Effects of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COPE (cost-effective open plan environments) project investigates the effect of open-plan office design on the indoor environment and on the occupant satisfaction with that environment. COPE is sponsored by a consortium of North American public and private-sector organizations and relies on field, laboratory and simulation studies to address designaspects like acoustics, lighting quality, indoor air quality, operating costs and energy efficiency. This paper describes the influence of various design variables on the daylight availability and electric lighting requirements in open plan office spaces using the RADIANCE-based annual daylight simulation method DAYSIM. To make simulation results more reliable a manual and an automated blind control strategy have been considered. Five climatic centers which represent the ambient daylight conditions of 186 North American Metropolitan Areas have been identified. For these five climatic centers over 1000 officesettings have been investigated which feature varying external shading situations, glazing types, facade orientations ceiling designs and partition arrangements. The daylight performance of the offices was expressed in terms of their daylight autonomy distributions and energy savings for an ideally dimmed lighting system. The simulation results reveal, that the daylight availability in peripheral offices allowsfor electric lighting energy savings between 25% and 60% for an ideally commissioned, dimmed lighting system depending on the underlying blind control strategy. 2 nd row offices receive considerably less daylight even though a reduced partition height and increased ceiling reflectances can double electric lighting energy savings up to 40%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".