نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد معماری و انرژی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

آسایش بصری به‌ویژه در فضاهایی که فعالیت بصری در آن زیاد است، همواره برای معماران و طراحان روشنایی چالش‌برانگیز بوده است. این امر به‌خصوص در کلان‌شهرها و شهرهای با تراکم بالا، به دلیل سایه‌اندازی ساختمان‌های مجاور و محدودیت دسترسی به روشنایی روز، اهمیت بیشتری پیدا می‌کند. برای دسترسی به طراحی مطلوب روشنایی آگاهی از سطح روشنایی مطلوب ضروری است. در حال حاضر در ایران، این محدوده برای فضاهای اداری تعریف نشده است و متخصصین برای جبران این نقیصه به یافته‌های دیگر کشورها رجوع می‌کنند. به دلیل تفاوت‌های اقلیمی و تفاوت فرهنگ استفاده از روشنایی، ممکن است یافته‌های دیگر کشورها برای ایران مناسب نباشد. از این رو پژوهش پیش‌رو به دنبال تعریف محدوده رضایت‌مندی از شدت روشنایی در ساختمان‌های اداری شهر تهران است. روش استفاده شده پیمایش و مطالعات میدانی است. به همین منظور تعداد 509 پرسشنامه در دو فصل تابستان و زمستان، در 146 اتاق در تابستان و 109 اتاق در زمستان توسط کاربران در شش ساختمان اداری با ویژگی‌های مختلف از جمله یک طبقه تا سیزده طبقه، پلان باز و با اتاق‌های خصوصی، نوساز و قدیمی، به منظور ارزیابی شرایط روشنایی محیط تکمیل شدند. هم‌زمان با تکمیل پرسشنامه توسط کاربران، پارامتر فیزیکی شدت روشنایی در سطح میز کار کاربران، اندازه‌گیری شدند. از روش‌های آماری مرتبط در نرم افزار SPSS برای تحلیل داده‌ها و یافتن ارتباط بین متغیرهای تحقیق، استفاده شد. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که شدت روشنایی مطلوب در این فضاها 600 تا 650 لوکس است و شدت روشنایی بین 550 تا 600 لوکس نیز شرایط آسایش را فراهم می‌کند. شدت روشنایی کمتر از 550 لوکس برای کاربران مطلوب نیست.

چکیده تصویری

تبیین محدوده مطلوب شدت روشنایی در فضاهای اداری شهر تهران

تازه های تحقیق

- تعریف روشنایی مطلوب برای تأمین آسایش بصری در ساختمان‌های اداری در تهران
- ارزیابی وضعیت روشنایی فعلی در فضاهای اداری تهران 
- استفاده از پرسشنامه برای تعیین پارامترهای موثر بر آسایش روشنایی

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The acceptable illumination level for office occupants in Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Fakhari 1
  • Rima Fayaz 2
  • Maryam Mehravar 3

1 Ph.D. in Energy & Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran.

3 M.Sc. of Energy &Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: The accurate prediction of the visual comfort zone in an indoor environment is difficult as it depends on so many parameters such as individual and environmental variables. It is important in large compact urban areas in which the density and shadow from neighboring buildings can limit the accessible daylighting in indoor spaces. Lighting is one of the most important environmental parameters in office spaces. The employees spend most of their hours in office spaces during the day, and most of their activities are based on receiving visual information from the surroundings. Besides, being satisfied with lighting conditions is one of the main elements that significantly affects the environment’s overall comfort level. Currently, in Iran, the visual comfort zone and the preferred illumination level are not defined for office spaces, and experts refer to the findings achieved in other countries. To assess the lighting in architectural spaces and define the conditions for conformity in many standards, the authors have used some metrics as the physical measures. Generally, there are static and dynamic metrics to evaluate various aspects of daylight. Static metrics, such as illuminance-based daylighting metrics and Daylight Factor (DF), are typically evaluated based on illuminance and have been used in building regulations for a long time. In most standards and codes, the minimum recommended illumination level for working planes in a regular office is 500 lx. Due to climatic and cultural differences, the findings of other countries may not be appropriate for Iran. On the other hand, many studies have been conducted to find an acceptable lighting level in offices; however, the results show the acceptable range for illuminance in different countries is not the same. So, this paper tries to investigate the satisfaction range with the illumination level in office spaces which architects and researchers could use. Therefore, a field measurement was conducted to evaluate the illumination levels, and to examine the effect of lighting conditions on employee level of satisfaction and perception of lighting level with actual illuminance levels in office spaces in Tehran, using both questionnaire and physical illuminance measurements.
Methods: The focus is on six office buildings in the metropolis of Tehran, Iran. The buildings were selected to consider different spaces in old and new buildings, one-story and high-rise buildings, open plan, and cubicle offices with varying orientations. The selected rooms were one, two- or multi-user offices, located on different floors, with various window orientations and an optional atrium/outside window. Fluorescent interior artificial lighting was used in all spaces with a color temperature between 4000K and 5000K. The survey involved 509 questionnaires (280 were filled out in summer and 229 in winter).
Findings: Most of the participants have spent at least three months in their offices and have been adapted to the environment. All participants were Iranians (to avoid the impact of occupants’ culture on lighting perception). Most of them reported that they spend more than 8 hours or between 6 to 8 hours in their offices during the day. Field measurement includes illuminance, temperature, and relative humidity. The questionnaires were filled out in 146 and 109 rooms in summer and winter, respectively. At the same time, while users completed the questionnaire, the physical parameters were measured. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was applied for quantitative variables. By using a monotonic function, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient is a non-parametric measure that assesses statistical dependence between two variables to describe their relationship.
Conclusion: The results revealed that occupants were more satisfied with higher levels of illuminance. The measured illuminance is categorized into certain levels to investigate the acceptable range for the lighting level. For this purpose, the measured lighting level was classified into 14 ranges. The values of less than 300 lx are in the first category, higher than 900 lx are in the last category, and the values between these mentioned ranges are classified into 50 lx intervals. The highest satisfaction from the environmental lighting level is provided in the illuminance range between 600 to 649 lx. The illumination level above this range results in more satisfaction compared to illumination levels less than 550 lx. Thus, there is an optimal range of satisfaction with lighting level, and the preferred lighting comfort range for the investigated office spaces is between 600 to 649 lx. While the illumination level higher than 550 lx is acceptable for most of the occupants.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Lighting preferences
  • Visual Comfort
  • Lighting Design
  • Lighting Intensity
  • Natural Lighting
Aries& Veitch& Newsham (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. In Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4), pp. 533–541.
Aries, Maria (2005). Human lighting demands: Healthy lighting in an office environment. [Eindhoven. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Faculteit Bouwkunde] (Bouwstenen, 94).
Axarli, Kleo& Meresi, Aikaterini (Eds.) (2008). Objective and Subjective Criteria Regarding the Effect of Sunlight and Daylight in Classrooms. Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Dublin, 22nd to 24th October. PLEA.
Bluyssen& Zhang& Kurvers& Overtoom& Ortiz-Sanchez (2018). Self-reported health and comfort of school children in 54 classrooms of 21 Dutch school buildings. In Building and Environment 138, pp. 106–123.
Boubekri, Mohamed (2008). Daylighting, architecture and health: Building design strategies. 1st ed. Amsterdam, Boston, London. Architectural.
Catherine, Dubois& Claude, Demers& andré, Potvin (Eds.) (2007). The Influence Of Daylighting On Occupants. Comfort And Diversity Of Luminous Ambiences In Architecture. Cleaveland, Ohio, 7-12 July. American Solar Energy Society (ASES).
Courret& Scartezzini& Francioli& Meyer (1998). Design and assessment of an anidolic light-duct. In Energy and Buildings 28 (1), pp. 79–99.
Dahlan& Jones& Alexander& Salleh& Alias (2009). Daylight Ratio, Luminance, and Visual Comfort Assessments in Typical Malaysian Hostels. In Indoor and Built Environment 18 (4), pp. 319–335.
Day& Theodorson& Van Den Wymelenberg, Kevin (2012). Understanding Controls, Behaviors and Satisfaction in the Daylit Perimeter Office. A Daylight Design Case Study. In Journal of Interior Design 37 (1), pp. 17–34.
Dianat& Sedghi& Bagherzade& Jafarabadi& Stedmon (2013). Objective and subjective assessments of lighting in a hospital setting. implications for health, safety and performance. In Ergonomics 56 (10), pp. 1535–1545.
Escuyer& Fontoynont (2001). Lighting controls. A field study of office workers' reactions. In light res technol 33 (2), pp. 77–94.
Fransson& Västfjäll& Skoog (2007). In search of the comfortable indoor environment. A comparison of the utility of objective and subjective indicators of indoor comfort. In Building and Environment 42 (5), pp. 1886–1890.
Galasiu& Reinhart (2008). Current daylighting design practice. A survey. In Building Research & Information 36 (2), pp. 159–174.
Galasiu& Veitch (2006). Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices. a literature review. In Energy and Buildings 38 (7), pp. 728–742.
Grynning& Time& Matusiak (2014). Solar shading control strategies in cold climates – Heating, cooling demand and daylight availability in office spaces. In Solar Energy 107, pp. 182–194.
Hwang& Jeong (2011). Effects of Indoor Lighting on Occupants' Visual Comfort and Eye Health in a Green Building. In Indoor and Built Environment 20 (1), pp. 75–90.
Iwata& Hatao& Shukuya& Kimura (1994). Visual comfort in the daylit luminous environment. Structural model for evaluation. In Lighting Research and Technology 26 (2), pp. 91–97.
J. Mardaljevic and J. Christoffersen (Ed.) (2013). A roadmap for upgrading national/EU standards for daylight in buildings. CIE Midterm Conference towards a New. Paris, France, 12-19 April.
Kilic& Hasirci (2011). Daylighting Concepts for University Libraries and Their Influences on Users' Satisfaction. In The Journal of Academic Librarianship 37 (6), pp. 471–479.
Kim& Kim (2007). Influence of light fluctuation on occupant visual perception. In Building and Environment 42 (8), pp. 2888–2899.
Konis (2013). Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco, California. In Building and Environment 59, pp. 662–677. DOI. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.017.
Laurentin& Bermtto& Fontoynont (2000). Effect of thermal conditions and light source type on visual comfort appraisal. In Lighting Research and Technology 32 (4), pp. 223–233.
Linhart& Scartezzini (2010). Minimizing lighting power density in office rooms equipped with Anidolic Daylighting Systems. In Solar Energy 84 (4), pp. 587–595.
Maki& Shukuya (2012). Visual and thermal comfort and its relations to exergy consumption in a classroom with daylighting. In IJEX 11 (4), p. 481.
Mardaljevic& Christoffersen (2016). ‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards. In Building and Environment.
Michael& Heracleous (2017). Assessment of natural lighting performance and visual comfort of educational architecture in Southern Europe. The case of typical educational school premises in Cyprus. In Energy and Buildings 140, pp. 443–457.
Moosmann (2015). Visual comfort and natural lighting at the office workplace. PhD Thesis. Karlsruhe Institution of Thechnology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany, checked on 2015.
Mui& Wong (2011). Acceptable Illumination Levels for Office Occupants. In Architectural Science Review 49 (2), pp. 116–119.
Nicol& Wilson& Chiancarella (2006). Using field measurements of desktop illuminance in European offices to investigate its dependence on outdoor conditions and its effect on occupant satisfaction, and the use of lights and blinds. In Energy and Buildings 38 (7), pp. 802–813.
Reinhart& Fitz (2006). Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design. In Energy and Buildings 38 (7), pp. 824–835.
Roche& Dewey& Littlefair (2000). Occupant reactions to daylight in offices. In Lighting Research and Technology 32 (3), pp. 119–126.
Rockcastle, Siobhan& Andersen, Marilyne. (2013). Annual dynamics of daylight variability and contrast. A simulation-based approach to quantifying visual effects in architecture. London. Springer (Springer briefs in computer science, 2191-5768).
Schakib-Ekbatan, Karin& Wagner, Andreas& Lützkendorf, Thomas (2012). Assessment of aspects of socio-cultural sustainability in ongoing building operations based on user surveys. Stuttgart. Fraunhofer-IRB-Verl. (Forschungsinitiative ZukunftBau, F 2813).
Van Den Wymelenberg, Kevin& Inanici (2014). A Critical Investigation of Common Lighting Design Metrics for Predicting Human Visual Comfort in Offices with Daylight. In LEUKOS 10 (3), pp. 145–164.
van den Wymelenbergab& Inanicia& Johnsonc (2010). The Effect of Luminance Distribution Patterns on Occupant Preference in a Daylit Office Environment. In LEUKOS 7 (2), pp. 103–122.
Velds (2002). User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms. In Solar Energy 73 (2), pp. 95–103.
Vine& Lee& Clear& DiBartolomeo& Selkowitz (1998). Office worker response to an automated Venetian blind and electric lighting system. A pilot study. In Energy and Buildings 28 (2), pp. 205–218.
Wienold& Christoffersen (2006). Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. In Energy and Buildings 38 (7), pp. 743–757.
Xue& Mak& Cheung (2014). The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings. A questionnaire survey. In Building and Environment 81, pp. 51–59.