55 2.15 3.00
Std. Dev. 0.366 0.510 0.67 0.97
- 43
The descriptive statistics of general work place assessments of three study buildings were
presented with in table 9, and the results were showed that most occupants having average values
of (mean=2.10) were seated on distance between 4-8m to window façade in Building 1. Most
occupants (mean =1.8) were seated on distance between 0-4m in Building 2, and average
occupants (mean=2.15) seated on distance of 4-8m in Building 3. They have access to views
near windows, views of sky, buildings but occupants lack views of trees in their workspaces in
three buildings.
Table 9. Descriptive statistics for selected general workplace assessment variables.

Distance to Window near_ View View bldg View tree
window workspace sky
1= 0–3m 1= yes 1= yes 1 1 = yes 1= yes
2= 4–8m 2= no 2= no 2 2 = no 2= no
3= 9–12m
4= >12 m
Building 1 Count 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 2.10 1.06 1.53 1.00 1.88
Std. Dev. 0.79 0.25 0.51 0.00 0.41
Mean 1.8 1.05 1.55 1.10 1.60
Std. Dev. 0.80 0.22 0.51 0.30 0.50
Mean 2.15 1.00 1.35 1.50 1.85
Std. Dev. 0.81 0.00 0.48 0.51 0.36
4.1.1.1 Daylight and occupants’ perceived satisfaction at work spaces

Table 10 summarizes responses to overall satisfactions survey which includes: satisfaction with
overall building services, overall lighting, satisfaction with quality of light, access to daylight,
electric light, shading devices, satisfaction with amount of light, view and effects of light on
productivity recorded on 5-point Likert satisfaction scale. For each question, the responses for
the Building 1, 2 and 3 were shown separately for comparison.
Figure 15 demonstrates the satisfaction level of occupants with the visual environment in the
buildings of study in the office space in three buildings. In general, it showed participants were
dissatisfied with the workspaces, shading devices and amount of light at their work places in
- 44
Building 1 and 3. All buildings participants were dissatisfied with their shading devices, i.e,
internal moveable plastic roller. Amount of Light on their work productivity moderately
interferes in Building1 and 3, and moderately enhance in building 2
Table 10. Descriptive statistics for selected Lighting and general IEQ assessment variables

Stsfd Stsfd_w Plsd_ Plsd_ac Plsd_w Stsfd_w Stsfd_ Stsfd_w Light_
w- _overall quality cess_to_ _electri _ w_ amount productivity
work lighting of light daylight c lght shading view of light
spaces
Building Count 15 15 14 15 15 15 14 15 15
1 Mean 2.80 3.06 3.07 3.40 3.80 2.53 3.30 2.66 2.8
Std. Dev. 0.56 0.96 0.70 0.73 0.67 0.74 0.91 1.17 0.81
Building Count 20 20 20 20 19 19 20 20 20
2 Mean 3.0 3.35 3.4 3.35 3.5 2.8 3.3 3.45 3.15
Std. Dev. 0.64 0.50 0.67 1.02 1.05 0.73 0.84 0.94 1.03
Building Count 20 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 19
3 Mean 2.25 3.05 2.63 2.80 3.45 2.2 2.90 2.55 2.00
Std. Dev. 0.78 1.27 0.76 1.00 0.88 0.52 0.96 1.35 0.933
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = moderately agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
(Daylight for productivity: 1 = Strongly interferes, 2 = moderately interferes, 3 = neither, 4 = moderately
enhance, 5 = Strongly enhance.)
Note: Stsfd_w stands for satisfied with, Plsd_w stands for pleased with.
The result showed satisfactions with workspace is neutral in building 1 and moderate in 2 and
moderately dissatisfied in building3. Overall lighting and access to daylighting is moderately
satisfied in all three buildings. Generally, the lowest scores reported by the occupants of
Building 3 all survey questions except for overall lighting conditions.
- 45
Radar chart for subjective lighting Assessments
Satisfied with Uncomfortable areas

workinng spaces
5
4 Satisfied with
Satisfied with view 3 overalllighting
2
1
0
Satisfied with Pleased with
shading quality of light
Pleased with Pleased with

electric lght access_to_daylight
Figure 15. Assessment of Satisfaction with lighting environments
Satisfaction with visual connection to

outdoor
Atributtes for satisfcation
Satisfactionwith visual comfort
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

mean satisfaction
Figure 16. Satisfaction with overall visual comfort and visual connection to outdoor
- 46
4.1.1.2 Visual comfort and occupant shading behavior
To assess frequency of visual discomfort in each of three buildings, subjective data was
examined. Table 11 shows descriptive statistics (responses of participants) for selected visual
comfort which includes satisfaction with visual comfort, visual connection to outdoor, source
of visual discomfort at work spaces and amount of glare on work spaces.
For the question “Overall, how satisfied are you with your level of Visual Comfort of lighting
in your workspace?” recorded on 5-point Likert satisfaction scale, results indicate significant
periods where windows were a source of some level of visual discomfort. During May 2019,
where the questionnaire conducted, the responses showed neutral (mean of 3.13/5) satisfaction
level for building 1, moderately satisfied (mean of 3.30/5 ) for building 2 and moderately
dissatisfied (mean of 2.90/5 ) in building3.
Figure 16, the results demonstrated that there is visual discomfort from window at work
environments in building 1 and 3 because of interior white board, tinted glass, distance from
window and opening size and seat location caused visual discomfort on Building 1. At building
3, even on cloudy sky, the room was glary that caused visual discomfort. Generally, Visual
environment is better in Building 2 as the survey data demonstrated. Generally, visual comfort
of daylighting was comparatively low in 1 and 3.
The question “How would you describe your Visual Connection to outdoor from your work
space?” conducted for three buildings, to assess occupants’ visual connection to outdoor. The
results showed moderately satisfied ( 3.24/5 for building 1, 3.50/5 for building 2) and
moderately dissatisfied ( 2.45/5) in building 3. This reflects the occupants were satisfied with
their visual connection on buildings 1 and 2, dissatisfied in building 3.
Table 11 also demonstrated the participants' ratings of visual discomfort based on three causes:
direct sunlight on workspaces /faces, reflection on my computer screen, and Brightness /high
contrasts between monitors and backgrounds. These Source of glare at their work spaces were
examined and responded below 1.5 (1 =yes and 2 =No), that means the occupants were affected
by these glare sources in all three building and it is a little better in building 2 which have 1.40.
Brightness is low in building 1 (value =1.53), and high on building 2 and 3 which have result of
1.20 and 1.30 respectively. This mean values was after excluding the responses who reported
there was no visual discomfort. The results indicated that direct sunlight on people's workspace
- 47
/faces and/or eyes and reflection on computer screen were the most severe cause of visual
discomfort in the office.
Table 11. Descriptive statistics for selected visual comfort

Stsfd_w_ Stsfd_w_ Srce of Srce of Srce of Amount of
visual visual glare: direct glare: visual Glare_on_my
comfort con/n to sunlight/sk reflection discomfort: work space
outdoor y on work on my Brightness
space comp.
1 = very 1 = very 1 = yes 1 = yes 1 = yes 1= Intolerable

dissatisfie dissatisfied 2= no 2= no 2= no
d—> —> 2=Disturbing
5 = very 5 = very 3=Perceptible
satisfied satisfied
4=Comfortable
Building 1 Count 15 14 15 15 15 14
Mean 3.13 3.24 1.33 1.32 1.53 2.41
Std. Dev. 0.99 1.00 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.72
Building 2 Count 20 20 20 20 20 19
Mean 3.30 3.50 1.40 1.40 1.20 3.15
Std. Dev. 0.923 1.14 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.68
Building 3 Count 20 20 20 20 20 20
Mean 2.90 2.45 1.25 1.15 1.30 2.35
Std. Dev. 0.88 1.14 0.44 0.36 0.47 0.63
Amount of glare on workspace evaluated with four levels: 1= Intolerable, 2=Disturbing,
3=Perceptible, 4=Comfortable. The responses showed that on average, it was between
disturbing (bearable for 15–30 min) and perceptible (slightly uncomfortable) on building 1 and
3, having average/mean values of 2.41 and 2.35 respectively. In building 2, the amount of glare
was between perceptible (slightly uncomfortable) and Comfortable/ imperceptible in having
values of 3.15. This value was depend on the time of visual discomfort at working day.
Generally, in all three buildings, over 60% of the participants experienced direct sunlight on
their workspaces/ faces and ranked this experience disturbing or intolerable. Over 40% of the
- 48
participants considered reflection on their monitors as disturbing or greater. Only a few
percentage (below 20%) of the participants suffered from disturbing or intolerable degrees of
high contrasts between their monitors and backgrounds.
Table 12. Descriptive statistics for selected period of visual discomfort and shading (work type
characteristic) variables.
time of day time of Sky Num_of_hrs Possibilt Shading Satisfactions
for visual year for conditions _ at_ws y of device used with
discomfort visual for visual Shading Shading
discomf discomfort control at techn.
ort ws
1=8-10am 1=winter 1=clear sky 1=<15hrs 1=int.movable
2=spring 2=overcast 2=16-30hrs 1 =yes 2=int.fixed 1 =yes
2=10am-12pm
3=12-2pm 3=summer 3=cloudy 3=31-40hrs 2= no 3=ext.movable 2= no
4=2-4pm 4=fall 4=0ther 4=>40hrs 4=ext.movable
5=>4pm 5=other
Building Count 15 15 14 15 15 15 14
1 Mean 2.86 1.733 1.42 2.80 1.26 1.400 1.85
Std. Dev. 1.04 0.70 0.755 0.86 0.45 0.50 0.36
Building Count 20 20 19 20 19 20 18
2 Mean 2.40 1.35 1.10 2.63 1.23 1.10 1.72
Std. Dev. 1.11 0.58 0.45 0.74 0.41 0.30 0.46
Building Count 20 20 19 20 20 20 19
3 Mean 2.90 2.10 1.50 2.75 1.15 1.20 1.94
Std. Dev. 1.05 1.16 0.45 0.71 0.366 0.41 0.22
Descriptive data in Table 12 shows the participants' rating of visual discomfort based on daily
occurrence. The occupants were asked for time of day of visual discomfort is frequent problem
in their workspaces. In building 1, most participants indicated that they were comfortable with
the lighting environment at morning, before 9 am and after 5:00 pm and they had visual
discomfort on 10 am - 2 pm in months of autumn /spring and winter. In building 2, occupants
were affected by glare at 9 am - 12 pm. In building 3, visual discomfort is at 10 am - 3 pm. To
have detailed explanation, it was presented with simulation analysis and compared with
illuminace level of light at workspace that was measured at field study. The results indicated
- 49
that visual discomfort often occurred in the afternoon in Building 1 and morning at Building 2,
but whole day there is disturbing of glare in building 3 as supported by open indeed responses.
Furthermore, in all three buildings, the sky conditions (climate) for visual discomfort was at
clear and intermediate sky having average values of 1.42, 1.10 and 1.50 for building 1, 2 and 3
respectively (where the values indicates 1=clear sky, 2=overcast, 3=cloudy, 4=0ther). It was
also reported on interviews that overcast sky conditions causes darken spaces in building 1
because of tinted glazing. Besides, 70% of the participants selected clear/sunny skies as the sky
condition when visual discomfort occurred most frequently. 60 % of the participants selected
autumn and winter as the season when visual discomfort occurred most frequently. These result
indicated that the hours (orientation of the sun), the climate season of the study areas, number
of working hours and sky conditions affects visual discomfort of occupants.
Occupants control of luminous environments / Façade design strategies

The interior environmental control was just glazing with different properties and internal
moveable roller, not preferable in all tree buildings. However, the effectiveness of several façade
design strategies was the interest of this study. From table 12, in all of three buildings, responses
showed it is possible to have shading control of workspace. Even some of the respondents didn’t
noticed about façade design, but they understood they had affected by visual environments of
work spaces. As descriptive data showed, occupants in all of three buildings have internal
movable plastic roller to control direct sun light penetration/glare, which is operated by personal
adjustment. Shading device used in building 2 and 3 were almost the same, i.e., internally
movable plastic roller. In building 1, in addition to internally movable plastic roller, there is
internally fixed white board between glazing and work spaces. Satisfaction with shading at
workspace (table 17, with scale of 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = neither,
4 = moderately agree, 5 = Strongly agree ). And satisfied with shading technology(1=yes and
2=no) was assessed for all three buildings, the results showed occupants were dissatisfied with
their shading control over work spaces in all three buildings.
- 50
- Building 1 Building 2 Building 3
5
1.94
4.5
1.85
1.72
2
satisfation Level
Satisfaction Level
3.5
2.8
3 2.53 1.5
2.5 2.2
2 1
1.5
1 0.5
0.5
0 0
1
Figure 17. Satisfaction with shading in workspaces and with used technology
It was demonstrated that shading was found to have a positive effect on occupant satisfaction
with various attributes of the visual environment: on the visual comfort of the daylighting,
amount of control over the daylight, amount of light for computer work, and distribution of the
daylight in work spaces.
Figure 18 occupants responds for visual discomfort and their control (white board
and shelves)
- 51
4.1.1.4 Open ended-responses
Some of responses referred to the issues of visual discomfort /glare on working spaces, work
productivity and performances, as it related to glazing types, ergonomics (desk comfort),
thermal conditions because of overheat. According to our objectives and scope of the study, the
following examples illustrates instants related to the lightings and visual discomforts: (Note that
a vigorous qualitative analysis is not presented in this paper, but the comments are presented to
illustrate some of the common themes that emerged throughout the open-ended survey
responses). Generally, occupants in building 1, frequently complained of the space being too
bright on open workspaces, too dark at manager offices, room arrangements, overheat of spaces,
shading systems. Occupants in buildings 2, complained about electric lighting, interior
moveable shading has noisy spaces, there is only one-sided visual connections. Occupants in
building 3, frequently complained for glare, much light distribution in workspaces, lack of
shading systems, overheat of spaces around window on autumn and winter. Five-scale
questionnaire survey showed, they were dissatisfied over their lighting quality, visual
environments.
4.1.2 Physical data measurements

Known that this was a field study in operational buildings, the author was limited to conduct
thorough assessments of true /real lighting conditions. To assess daylight availability, this study
focused on measuring daylight illuminance using lux meter on selected office spaces and
maintained as best as possible to obtain measurements. Figure 19 shows the measurements of
daylight illuminance on clear-sky and (Figure 20) intermediate days at two interior locations
(distance <4m from window and >4m form window) in each of the three buildings. Lux meter
measured the amount of light on table within 30 minutes interval and it was checked on screen,
the graphs showed the values with time interval. The measurement showed also the value is
more on screen than table. It was measured with the office workspaces as shade condition is
“as it is”.
The measurements indicate that there is access to daylight and views even, as far as 10 meter
form the window within each building. However, that as one moves deeper into each space, the
amount is insufficient for illumination to be provided by daylight alone specially at building 1
and 3. As the prior study showed, it is necessary that daylight levels would need to exceed 300
- 52
lux for office workspaces. Note that the data measured was fluctuates with time interval on
workspaces.
Depth upto 4m from window

Illuminance Level (Lux) 1800
1600
1400 Glare/bright space (>80% of day)
1200
1000
800
Comfortable
600 Threshold
400
200 Gloomy /darken space (<20%)
0
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
Hrs
Depth 4m & above from window

1100
Illuminance Level (Lux)
900
700 Bright space (35%) of day Comfortable

Threshold
500
300
Gloomy /darken space (about 65%) of day
100
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
-100
Hrs
Figure 19. Daylight illuminance values (lux) at two different interior depths (meter) at each
space on sunny, clear sky, May 2019.
- 53
Depth upto 4m from window
1100
1000
Illuminance level (LuX) Bright space (75%) of day

900
800
700 Comfortable
600
500
Threshold
400
300
200 Gloomy /darken space (25%) of day
100
0
Depth 4m & above from window

1100
Illuminance level (LuX)
1000
900
800
700
Bright space (15%) of day Comfortable
600
500
Threshold
400
300
200
100 Gloomy /darken space (85%) of day
0
Axis Title
Figure 20. Daylight illuminance level (lux) at two different interior depths (meter) at each
space on intermediate sky, May 2019.
The amount of light level, lux, varies in each buildings, in each depth from window and in each
sky conditions. This is due to window size, window positions, orientations, and visual
transmittance properties of window.
- 54
Figure 21. Office room setting for physical data measurements
Physical Data of 5 Months

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
max min max min max min max min max min
April May June July August
Building 1 <4m from window Building 1 >4m from window

Figure 22. Daylight illuminace for five months on intermediate sky conditions
The graphs for data on clear sky, the physical measurements showed the maximum lux values
of 625 lx, 1650, and 1490, and the low lux values of 201, 200, 140 for buildings 1, 2 and 3
respectively at distance of below 4meter from window. From distance above 4 meter, the result
showed maximum lux values of 406, 850, 536 and have low lux values of 80, 140 and 106 for
buildings 1, 2 and 3 respectively. For intermediate sky conditions, there were found maximum
- 55
illuminace / lux meter values of 468, 860, 1024 lx and low values of 125, 155, 395 lx for
buildings 1, 2 and 3 respectively at distance of below 4meter from window. From distance above
4 meter, the result showed maximum lux values of 305, 560, 503 and have low lux values of
32, 102 and 78 for buildings 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
Again, the quantitative data of five months (April 20-August 20) were measured on intermediate
sky conditions to understand the maximum and minimum light amount in interior offices. The
daylighting value was high on the month of April and May, it become lowest on August. From
study periods, the more sunny days were April and May and cloudy month is August.
Comparing measured illuminance /lux result with survey result

The physical measurements shown in figure 19-22 provide solid justification for the previous
survey results. Recall that Tables 10 shows that mean levels of workplace satisfaction and access
to daylight are higher in both Buildings 1 and 2. On Building 1, Once the tinted glass become
darkens, the daylight illuminance levels at all two depths drop to an extremely low value. With
conditions as dark as they are in the interior space, daylight levels are far too low for any of it
to be reasonably used, and it is likely that occupants would be dissatisfied.
Responses from occupants more than 4m from the window in each building were isolated and
compared against those who were within 4-0meter of the perimeter windows to understand
trends related to the question, “I am pleased with access to natural daylight in my office
workspace”. The frequency of responses to this question from both groups of respondents in
each building (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = moderately
agree, 5 =strongly agree). The results demonstrates in building 1 and 2, many interior occupants
(50%) were moderately satisfied with their access to natural daylight, compared to only about
25% in Building 3. These descriptive statistics align clearly with the findings from the physical
measurements. A chi-square test was elected to perform to investigate the descriptive statistics
further between the two groups (those closer to the perimeter, and those in the interior > 4m and
similar trends were found. Occupants in Buildings 1 and 2 were more likely to be pleased with
their access to daylight if their workspace was located closer to a window (i.e. the perimeter).
Respondents at Building 3 reported generally moderately dissatisfied (mean of 2.80/5) for
access to daylight regardless of distance to window, and a little significant differences existed
between groups.
- 56
4.1.3 Simulation analysis
The quantitative lighting data of interior workspace is measured by using simulations, Ecotect
(23-25). Indoor environmental parameters needed to be assessed in addition to subjective data
to prove the study spaces have potential impacts on occupants comfort with visual environment
and to compare the results. Inputs for analysis includes weather data, window size and properties,
orientations, floor plan and outputs were sun path diagram, orientation, solar radiation amount,
and temperature using Ecotect. The analysis conducted on intermediate sky conditions.
This result of simulations was compared with survey and physical data measurements.
According to the simulation result and questionnaire response, the afternoon session from 2:00
pm up to 4:00 pm is taken as discomfort period of the day. During this time interval, the sun
moves from east to west which as a result makes the west and south facade of the buildings
vulnerable to direct solar radiation, especially in Building 3.
The glazing facade of the buildings, namely, Building 1/ Dashen bank have 75% glazed on East
& N-west and Building 3 /Sodo administrative building, have more than 85% glazed on their
South and West facade. Whereas, Building 2, Commercial bank is 70% glazed which somehow
reduced the amount of direct radiation through East orientations and overhang slab. All of the
buildings use internal shading which is made of plastic fibers. The risk of glare is also observed
during windy days because of the slight nature of shading devices.
- 57
Simulation results for Building 1
a
b
c
d
Figure 23. Conceptual simulation analysis for building 1

a)Interior view, b)floor plan c )orientation d) Indoor Environment Natural light simulation,
illuminance, Lx (1st floor), and E) interior solar exposure
- 58
The direct sunlight penetrated

into interior offices and the
partition glazing have reflection
effects
Overall light contour, direct and

b c reflected light on glazing
d
a)Interior view, b)floor plan c) Indoor Environment Natural light simulation, illuminance, Lx
(1st floor), and e) interior solar exposure
- 59
a b
c d
Overall light contour, direct and

e reflected light on glazing
a)Interior view, b)floor plan c )orientation d) Indoor Environment Natural light simulation,
illuminance, Lx (1st floor), and e) interior solar exposure
- 60
4.2 Discussion
This section discusses results according to the analysis from both subjective and objective
perspectives, i.e., survey, physical data measurements and simulation results. It discusses the
findings according to the specific objectives or the research questions. Then, the results were
discussed in comparisons and supported with previous studies of effectiveness of daylighting
and visual comforts in workspace.
i) Daylight and occupants’ perceived satisfaction at work spaces
To evaluate the relationship between occupants’ level of satisfaction with overall lighting and
their perceived access to daylight, the study performed statistical tests between the responses to
the questions (1) In general, how satisfied are you with the overall lighting conditions in the
workspace where you spend the most time? and (2) I am pleased with ACCESS to natural
daylight in my office workspace. Table 13 presents results from both the chi-square and Pearson
correlation tests and statistically significant relationship exists in all three buildings. As it was
noted on data analysis, section 3.5, it was agreed that a statistically significant relationship exists
between the two sets of responses when the chi-square test results indicate a p-value less than
0.05.
Table 13. Access to daylight vs. Satisfaction of overall lighting conditions relationships
χ2 df N p value Phi strength of association

Building 1 15.4 4 15 0.004< 0.05 1.014 Very strong
Building 2 16.38 12 20 0.0174<0.05 0.905 Very strong
Building 3 64 16 20 0.0031<0.05 0.6460 moderately strong
Buildings 1 and 3 display a very strong positive relationship (phi, r > 0.7), while Building 3 has
a moderately strong positive relationship (0.5 < r < 0.7). These results demonstrates that access
to daylight has a strong impact on satisfaction with overall lighting conditions.
A Chi-square test (table 14) for relationship of access to daylight and satisfaction with personal
workspaces showed that in all three buildings, there is significant strong positive relationships.
(Building 1, p=0.037<0.05, phi=0.933>0.7, Building 2: p=0.026<0.05 and phi=0.905, Building
3: p=0.001<5, phi=1.091).
- 61
Table 14. Access to daylight vs. Satisfaction with personal workspaces

Building 1 10.2 4 15 0.037<0.05 0.433 Moderately strong
Table 15. Distance to the window and occupants' overall level of satisfaction with their
workspace

Building 1 8.12 4 15 < 0.05 0.72 Very strong
Building 2 1.4 6 20 >0.05 0.21 weak
Building 3 8.5 4 20 <0.05 0.65 moderately strong
A chi-square test was also conducted to examine the relationship between the approximate
distance to the window and occupants' overall level of satisfaction with their workspace. Results
on table 15 demonstrate that occupants’ self-reported satisfaction with their workspace
significantly differed based on their distance to the window in Building 2 which has phi =0.21,
which is less than 0.3. Therefore, Chi-square tests found that Buildings 2 exhibited a weak
positive relationship between self-reported satisfaction with their workspace and the distance to
the window. In addition, Building 1 and 3, showed positive strong relationships. In other words,
occupants in Building 1 and 3 were more likely to be pleased with their work spaces if their
workspace was located closer to a window (i.e. the perimeter). This finding encouraged
additional analyses and on section of visual comfort, this was discussed.
The results showed that a significant strong or moderately strong positive correlation between
satisfaction with overall lighting conditions and access to natural daylight in the office is evident
in all three buildings. This finding demonstrates that occupants who were pleased with their
access to daylight were also more likely to be satisfied with their overall lighting conditions.
These results are reliable with the literature, which indicates that access to natural daylight has
a positive impact on occupants’ workspaces (H. Alzoubi 2010).
The results demonstrated three Building have a significant relationship between access to
daylight and overall satisfaction with personal workspaces. In building 2 and 3, it was expected
- 62
as much daylight to penetrate this space. This is because the overall lighting conditions in
Building 1 are not as favorable and does not have a dedicated daylighting control system, and it
has a much smaller window-to-wall ratio because of additional white board inside glazing that
minimizes light penetrations into space (figure 26). As a result, many interior occupants have
limited access to daylight, and their responses to this question likely indicate that they prefer
access but wish they had more.
Assessments of satisfaction with lighting environments in figure 15 resulted that Building 2

consistently had higher and building 3 had lower mean satisfaction ratings for all variables. As
noted above, the building 1 had no clear daylighting controls, and when the windows darkened
(note that there is tinted glazing and white board). The physical measurements of illuminance
with lux meter shows that effectively no daylight was able to penetrate from the adjacent facades,
making it some dark in the space (gloomy). This was explained with open indeed questions and
lux measurement results.
White board,
that darkens the
interior spaces
Different level of
light at different
sky conditions
distribution of
light at open plan
Figure 26. Light penetration at interior workspaces in building 1
Source: Author’s field study using camera, May 25, 2019 at 2:30pm
- 63
The results from this study suggest solutions that run counter to common principles of
daylighting design. As shown, the interior occupants in Building 2 were very pleased with their
access to daylight. When building 2 truly improve interior occupants’ perception of access to
daylight and views by a significant degree with sustainable technology, then this buildings led
to be greater in overall satisfaction. It should be noted that this approach supports the established
daylighting principles, which is for the minimization of glare and over-illumination from direct
sunlight (Leslie et al. 2010).
Also, because of the different occupants were present in all buildings, the results do suggest this
as a matter of future study for retrofit applications. In the initial analysis, a relationship was
found between the occupants' overall level of satisfaction with their workspace and the
approximate distance to the window. Results demonstrated that occupants’ reported satisfaction
with their workspace significantly differed based on their distance to the window in Buildings
2. Analysis showed Buildings 2 demonstrated a negative correlation (weak) between distance
proximity to a window and being pleased with access to daylight. This means that occupants in
Buildings 2 were more likely to be pleased with their access to daylight if their workspace was
located closer to a window, and were less satisfied those located further away from a window.
Physical data measurements described in tabular form and in graphs demonstrated that the
measured illuminace level for each of three buildings were lower than 300lx and also higher
than 500lx as studied on clear and intermediate sky conditions. It was studied that comfortable
works spaces have 500lx. It showed in intermediate sky conditions, resulted below 100 lx which
requires electric light at day time. Generally average daylight amount is higher on building 3.
So, there were discomfort period in workspaces at two sky conditions, especially in building 1
and 3.
Results of physical measurement demonstrates (1) interior occupants (those < 4m from window)
received greatest daylight availability in buildings 2 and 3. (2) Satisfied with views/ natural
connection to outdoors and glare were managed in Building 2. Survey results showed that (1)
interior occupants, or those further from the windows, were most pleased at Building 3 and those
at near occupants were more pleased with natural light 1 and 2 , where views are likely preserved
during shading, and (2) perimeter occupants did not report significant reductions in glare in
Building 2.
- 64
With these findings, building 3 occupants were much more dissatisfied with daylight conditions
than in the other two buildings. This result certainly points to the need to balance the
requirements of individual occupants. It needs the improvements of workspaces according to
sufficiency of daylights, visual comfort, views and visual connection withoutdoors, since the
qualitative survey and quantitative measurements demonstrated in this study.
ii) Access to daylight and occupants’ perceived productivity

To investigate the effective daylighting and visual comfort of occupants’ in workspace, the
relation between the access to daylight and occupant perceived productivity have to analyzed as
one of the research objective. The relationship between access to daylight and perceived
productivity was evaluated by investigating statistical (a Chi-square test and correlation)
between the two questions: (1) “I am pleased with ACCESS to natural daylight in my office
workspace.” Vs. (2) “Please rate how the lighting in your workspace affects your productivity
(on a scale of 1-5”), from the questionnaires. The results from both the chi-square and Pearson
correlation tests was presented on table 16. The results of the Pearson correlation test (ϕ)
indicate that the strength of association is very strong (i.e. ϕ between > 0.5) in all of three
buildings which shows, there is a clear relationship between perceived productivity and access
to daylight.
Table 16. Relationship of access to daylight and productivity

Building 1 7.5 2 15 0.002< 0.05 0.707 Very strong
To examine perceived productivity against access to daylight, a statistically significant
relationship (p < 0.05), strong relationship, was found in each of three building. This suggests
that occupants who were more pleased with their access to daylight were also more likely to
have a higher perceived level of productivity than those who were not pleased with their access
to daylight. This finding is in consistent with much of the literature, it is generally agreed upon
that well-daylit spaces can help to improve work ability and performance (A. Galatioto 2016) .
This paper has not focused much on electric lighting since the focus has been on daylight and
shading strategies. It seems that occupants in all buildings perceived a higher level of
- 65
productivity when they had access to natural light, and the ability to control their overall lighting
conditions (whether natural or electric).
Generally, there were no defined shading system for interior spaces technically or
environmentally except moveable plastic roller, shelves, and white boards to protect visual
discomfort and overheard of space. But these parameters were not accept by occupants to have
visual comfort and it interferes their productivity and job performances as responded on open
indeed questions.
iii) Measurements of visual comfort for occupants’ performances over a range of daily
and seasonal variation in sun and sky conditions.
Subjective assessments (questionnaires, interview and filed observations), physical
measurements (lux meter) and simulations measured visual comfort in offices for study
buildings and floors. According to the analysis from both subjective and objective perspectives,
the internal solar controls failed to provide comfortable lighting environments for most of the
occupants in the offices.
In survey study, the identified visual discomfort for occupants were direct sunlight on work
spaces /or faces, reflections of daylight on computer screen”, Brightness, are the top three most
frequently voted problems causing discomfort and also interviews showed “ plastic shades weak
to operate to control high light penetration”, and “too much daylight”, unstable work spaces
with light, weak glazing operation. Occupant responses of dissatisfaction with their visual
environment, together with physical measurement of light and data from the pre-survey
checklist and spatial documentation, allowed examination of two sources of dissatisfaction:
glare and user controls. Furthermore, proximity to a window was perceived to be beneficial in
all three buildings, even in those where the possibility of glare was significantly higher.
However, in building 3, perimeter occupants experienced glare /much light penetration.
The effects of direct light distributions, glare, some of occupants control behavior in different
sky conditions were shown on figure 26-27. It demonstrates that the light penetration in each
building was different with in different sky conditions, in different month of year. Moreover,
the pictures showed light distribution decreases when distance from the window increases.
- 66
Measured daylight illuminance
The illuminance measurement revealed very high light level on occupants’ primary work
surfaces, keyboards, and computer monitors in work areas of the building at clear sky. In this
research, 500lux level was considered as the comfortable threshold of illuminance level for
computer-based work. Daylight penetration in office spaces, showed by both continuous light
level and computer modeling, is good in the building 2 of study, due to the large windows,
comparatively high visual transmittance of glazing, and orientation. As it was shown on graph
(figure 19-22) , the illuminace level was in interval of 80 upto 1650 lux meter in all buildings.
This showed the discomfort periods of visual environments which under and over comfortable
periods in office spaces (500lx). The values was affected (variable and constant parameters) by
glazing type, orientations, materials of partitions in addition to basic factors like sky conditions
and distance from window.
In addition, simulation resulted there is high visual discomfort period resulted in interior spaces.
The luminance level, which strongly relate to the illumination level inside the space, became
more intensive towards the perimeter. A 68% of the participants complained about the visual
environment. Too much light contrast is observed towards the perimeter whereas the interior
zone showed up too dark. Due to this, artificial light is used in the interior zone of the open floor
office space in order to balance the light distribution, especially in building 3.
- 67
a
b
Figure 27. Light distribution and occupant's light control in building 2(a) and building 3(b)
Source: Author’s field study using camera, May 25, 2019, afternoon at 3:30 pm
- 68
Subjective assessment of visual connection to outdoors
To examine the impact of existing glazing and solar control /roller shade on occupant
satisfaction with visual connection to the outdoors and view has understood by a measure of
Overall level of satisfaction with visual connection to the outdoors from workspaces. The
finding showed occupants in building 1 and 2 were moderated satisfied and in building 3, they
showed dissatisfaction with visual environments. This result consistent with literature, the intent
of the LEED View EQ credit, which stated in Ref.(GreenBuildingCouncil 2006) is to: “provide
for the building occupants a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors through the
introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building.” Further,
the requirements state that the design should: “achieve a direct line of sight to the outdoors via
vision glazing for 80% of all regularly occupied spaces.”
Figure 28. Some of views in study buildings through glazing (left): Building 2 and (right)
Building 3
Observations showed the occupants in building 1 have not accessed natural view, but building
2 (figure 28, left) and building 3 (figure 28, right) have natural view. However, building 3 didn’t
used this view because of their discomfort in visual environments .i.e., they reported there is
glare through glazing, they used book shelf at some part of glazing, in their interview, it was
said that “we are busy to notice such benefits of view through our window”. There is white
board up to 1meter height that limits the visual connections to nature. But, the previous studies,
explored the substantial benefits of views in work pace which are view to nature reduced length
of stay after surgery, reduced sick building syndrome, increased performance at task, and overall
improved emotional health and 10–20% lower sick building symptoms(Volker Hartkopf, A. A.
2010)
- 69
iv) Effectiveness of recent building’ glass façade and control for visual environment
To discuss for effectiveness of recent building façade, as one of objective, survey described
occupants’ satisfaction with workspaces, daylight sufficiency, amount of light on computer and
visual discomfort /glare. The current building facade was just glazing with different properties,
(tinted and clear) that caused visual discomfort, overheating and disability. There were no
comfortable façade design provided for the local buildings with required parameters. The open-
ended responses clearly conveyed the importance of control with support of quantitative data
from survey that demonstrated a relatively significant relationship between control and
productivity (or satisfaction). Many of the open-ended responses in building 1 and 3 showed
that not only is having access to daylight important, but the ability to control daylight was also
important. This finding also bring into line with earlier literature that demonstrates the indoor
environmental benefits and users comfort of control of daylighting (L. Heschong 2002).
In addition, physical data measured showed, the occupants have discomfort periods at
workspaces in case of high daylight penetration into spaces. The simulations and lux data
resulted January, February and March were hottest month that caused discomfort interior. This
was related to weather of context. Again, orientations, façade types and operational properties
are factors. Many manufacturers of sustainable glass/dynamic glass proclaim the ability of
technology to provide improved views and access to natural daylight as its greatest benefits
(ViewDynamicGlass 2016). The results presented in this paper seem to contradict such claims.
This observation is critical for designers adopting the technology in retrofit applications and for
new constructions. In this case, the lack of bilateral daylighting in facility and lack of control is
likely the cause of the poor daylight performance, and thus, the poor perception of interior
occupants in these buildings may seem justified.
Based on this study resulted on physical measurements, survey and simulations the current
façade system are failed to achieve daylighting effectiveness and visual comfort as factor of IEQ
(indoor environmental quality). Line with this study, as evaluated through environmental
parameters, the current façade systems have affected the occupants’ comfort. The study suggests
that users should be able to comfortably make positional, mechanic, or interface interactions
with the interior environment, including adjusting the thermostat, blinds, or lights, in order to
restore comfort to the space (M.G. Kent 2017)
- 70
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of daylighting and visual
comfort with glass façade in three office buildings in Wolaita Sodo town. The study collected
subjective survey (questionnaires and interviews) from 55 occupants, quantitative measures of
luminance level by lux meter and lighting simulations of daylighting and visual comfort in open-
plan offices. The key findings were summarized as follows.
Subjective responses showed the descriptive data of the participants' rating of visual discomfort
based on daily occurrence and based on three causes: direct sunlight on workspaces /faces,
reflection on my computer screen, and Brightness /high contrasts between monitors and
backgrounds. In all three buildings, over 60% of the participants experienced direct sunlight on
their workspaces/ faces and ranked for disturbing or intolerable glare. Over 40% of the
participants considered reflection on their monitors as disturbing or greater. Only a few
percentage (below 20%) of the participants suffered from disturbing or intolerable degrees of
high contrasts between their monitors and backgrounds. 70% of the participants selected
clear/sunny skies as the sky condition and 60 % of the participants selected autumn and winter
as the season when visual discomfort occurred most frequently. This was mainly related with
parameters such as weather conditions, orientation, shading devices, glazing proportion (WWR),
distances between workstations and windows, transmittance properties, types of glazing,
working hours and sky conditions.
Results showed 68% of the participants complained about the visual environment. Too much
light contrast is observed towards the perimeter whereas the interior zone showed up too dark.
The discomfort periods of visual environments was occurred when it was over comfortable
threshold zone in office spaces (500lx) and under (300lx). For instance on clear sky, Glare/bright
space (>80% of day) and Gloomy /darken space (<20%) for distance <4m from window. The
interior occupants (far from window) did not receive enough daylight when the windows
darkened and were ultimately displeased with their workspaces. This finding was in parallel
with previous study that showed, a daylighting can also have negative effects on occupants and
- 71
poor working productivity if the daylighting system is not designed properly at interior office
environments (M.G. Kent 2017)
According to the simulation result and questionnaire response, the afternoon session from 2:00
pm up to 4:30 pm is taken as discomfort period of the day and January, February and March is
hottest month. During this time interval, the sun moves from east to west which as a result makes
the west and south facade of the buildings vulnerable to direct solar radiation. The study showed
for south and north facades, horizontal shading devices were found to be more effective with
little intervention with Vertical shading components. Whereas, for east and west facades,
vertical shading devices were found to be more effective with some intervention with horizontal
shading components.
Results of both subjective and objective perspectives, the existing internal solar controls failed
to provide comfortable lighting environments for most of the occupants in the offices.
Promotion of recent glass technologies also brought an alternative approach in solar control
mechanism. In case, high performance coated glass products like, Low –emissivity glass and
solar control glass were better to be selected to replace external shading devices. Moreover, one
theme that continually emerged during qualitative data analysis was: People want control and
need visual comfort at work place. The working environments needs comfort through natural
lights and indoor environmental quality parameters. The desire and benefits of control of
building systems by their occupants has been well-documented in previous studies (V. Fabi, R.
Andersen 2016).
Generally, results of this study align with previous literature, which indicate the key role that
good design practice of indoor environments and the integration of daylight have on perceived
comfort and satisfaction (H. Alzoubi 2010). Results of subjective assessments of occupant
behavior and physical measurements reveal the following key outcomes;
(1) Current glazing and building facades mostly used in case buildings were resulted with
various complaints with effectiveness that affected occupants’ satisfaction within indoor
space for visual discomfort/glare, overheating and disability.
(2) Occupants who were more likely to have a higher perceived level of productivity and higher
level of satisfaction at workspaces and lighting conditions were those who were more
pleased with their access to daylight.
- 72
(3) Providing personalized control to occupants may ease some of the negative perceptions.
Human performances in workspace were mostly influenced by access to daylight. This
finding declares the substantial benefits of daylights with control and natural views to have
impacts on comfortable interior environments for occupants’ wellbeing, health and
productivity.
(4) As core concept of environmental architecture, buildings should be designed with occupants
in mind (and not solely for energy efficiency); it is crucial that designers understand
daylighting strategies, shading, and corresponding human perceptions of comfort.
(5) Architects, designers and planners need to better understand how daylighting strategies
affect building occupants
5.2 Recommendations and future study

The following are recommendations for improving the daylighting performance for occupants’
visual comfort of future projects that seek to compete with the buildings evaluated in this study.
 For architects, designers and researchers, it is recommended to be engaged in comprehensive

study of the environment before decisions of major facade elements design. Climatic
analysis and interpretation shall be integrated in the design and fabrication process.
 For researcher, it is suggested for future experiments and investigations for effective shading
devices, indoor environments, more advanced analysis will be performed with the
qualitative data coding, to further compare survey results with the measured physical data,
and real simulation tools plug in buildings.
 For the municipal organizations, It is recommended that as basic factor for IEQ (Indoor
Environmental qualities), visual environments with daylighting in workspace should be
evaluated through glass types, shading devices and effective angles for different orientations,
which evaluates upcoming facade designs in the town before construction permit.
 Consider the visual properties of exterior shading devices and avoid highly
reflective, transmissive, or specular materials for surfaces that will be in view
from occupant workspaces.
 Incorporate shade control behavioral models and indicators of discomfort glare into
simulations of annual daylighting performance early in design to develop a broad assessment
of the comfort outcomes and range of potential energy
- 73
 For every opportunities for a better design for new buildings or building renovation: Provide
occupants with individual controls over the condition of their work environment for
maximum comfort, satisfaction, and support for productivity with system that is easy to
operate. This would also create an opportunity for young architects and engineers to find
alternative design solutions, which optimizes the visual and thermal performance of local
buildings as well as maximizes the productivity of building users.
A key question is how to enhance the benefits of daylighting for indoor comfort and to maximize
views while maintaining occupant control and building energy performance.
5.3 Design guidelines for daylight performances and visual comfort

The design guidelines for sustainable façade for effective daylighting and visual comfort has
made according to results of subjective and objective assessment of this study and literature
review. It responds for research questions or objectives of the study. This guideline is prepared
to assist architects and planners in the early stage of the design process. It includes a) Urban
weather analysis, Facade Design strategies, detail fenestration design, and shading device types
and solar angle calculation strategies. Finally, Glazing types and proportions, Materials
selections were optimized.
i) Urban environmental Setup, Site Conditions and Orientation

Climate analysis is as the Starting Point for a Climate Responsive Design since design must first
acknowledge regional, local and microclimate impacts on the building and site.
 Calculate solar access analysis of the site using a computer model of the site (Ecotect) i.e.,
sun path diagram in order to understand the effect of direct sun radiations and built
environments.
 Consider the building is oriented to minimize solar exposure from east and west and
maximize south and north-facing facade area for passive solar heating and daylighting. Solar
exposure occur in critical hours at East and west in most cases.
 The orientation of the building should be North West / South East for the long facades.
However, it could be slightly rotated either direction in order to allow dominant East west
winds to improve natural ventilation without compromising the optimal orientation
advantages.
- 74
Climate analysis of Wolaita Sodo town
Optimum Orientation
Figure 29. Stereographic sun path for Wolaita Sodo and (right) optimization orientation/Best
and worst/ (6°5′ N latitude / 37°5′ E longitude)
This graphs showed how the buildings could be oriented based on the comfort period of the
year. The optimzation orientation is orientation based on daily incident radiations on vertcial
surfaces and it compromise to West to East to avoid to much over heating afternoon.
Figure 30: climatic context: monthly Temperature and solar radiations simulation results.
- 75
The simulation result showed direct Radiation: Relatively low in wet season. Outside
Temperature: Low diurnal fluctuation during wet season. Average Hottest day=March and
Average Sunny day=February. Outside Temperature (Maximum: 28.5 °C, Average Minimum:
11°C and Yearly Mean: 19.0 °C)
Annual incident solar radiation
Overcast day
Hottest
Weekly Summary
Weekly Summary
Weekly Summary
Weekly Summary
Direct Solar Radiation is High

on November up to February
Average cloud cover
Figure 31 Outdoor comfort analysis
- 76
Wet Season are June, July, August are with relatively high air humidity and High cloud cover.
Most windy days are in February, Strongest wind gust =July, Least windy days are in September.
Most prevailing wind direction is from East to West. At Wet Season: wind direction is from
West to East
ii) Interaction between Elements and Facade Orientation
Window
Solar shading PV-cells Optimum window to wall ratio for

double glazed window
North --- 60% - 70%

-
South Horizontal PV-cells 40% - 60%
East Vertical PV-cells 55% – 75%
West Vertical PV-cells 35% – 40%
Figure 32. Interaction between Elements and Facade Orientation
- 77
One important key to designing a sustainable /climate-adaptive facade is to incorporate the
principles of passive solar design which significantly improves indoor environmental comfort,
reduces heating and cooling demands and therefore, reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In this
regards, the figure 32 above shows how the orientation governs facade elements positions. For
instance, horizontal shading for the south and vertical shading for the west and east are applied.
Photovoltaic are not used in the north because of low efficiency; however considering the price
statistics it could potentially be used in all the orientations.
Module Design: After investigating the geometry and the grid, a number of modules are designed. Then
it was grouped. The first group is more generic. In addition, the second group is more climate-specific
which mean the sun angle was taken into consideration.
Grouping the
modules
Group 2: Climate
Group 1: Generic specific
Specialized
modules
Room façade
Modules A B C
Figure 33. Grouping modules and an overview of facade development
- 78
iii) Shading System: Two types of shading systems are incorporated. One is fixed external
shading integrated with PV-cells designed for the south. The angle is adjusted to the sun angle
in summer time, meaning it is modifiable in different countries.
Adaptability And Adjustability: the case are is semi-arid climate (Wolaita Sodo town) , to
illustrate the adaptability of the modules. The perspective below shows the shading performance
which is adjusted to the average summer sun angle and the optimal tilt angle for photovoltaic
Autumn Summer
Winter
/spring
65 0 80 0 105
0
2. External sliding panels (movable)

1. Integrated with PV-cells (fixed)
Assembling certain Assembling the Attaching the Attaching the horizontal wood elements Lifting the assembled wall
Modules together by frame. grouped module to the existing concrete structure using and fix it to the horizontal
side metal brackets and screws. wood elements.
to the frame
Figure 34. (Above) shading system and (below) Assembly of Modules structures for sustainable
facade
- 79
Figure 35. Construction details and modules explore
- 80
The conceptual design of the skin must consider the basic arrangement of the various functions
incorporating a number of elements including solar shading, photovolaics, windows and
materials (which is interconnected with all the elements). Structural Material: CLT (cross-
laminated timber) panels consist of several layers of lumber boards stacked crosswise (typically
at 90 degrees) and glued together on their wide faces and, sometimes, on the narrow faces as
well.
Figure 36. CLT (cross-laminated timber) panel

Why CLT?: it is a potentially cost competitive, wood-based solution that complements the
existing light frame and heavy timber options, and is a suitable candidate for some applications
that currently use concrete, masonry and steel. CLT is an innovative wood product that was
introduced in the early 1990s in Austria and Germany and has been gaining popularity in
residential and nonresidential applications in Europe6. It is also available building materials in
local climate areas.
iv) Optimization (glazing proportions, shading coefficient and LCA)

“If You Cannot Measure It, You Cannot Improve It”
Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Through a simulations /software-based process and design studies, the project optimizes its
performance according to the local climate to offer proper light conditions and visual comfort,
environmental impact reduction and cost efficiency through the development. Optimization
process: The following data is investigated using daylighting simulations and according to the
findings of the study and literature reviews concerned within this study.
6
Karacabeyli, E. & Douglas, B., 2013. CLT: cross-laminated timber handbook. [Online]
- 81
a) Glazing Type and Shading Coefficient
Shading coefficient determines the thermal performance of a glass building. The value indicates
how the glass is thermally insulating (shading) the interior when there is direct sunlight on the
panel or window. It is a value ranging from 1.00 to 0.00. The lower the rating, the less solar heat
is transmitted through the glass, and the greater it is shading ability.
b) Materials’ properties
The shared office room consisting of A+C combination is a representative room for the
optimization. The programs Ecotect are used to study daylight conditions including daylight
autonomy, useful daylight illuminance and glare. These values are typical properties of
sustainable façade /glazing materials :-
 U-Value of the CLT wall: 0.1833 W/M2

K
 CLT Wall thickness: 0.295 m
 U-Value: 1.7-3.00 W/M2 degree
 g-value: 0.33
 T-(solar transmittance): 0.26
 VLT-(visible transmittance): 40-60%
 Shading coefficient: 0.1-0.4 W/M2 degree
Figure 39. A+C (shared office): Interior

Figure 37
38 room dimensions / façade prototypes
c) Glazing Proportion
Optimize window-to-wall area ratios per solar orientation to maximize daylight entry while
avoiding overheating and glare. Provide total glazing areas per elevation within the following
optimum percentages. The proper window wall ratio, taken from some literature studies, is also
set according to the orientation of local climate;-South orientation: 40% - 60% window to wall
ratio (WWR), North orientation: 60% - 70%, West orientation: 35% – 45%, East orientation:
55% - 75% These percentage is roughly calculated based on daily and annually solar exposure
of a model building facade. The glazing percentage values differ due to various use of shading
devices geometry and different performances.
- 82
REFERENCES
A. Galatioto, M. Beccali. 2016. “Aspects and Issues of Daylighting Assessment: A Review
Study.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, no. 66: 852–60.
Ahmed, A. Zain, K. Sopian, Z.Z. Abidin, and M. Othman. 2002. “The Availability of Daylight
from Tropical Skies e a Case Study of Malaysia.” Renewable Energy, no. 25: 21–30.
Aksamija, Ajla, and Leed A P B D C. 2013. “HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING

ENVELOPES : DESIGN METHODS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT FACADES,” 1–15.
Annalisa, L. V. 2018. “Building Optimization: The Adaptive Façade.” Advanced Materials

Research, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1149.64.
Boubekri, M. 2008. “Daylighting, Architecture and Health.” Elsevier.
Census. 2007. “Climate Data: Southern Peoples, Nations and Nationalities Region-Wolaita Sodo.”
Cheung H-D, Chung TM. 2008. “A Study on Subjective Preference to Daylit Residential Indoor
Environment Using Conjoint Analysis.” Building and EnvironmentEnviron 43 (12).
Creswell, J. 2014. “Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods.” Sage
Publications 4.
David, M. 2011. “Assessment of the Thermal and Visual Efficiency of Solar Shades.” Building
and Environment.
Day, Julia K, Benjamin Futrell, Robert Cox, and Shelby N Ruiz. 2019. “Blinded by the Light :
Occupant Perceptions and Visual Comfort Assessments of Three Dynamic Daylight Control
Systems and Shading Strategies.” Building and Environment 154 (March): 107–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.037.
DH., Li. 2010. “A Review of Daylight Illuminance Determinations and Energy Implications.”
Appl Ied Energy 7 (87).
ECS. 2011. “EN 12464-1. Light and Lighting—Lighting of Work Places—Indoor Work Places.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.”
Fabi, R. Andersen, S. Corgnati V. 2016. “Accounting for the Uncertainty Related to Building
Occupants with Regards to Visual Comfort: A Literature Survey on Drivers and Models.”
Buildings 1 (6).
Figueiro, M., M. Rea, A. Rea, and R. Stevens. 2002a. “Daylight and Productivity - a Field Study.”
———. 2002b. “Daylight and Productivity - a Field Study,” 1–2.
GreenBuildingCouncil, US. 2006. “LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations” 2 (2).
Group, Heschong Mahone. 2003. “Windows and Offices: A Study of Office Worker Performance
and the Indoor Environment.”
- 83
H. Alzoubi, A. Al-Zoubi. 2010. “Assessment of Building Facade Performance in Terms of
Daylighting and the Associated Energy Consumption in Architectural Spaces: Vertical and
Horizontal Shading Devices for Southern Exposure Facades.” Energy Conservation
Managemnets 8 (51): 1592–1599.
Hausladen, G., de Saldanha, M. 2006. “Climate Skin Building-Skin Concepts That Can Do More
with Less Energy.”
Hirning, M B, G L Isoardi, Garcia H, and V R. 2017. “Prediction of Discomfort Glare from

Windows under Tropical Skies.” Building and Environment 113: 107–20.
Kim, J.T. 2009. “Advanced External Shading Device to Maximize Visual and View Performance.”
In 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Healthy Buildings. Seoul, Korea.
Klepeis, N.E., W.C. Nelson, W.R. Ott, and J.P. Robinson. 2001. “The National Human Activity
Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.”
J. Expo. Sci. Environmental Epidemiol 3: 231–252.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165.
Kong, Zhe, D Michael Utzinger, Kara Freihoefer, and Troy Steege. 2018. “The Impact of Interior
Design on Visual Discomfort Reduction : A Fi Eld Study Integrating Lighting Environments
with POE Survey.” Building and Environment 138 (January): 135–48.
Krejcie, R.V. and D.W. Morgan. 1970. “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.”
Eduactional Pychology Measurements, 607–10.
Kyle Konis, Selkowitz, Stephen. 2017. Effective Daylighting with High-Performance Facades.
USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39463-3.
L. Heschong. 2002. “Daylighting and Human Performance.” ASHRAE Journal 6 (44): 65.
Laumbach, R. 2008. “Sick Building Syndrome.” Int. Encycl. Public Health, 4–8.
https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1016/b978-012373960-5.00300-2.
Lee, C., Hong, T. 2012. “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis on Glass Type of High-Rise Buildings for
Increasing Energy Efficiency and Reducing CO2 Emissions in Korea.” Construction
Engineering and Management 7 (138): 897–904.
Leslie, R., A. Smith, L. Radetsky, M. Figueiro, and L. Yue. 2010. “Patterns to Daylight Schools
for People and Sustainability.” Lighting Research Center.
Li, D. 2010. “A Review of Daylight Illuminance Determinations and Energy Implications.”

Appilcation Energy 7 (17): 2109–211.
M.G. Kent, S. Altomonte. 2017. “Temporal Effects on Glare Response from Daylight.” Building
and Environments, 49–64.
- 84
Melaku, Dawit. 2016. “The Impact of Glass Facade on Users Comfort; T h e c a s e o f r a d i a t i
o n v u l n e r a b l e o f f i c e s i n A d d i s A b a b A.” ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY.
Melina Forooraghi, Yifei Xu. 2015. “CLIMATE-ADAPTIVE FACADE: A Modular Facade for
Office Buildings.”
Nazanin Nasrollahi, Elham Shokri. 2016. “Daylight Illuminance in Urban Environments for
Visual Comfort and Energy Performance.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66:
861–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.052.
NSF (National scince foundation. 2015. “Recommended Light Levels.” 2015.
Phillips, Derek. 2004. “Day Lighting.” Elsevier.
Selltiz, Claire. 1962. Research Methods in Social Sciences.
Srinivas, S. 2010. “High Performance Glass: Indian Green Building Council.” Saint-Gobain.
Tabadkani, Amir, Saeed Banihashemi, and M Reza Hosseini. 2018. “Daylighting and Visual
Comfort of Oriental Sun Responsive Skins : A Parametric Analysis,” 0–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0433-0.
Ulrich, R., R. Simons, B. Losito, E. Fiorito, And M. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991. “Stress Recovery
during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments, J.” Environmental Psychology 3 (11):
201–230.
Ulrich RS. 1984. “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.”
ViewDynamicGlass. 2016. “Visual Comfort Benefits of View Dynamic Glass in Workplaces.”
Volker Hartkopf, A. A., Vivian Loftness. 2010. “Facades and Enclosures.” Building for
Sustainability.
Wageh, Mohamed Adel, and Mahmoud Islam Gadelhak. 2017. “Optimization of Facade Design
for Daylighting and View-to-Outside A Case Optimization of Facade Design for Daylighting
and View-.”
Wurm, J. 2007. “Glass Structures.” Laurence King Publishing.
Zumtobel. 2018. The Lighting Handbook. Australia.
- 85
APPENDICES
Appendix 1; Surveys tool (Questionnaires and interviews)
Part I: Demographics (Please tick on box)
1. What is your gender? ○ Male ○ Female
2. What is your age: ○ <20 ○ 20-30 ○ 30-40 ○ 40-50 ○ >50
3. How many years have you worked in this current building? ○ < 1 year ○ 1-2 years ○3-5 years ○>5
years
4. How long have you been working at your present workspace? ○ < 3months ○4-6 months ○7-12 months ○ >
1yr
5. In a typical week, how many hours do you spend in your workspace? ○ < 15hrs ○ 15-30hrs ○30-40hrs ○ > 40hrs
Part II: General working environments Assessment

1. Approximately how close is your primary work space to the nearest exterior window? _______meter.
2. Do you have a window with an EXTERIOR VIEW in or near your primary workspace? ○Yes
○No
3. What do you see when you look out the nearest exterior window?
○The sky ○ parking lot or roads ○ other building ○ tree or natural setting ○ other
If other, please describe what you see______________________________________________________
4. What is closest cardinal direction of the nearest exterior window? ○ N ○ NW ○ NE ○ S ○ SW ○

SE
Part III: Lighting and General Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) assessment
Please rate the degree of satisfaction with lighting at your workspaces with these parameters on scale of 1-5.
Very Moderately Neutral Moderately Very

How you asses lighting on your office in your office with in terms of Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
these variables? (+3)
(+1) (+2) (+4) (+5)
1. Overall satisfaction with the work spaces (design of the building
services ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2. Overall satisfaction with the Lighting Conditions in the work space ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
where I spend the most time
3. Satisfaction with QUALITY Of Light in my office work space ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4. ACCESS to natural /day light in my office work space ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
5. ARTIFICIAL/ELECTRIC LIGHT in my office work space ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6. Satisfaction with Interior SHADE OR MANUAL BLIND and Daylight ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
source in my office.
7. Satisfaction with the VIEW from my office ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8. Satisfaction with AMOUNT day light on my computer in working space. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9. Overall, does the SUNLIGHT / DAYLIGHT in your workspace enhance or interfere (delay) with your
ability to get your job done (productivity)? ○ strongly enhances ○ ○Neutral ○ ○Strongly interferes
- 86
Please add additional comments surrounding your satisfactions with the environmental conditions in work
space :_____________________________________________________________________________________
Part IV: Visual comfort (visual connection, reflections, glare, contrast, shading)
1. Overall, how satisfied are you with your level of VISUAL COMFORT of lighting in your workspace?
○ Very Dissatisfied ○ Moderately Dissatisfied ○ Neutral ○Moderately Satisfied ○Very Satisfied
2. How would you describe your VISUAL CONNECTION to outdoor from your work space?
○ Very Dissatisfied ○ Moderately Dissatisfied ○ Neutral ○Moderately Satisfied ○Very Satisfied
3. Please indicate the SOURCE of visual discomfort or glare you find most in your work space (Check all
that apply):
o Direct sun on my work area ○ Reflections on my computer screen
o Direct sunlight on my face /eyes ○ Light reflecting off of exterior metal screen
o High contrast of Light level between window and other surface /screen (Brightness)
o view of sky / View of direct sun through shade ○ other , please list____________________
4. please indicate amount of glare (light penetration) in your work space:
○ Intolerable (impossible to see) ○ Disturbing (bearable for 15–30 min)
○ Perceptible, slightly Uncomfortable ○ Comfortable/ imperceptible
5. When during the day is this most often a problem? (Check all that apply)
○ before 8:00 am ○ 8:00 to 10:00 am ○ 10:00 to 12:00pm ○ 12:00 to 2:00 pm
○ 2:00 to 4:00 pm ○ 4:00 to 6:00 pm ○ after 6:00 pm
6. At what time of year are visual discomfort issues caused by natural light most often a problem (select
all that apply)?
○ Winter (‘Bega’) ○ Spring (‘Tseday”) ○ Summer (‘kiremit’) ○ Fall ○None
7. Under what kinds of weather/sky conditions is visual discomfort most often a problem? (Select all that
apply)
o Clear/Sunny sky ○Overcast (Part cloudy & part sunny) ○ Cloudy sky ○Other. Please describe:
8. Does nearby building block natural light entry into your office space or affects your work space?
○Yes ○No
Please describe any other issues related to visual comfort & glare________________________________
9. (SHADING)Manual Control over the level of natural lighting in your office ○ Possible ○
Impossible
10. Which of the following devices do you use to CONTROL direct sun light penetration/GLARE?
o Internal movable shading device ○ External fixed shading device ○ task lighting
o Internal fixed shading device ○ External movable shading device ○ other
11. Are you satisfied with the SHADING TECHNOLOGY in your office building? ○Yes ○No
Please describe any other issues related to shading _______________________________________
- 87

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating Daylighting Effectiveness and Occupants’ Visual Comfort of

Façade in Office Buildings in Wolaita Sodo Town, Ethiopia.

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

The Department of Architecture

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in

Office of Post Graduate Studies

Adama Science and Technology University

Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Advisor: Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.)

The Department of Architecture

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in

Office of Post Graduate Studies

Adama Science and Technology University

_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

_____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Name: Sahelu Tesfaye Mamire

Name: Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.)

To: Architecture Department

Subject: Thesis Submission

Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.) ______________ ________________

Name of major Advisor Signature Date

Figure 1. Research outline and hierarchy of study ...................................................................... 6

CO2: Carbon Dioxide

CREST: Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology

DA : daylight autonomy (%)

GBC: Green Building Council

HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning

IAQ: Indoor air quality

NAPA: climate change national adaption program of action (NAPA) of Ethiopia

RGB: RGB colors’ reflectance

SHGC: Solar Heat Gain Coefficient

1.2 Statement of problems

1.3 Research Questions

1.3.2 Specific research questions

1.4.2 Specific objectives

1.5 Significance of the study

1.8 Organization of the Report

Comprehensive review of literatures and prior studies focused on ( effective

Identifying and justifying research design

Computer Simulation Questionnaire, Observation Physical measurement

Guidelines and strategies

Figure 1. Research outline and hierarchy of study

2.2. Day lighting

Daylighting is known as an important element in architecture as well as a useful strategy in

2.2.1 Physical Properties of Daylight

Figure 2. Visible light spectrum: Relative spectral perception of brightness

2.2.2 Role of Day lighting

Furthermore, daylight is a sustainable development strategy to increase the visual comfort,

2.2.3 Daylight Factors

2.2.4 Measuring Units of Light Level – Illuminance

2.3 Visual comfort

2.3.2 Visual Comfort vs. Human Performance

2.3.3 Main Parameters of Visual Comfort and Visual comfort indices

Spatial daylight autonomy (sDA). According to Illuminating Engineering Society of North

2.4.5 Benefits of Visual connections to outdoors

Figure 3. Health benefits of access to natural views with window proximity.

___________________ _ _________

___________________ _ _________

___________________ _ _________

___________________ _ _________

Eshetu T.Gelan (Ph.D.) __