Current Use of Lighting Simulation Tools in Sweden

Anahita Davoodi
Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting Science, Jönköping University, Sweden

Peter Johansson
Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting Science, Jönköping University, Sweden

Thorbjörn Laike
Department of Architecture and Built Environment,Environmental Psychology, Lund University, Lund,Sweden

Myriam Aries
Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting Science, Jönköping University, Sweden

Ladda ner artikelhttps://doi.org/10.3384/ecp20170206

Ingår i: Proceedings of The 60th SIMS Conference on Simulation and Modelling SIMS 2019, August 12-16, Västerås, Sweden

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 170:31, s. 206-211

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2020-01-24

ISBN: 978-91-7929-897-5

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


This paper presents the findings of a web-based survey on the current use of lighting simulation tools in Sweden. The objective was to understand which lighting simulation tools are currently used in Sweden and to understand the design practitioners’ needs for future software development. The results showed that lighting simulation programs are widely used in Sweden. However, the respondents paid less attention to daylight than to artificial light. The respondents’ principal training methods were university courses and self-study. Interior illuminance values, glare indexes, and the daylight factor were the most commonly calculated simulation outputs. “Ease of use” and “accuracy” were identified as the most important factors in the use of the software, while “the slowness of simulation processes” causes the most dissatisfaction. Dialux was the most popular software program used.


lighting simulation tools, simulation programs, lighting design, Dialux


M. B. C. Aries and G. R. Newsham. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: A literature review. Energy Policy, 36(6): 1858-1866, 2008.

M. Arif, M. Katafygiotou, A. Mazroei, A. Kaushik, and E. Elsarrag. Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1): 1-11, 2016.

S. Attia, J. L. Hensen, L. Beltrán and A. De Herde. Selection criteria for building performance simulation tools: contrasting architects’ and engineers’ needs. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5(3): 155-169, 2012.

M. Bodart, and A. De Herde. Global energy savings in offices buildings by the use of daylighting. Energy and Buildings, 34(5): 421-429, 2002.

A. Borisuit, F. Linhart, J. L. Scartezzini, and M. Münch. Effects of realistic office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on visual comfort, alertness and mood. Lighting Research and Technology, 47(2): 192-209, 2015.

P. R. Boyce. Human factors in lighting, The CRC Press. 2014.

David DiLaura, Kevin Houser, Richard Mistrick, and Gary Steffy. The IESNA lighting handbook: reference & application, Illuminating Engineering; 10 editions. 2011.

J. Feng. Computer simulation technology and teaching and learning interior lighting design. ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Educators Program, ACM. 2003.

W. Hien, N., L. K. Poh, and H. Feriadi. The use of performance-based simulation tools for building design and evaluation-a Singapore perspective. Building and Environment, 35(8): 709-736, 2000.

J. A. Jakubiec and C. F. Reinhart. The ‘adaptive zone’–A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Research and Technology, 44(2): 149-170, 2012.

M. Krarti, P. M. Erickson, and T. C. Hillman. A simplified method to estimate energy savings of artificial lighting use from daylighting. Building and Environment, 40(6): 747-754, 2005.

G. W.Larson, R. Shakespeare, C. Ehrlich, J. Mardaljevic, E. Phillips, and P. Apian-Bennewitz. Rendering with radiance: the art and science of lighting visualization, Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco, CA. 1998.

Morales Ochoa, C. E., M. Aries, and J. Hensen. State of the art in lighting simulation for building science: a literature review. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5(4): 209, 2012.

C. F. Reinhart and A. Fitz. Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design. Energy and Buildings, 38(7): 824-835, 2006.

C. F. Reinhart, T. Dogan, D. Ibarra, and H. W. Samuelson. Learning by playing - teaching energy simulation as a game. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5(6): 359-368, 2012.

C. F. Reinhart, J. Mardaljevic, and Z. Rogers. Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos, 3(1): 1-25, 2006.

G. Tonello, N. Hernández de Borsetti, H. Borsetti, L. Tereschuk, and S. López Zigarán. Perceived well-being and light-reactive hormones: An exploratory study. Lighting Research and Technology, 51(2): 184-205, 2019.

J. A. Veitch and G. R. Newsham. Lighting quality and energy-efficiency effects on task performance, mood, health, satisfaction and comfort. In Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (Iesna) Annual Conference Proceeding, pages 425-462, 1997.

X. Yu and Y. Su. Daylight availability assessment and its potential energy saving estimation -A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52: 494-503, 2015.

Citeringar i Crossref