Evening Office Lighting Visual

Comfort vs. Energy Efficiency

vs. Performance

Team Members
• C.R. Arthenayake
• S. Wanasinghe
• W.A.D.U.K Wagaarachchi
• J. Dhanushke
• L. Gunasekara

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Content
• Introduction
• Method of Test
• Discussion
• Results
• Conclusion

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Introduction
1. High electricity consumption due to Artificial lighting
has focused for energy efficient lighting solutions.
2. It is revealed that, not only the electricity
consumption/energy efficient phenomena, visual
comfort is also equally important.
3. It is obvious that in order to obtain good visual
comfort following steps are also to be considered.
a) Horizontal illuminances must be sufficiently high.
b) Light has to be properly distributed (uniformity of
the illuminance)
c) Discomfort glare to be avoided (from luminaires
or through windows)

John Keells Group - Confidential

4. Further more following are also should be considered
when designing lighting system.

a) Though its difficult to obtain “energy-efficiency” &

“good visual comfort” at same time, there are some
ways for reducing illuminance without
significant impacts on “visual comfort”.

b) Electric Lighting systems in office rooms that

typically benefit from large daylight flux
should be designed differently than lighting
dependent on artificial lighting.

c) Economically dimensioned electric lighting systems

keep a building’s artificial lighting load low in a
simple but effective way.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 5. Aim is to compare two low LPD lighting scenarios for
evening office lighting. (i.e. electric lighting used for 2
hrs. in the evening)

a) Reference – scenario has been successfully in use

for several years in Lausanne.

b) Test – scenario which is more energy efficient,

creates higher work plane illuminances but in a risk
of discomfort glare.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Experimental Setup

WORK PLACE SIZE – Approximately 1.7mx1.9m

LOCATED – Near to Window
REFERENCE SCENARIO – It was illuminated with two ceiling
mounted “Lip” Luminaires by Regent
 TEST SCENARIO – It was illuminated with two Zen 3
Luminaires by Tulux

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Summarizes the characteristic of the two different
light scenario

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Method of Test
1. Two performances were tested
• Computer based
• Paper based

2. Each was tested with using following methods

• KSS (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale)
• FrACT (Freiburg Visual Acuity & Contrast Test)
• Subjective visual comfort assessment.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Test schedule
Upon arrival candidate was familiarized with the building
and as to the following time table he was made to take the
tests.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 KSS (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale)
All candidates were asked to rate form 1 to 9

John Keells Group - Confidential

 FrACT (Freiburg Visual Acuity
& Contrast Test)
• “FrACT” is a widely used visual test battery in form of a free
computer program. It uses psychometric methods combined with
anti-aliasing and dithering to provide automated, self-paced
measurement of visual acuity (Bach 1996), contrast sensitivity and
vernier acuity. The progression of optotype sizes relies on a Bayesin
approach and is determined by the “Best PEST” strategy (Lieberman
& Pentland, see General Pertinent Sources below). FrACT complies
with the European Norm for acuity testing (EN ISO 8596) and is
endorsed by the DOG. It is employed all over the world in vision
labs, by optometrists, ophthalmologists and in clinical trials (Who
used FrACT in over 100 publications) and has been verified in
independent laboratories (→Descriptions & Validations).
• Optotypes include Landolt ring, tumbling E, Sloan letters, and faces;
lines for hyperacuity.
• Results can be displayed as LogMAR, Snellen fraction, or decimal
acuity; full details can be exported for data processing.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Subjective visual comfort
assessment
• Office Lighting Survey (OLS) is a questionnaire-based
assessment method for occupant satisfaction regarding office
lighting.
• This method is used to determine the candidates visual
comfort level.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 1. KSS Test

Average of KSS on both scenarios Average of KSS on Reference scenario

• KSS is a measurement of Alertness

• No significant change in Alertness
• It is sensible to conclude both
scenarios have equivalent impact

Evolution KSS on test scenario

John Keells Group - Confidential
 2. Computer Based testing

• Visual acuity and contrast threshold is tested

• Measurement : correct recognition of Landolt rings
on a PC screen
• Slight favor to Reference scenario
• Yet, Statistically insignificant

John Keells Group - Confidential

 3. Paper Based testing

• Landolt rings were used – 96 rings gray printed on white paper

• Number of mistakes occurred in both scenarios counted
• Higher number of Mistakes in Reference scenario
• Number of mistakes turned to high, along to right

John Keells Group - Confidential

 4. Visual Comfort Questionnaire

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Discussion
1. Overall, the study participants preferred the ‘Test’- scenario
over the ‘Reference’- scenario.

2. Performance was better for Test- scenario than Reference-

scenario on paper-based task (objective).

3. No significance difference in computer based tasks.

4. Participants alertness was remained equal throughout the

tests.

5. FrACT test used during the test didn’t give significant

difference between two scenarios, during computer based
task. i.e. reducing LPD from 4.5 W/m2 to 3.9 give no negative
influence in the performance of computer based task.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 6. During ring opening orientation test, the analysis of the
paper-based task shows that subjects performed on average
better under ‘Test’-scenario than ‘Reference’- scenario. This
is mainly because of higher work plane illuminance and a
brighter room achieved under ‘Test’-scenario.

7. Main working time under the light condition is higher for

the Test – scenario than for the reference – scenario.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 8. Subjective preferences for one or the other law- LPD
lighting scenario. Maximum participants had the
preference for Test – scenario.

9. Subjective visual comfort assessment can be

interpreted as, participants slightly preferred the new
Test scenario over the old – Reference scenario.

10. It is thus possible to reduce the LPD in such office

rooms from 4.5 W/m2 to 3.9 W/m2 without creating
negative impact on the office occupant’s visual comfort.

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Conclusion
• 1. Two tested lighting scenarios are comparable to usual
lighting scenarios in other office rooms in terms of subjective
visual comfort

• 2. Test scenario is preferred over Reference scenario and the

performance in paper based task was better in Test scenario

• 3. Positive effect of elevated workplane illuminance are is

stronger than the negative effect of discomfort glare from
Illuminaries

John Keells Group - Confidential

 4. No significant difference in the computer based task under
the two lighting scenarios. Lighting environment might have a
much smaller influence on the performance during computer
work than on the performance during paper work

5. Energy efficient lighting with LPD’s less than 5 W/m˄2 is

already achievable in today’s office rooms without jeopardizing
visual comfort & performance

6. Less powerful electric lighting systems do not necessarily

mean a decrease in visual comfort & performance. These results
even show better outcomes

John Keells Group - Confidential

 Thank You……!

John Keells Group - Confidential