Taken this recommendation into account the criterion of whic

Taken this sglt-2 recommendation into account, the criterion of which the difference between simulation (E [lx]) and measurement (E [lx]) values do not lead to a significant difference in their subjective effect isIn other words, the ratio of simulation and measurement values at any measuring point should not be less than 2:3 (or approximately 0.67) and not more than 3:2 (or 1.50), so that the values do not lead to a significant difference in their subjective effect. This criterion is applied in the following sections to evaluate the simulation results.
Results and discussion Section 5.1 presents the measurement results of the prototype. Section 5.2 presents simulation results of the prototype, as well as the simulation results of the corresponding, hypothetical real windows under the same sky scenes.
Conclusions A number of efforts have been made to recreate the elements of natural light inside buildings, in the form of artificial solutions. Such solutions, the so-called VNLS, can be generally classified based on light directionality and view complexity. Computational modelling and building performance simulation can help steering the process of VNLS design development. An example of the influence of simulation in VNLS development is shown in this article, where Radiance was applied to reproduce the scenes and to evaluate the lighting performance of a first generation VNLS prototype displaying view of overcast, clear, and partly cloudy sky scenes. Using the designed setting, none of the measuring points received a horizontal illuminance of 500lx or larger, suggesting the need of a higher intensity setting for each scene, or a larger window-to-wall ratio, to ensure sufficient amount of light for typical working activities. The key point of this study is to show that simulations can be used to compare an actual VNLS prototype with a hypothetical real window under the same sky scenes, which was physically not possible, since the test room was not located at the building׳s façade. Based on the lighting simulation in Radiance, the investigated prototype yields a wider light distribution and a higher average illuminance than the corresponding, hypothetical real window under the overcast and partly cloudy scenes; even though that does not necessarily mean better, given that the real daylight provides varying light distribution across the space. Under the clear sky scene, the real window yields a higher average illuminance, due to the influence of direct sunlight.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Sound Lighting Research Programme of the Intelligent Lighting Institute, Eindhoven University of Technology. The setup and testing of the prototype were assisted by B.W. Meerbeek, M.Sc., PDEng., and were accommodated in the ExperienceLab of Philips Research, which is greatly acknowledged.
Introduction Architecture education is a design studio-based curriculum (Schön, 1983). Many researchers have described the design studio as the center (Schön, 1985) and the heart (Kuhn, 2001; Oh et al., 2013) of design education. Design studio models focus on learning by doing. All processes of solving open-ended problems in the studio are accomplished in lecture and critique sessions. Schön (1983) defines the architectural studio as a context wherein an active process of learning occurs through individual or group problem-based projects. Challenges include recognizing a problem, understanding its constraints, and using creativity, reasoned judgment, interpersonal abilities, and “reflection-in-action” to solve the problem. All these factors are present in the foundation of the architecture curriculum. Most of the works on design studio (Ochsner, 2000; Demirbaş and Demirkan, 2003) claimed that interpersonal interactions, including those between tutor–students or students–students, have a key role in the design process. Previous studies have discussed various factors and skills, including oral communication, changing an implicit understanding to an explicit one (Morton and O’Brien, 2005), oral presentation (Greusel, 2002), design social aspects (Cross and Clayburn, 1995), decision making (Fallon et al., 2014), and reduction of conflicts between students (Ghiabi and Besharat, 2011). The importance of the following factors to professional design projects has also been discussed: negotiation (Chen et al., 2014); leadership (Lee and Cassidy, 2007); presenting designs to clients in a convincing manner (Dias et al., 1999; Cross, 2008); and the relationship between communication among team members and the quality of their final product (Busseri and Palmer, 2000).