Natural Light in Ing Study

8/6/2019 Natural Light in Ing Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/natural-light-in-ing-study 1/6

Teaching and Learning the Daylighting Phenomenonin Architecture with Physical Models

Fernando O. Ruttkay Pereira; Alexander C. González & Veridiana Atanasio

LabCon – Laboratory of Environmental Comfort, PósARQFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis/SC, BRAZIL

ABSTRACT: Daylighting considerations influence the whole design process and incorporate as manyconceptual and aesthetics topics as technical ones. The designer needs to acquire a deepunderstanding of light behavior in order to have a good estimate of the effects caused by daylightingdesign decisions. This research seeks to apply a method for teaching the daylighting phenomenon toundergraduate architecture students using a physical prototyping environment. For this, a “physicalprototype” of an internal environment is built with shoe boxes and special lenses, with viewing angleof 200º, for direct visualization. The aim of this workshop is to search for the integration of daylighttheory with the design practice in order to create a connection with the design concepts. Theadvantages of this workshop, besides the integration with the practice of designing with daylight, are

the low cost and time spent during the development of the exercise. The method allows students toeasily preview the effects on daylighting distribution due to different design options, and visuallyappreciate them through the viewing lenses and/or digital photography. The workshop has beenapplied in daylighting courses, with undergraduate students at the Federal University of SantaCatarina, Brazil and two Universities in Colombia. The obtained results have shown that the practiceis easily assimilated by the students, effectively helping them to understand daylighting phenomenonin architecture in a very amused and relaxed way.

Keywords: daylighting, teaching method, physical models

1. INTRODUCTION

Daylighting considerations influence the whole

design process and incorporate as many conceptualand aesthetics aspects as technical ones. Daylightassumes its meaning in architecture relationally, onlywhen the designer can understand the intentions inthe way a building is daylit, together with thestrategies used for doing so, he will be able toconceive his own intentions and the means forrealizing them [1]. The designer needs to acquire adeep understanding of light behaviour in order tohave a good estimate of the effects caused bydaylighting design decisions [2].

On the other side, the architectural education hasconsisted of practical disciplines (studio) andtheoretical-practical ones. The former ones seek todevelop the design practice in studio and the latter

ones, in thesis, are expected to give support to theothers. However, in contrast to the dynamic activity-based studio work, the support disciplines havegenerally been offered in a more conventional format.The design studio is seen as a place in which thestudent can free their creative impulses, while thesupport courses are often perceived as the ones thatwill give information placing limitations to theircreativity [3].

The building science courses, besides other aims,should seek for integration to the design practicecreating a connection with design concepts in studio.A way of integrating theory to practice is to include in

the studio some experimentation elements, motivatingthe student to the investigation of a science subject.Consistently to that, the student is stimulated to see

technology not as something to be incorporated toarchitectural design, but as something with thecapacity of inspiring and conducting the design [4].

The experimentation with reduced scale modelsfor practicing daylighting design in architecture can beconsidered as a very effective performance analysistool that allows for the prediction of daylight behaviourin a close relation of cause and effect, that is, what isthe impact of a certain design option.

For this reason, the use of physical models ispresent in many architecture schools. In some cases,many schools seek to bring together experimentationto quantitative and qualitative analysis throughexercises specifically proposed for that [3], [5], [6].

The reduced scale models provide an excellent

opportunity to investigate architectural mechanisms ofdaylight manipulation in a way that two dimensiondrawings can not. In addition, it is also possible tomeasure daylight levels creating a quantifiableconnection to the visual quality of daylight in theprototype models.

2. PROTOTYPING ENVIRONMENT

Another way for integrating theory and practice isto add experimental elements in the supportdisciplines. Instead of dictating paradigms or creatingeasy design recipes, the lecturer should stimulate the

706



student to investigate, research and experiment,inducing him to follow different paths leading to newreflections, in a continuum learning process, designexperience and, mainly, know-how acquiring [7].

One of the main characteristics of theinvestigation with physical models is that it presentsan approach highly investigative towards spatialmanipulation, besides its tactile nature and three-dimensional immediacy.

A model, seen as a prototype, can be consideredas “a model built from intentions and preliminaryspecifications, adequate for simulating theappearance and functionality of a certain product,despite being in a simplified and incomplete form”.

In such a way, a prototyping environment can bedefined as “that one in which the designer canconceive and test several model characteristics(aesthetic, ambient, functional and technical ones), inpreliminary stages of development”.

Some general concepts of prototyping adapted toarchitecture design are listed as follows:

i) one of the best ways for testing a design

concept is through a prototype; the idea is to built amodel, simulating the design option appearance andfunctionality, as well as bringing into discussion amyriad of other integrated elemental aspects;

ii) submitting a prototype to performance testswill assist finding what needs to be changed, beforedesign being completed;

iii) the prototype should in general be examinedand discussed only by the development team; it is notto be presented to anyone who does not belong to theteam.

The concept of using reduced scale physicalmodels agrees with the prototype definition, servingas a quick and effective tool for verifying the character

of a daylight design option.The present research aimed to implement apedagogical approach focused on the aestheticsymbiosis of space, light and shadow, emphasizingthe use of daylight and shadow as primary buildingdesign materials, through a prototyping environment.

In the last three years, exercises with reducedscale models have been introduced in daylightingcourses of the Architectural School of the FederalUniversity of Santa Catarina, Brazil. However, finalevaluations have shown that the students wereassuming the model making as the main exerciseproduct, instead of using it as a mean for investigatingother design strategies, discussing and assessingtheir daylight performance. The idea was to conceive

an exercise with low cost models, easily produced,modified, and analysed, allowing straight answers toIF – THEN questions.

3. METHODOLOGY

In contrast to the formally driven building sciencecourses, the “shoe box” exercise, as it wasdenominated, is an attempt of using a design studioassignment as a vehicle for teaching/learning daylightissues. The main objective is to provide the studentthe opportunity to manipulate the use of daylight andshadow as primary design materials, and learn with

the science behind this manipulation. The exercisehas been applied to 3rd year architecture students, indaylighting course of the Architectural School of theFederal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and to4th and 5th year students of National University ofColômbia – Medellín Headquarters.

The primary media of reduced scalemodels/prototypes, made of shoe boxes and “magiceye” lenses for visual appreciation, were fundamental.The boxes measure approximately 25 x 25 x 40 cm,according to the kind of shoes, and are easily andalmost costless available (see Fig. 1). The lens is theone used for door surveillance, with a viewing angleof 200º (Fig. 2), allowing for a complete view of theshoe box interior.

Figure 1: Shoe box. Figure 2: “Magic eye”lens.

When the prototype, made with the shoe box andthe lenses are put together, one gets an amazing toolfor physical simulation and evaluation of thedaylighting phenomenon. Adequately located the lensprovides a complete vision from the interior, which isvery close to the image of a real space. Thus, theshoe box becomes a way for allowing the student tovisually experiencing the daylight appearance of the

modelled design options.

3.1 Description of the Shoe Box workshopThe workshop is presented in Daylighting Course

as a “warm up” for the final exercise which involves acomplete daylighting analysis and intervention in areal building. The main objective is to provide thestudents with the basic skills and tools required formanipulating daylight: modelling techniques, materialtexture and colour, and drawings and photo-documentation of daylight conditions. The idea is thatinstead of beginning a design with a functionalprogram, the students start with a character ofdaylighting in mind, reinforcing the idea that the

dramatic of daylight can be applied to a functionalspace. One of the possibilities is to show in practicesome daylighting theory issues. The directobservation through the lenses makes the daylight toassume a substance condition that can be workedwith, modelled and represented in a sketch.

The workshop was developed during two days infive stages, in order to conduct the students throughthe conception, materialization and representation ofan architecture idea having daylight manipulation asthe main design strategy. The stages are as follows:

Day 1:1. Exercise formulation with the spaces selection;Time duration: 30 to 45 minutes

PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture 707



2. Sketches of the ideas;Time duration: 45 minutes3. Experimental work with the shoe box;Time duration: 60 minutes

Day 2:4. Final representation of the design;Time duration: 60 minutes5. Evaluation and socialization seminar.Time duration: 60 to 90 minutes

The stage results of the workshop developed witha group of 25 students from 3rd year of ArchitectureSchool of the Federal University of Santa Catarina,Brazil, are described below.

3.2 Exercise formulationAlthough it was decided that the functional

program should be kept loose, each group of studentswas assigned to a different program, such as:church/chapel, store, bar/restaurant, house, museum,etc...

A functional program definition generates acommitment with the architecture design, besidessupplying expression elements that ease the daylightincorporation and its use for defining the functionalprogram rather than vice versa.

The idea is to challenge the student to define afunctional space using daylight as the primaryformgiver to architecture. The students were alsoasked to understand and use the power of daylight asa dynamic light source, in continuous transformation,and to attempt to enhance user’s awareness of it.

3.3 Sketches and first representationsIt is expected that the architect be able, through

the graphic representation, to develop and establish adirect communication with clients and staff team. Thearchitect should be capable of visualizing his spatialconcepts, anticipating its results and ways forrealizing them. So, the present stage is about usingsketching techniques to investigate and represent theappearance of the daylit interiors. The students arechallenged to develop their sketches using achiaroscuro representation technique using the lightas a palette (Fig. 3 (a, b, c, d, e, f)).

The students were asked to bring black drawingpaper and white pencils, crayon and chalk forproducing the sketches. At the end of the stage eachgroup presented their sketches and intentionsregarding daylight manipulation and the expectedvisual effects. The images characterize a kind ofcommitment that the students take to the next stage,that is, to use the shoe box and simple accessories toproduce a physical model, a prototype of their designideas.

3.4 Investigative and experimental workThe third stage of the workshop is the experiment

with the shoe box. The students directly manipulatede box surfaces, making apertures and systems forcapturing and distributing daylight. Starting from theideas discussed in the former stage, the work isdirected to reproducing them in the prototype model(Fig. 4 (a, b, c, d, e, f)).

a b

c d

e f

Figure 4 (a, b, c , d, e, f): Experimental interventionsin the shoe box.

a b

c d

e f

Figure 3 (a, b, c, d, e, f) : Daylighting sketchesproduced by students.

708 PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture



The students’ reaction when first viewing the shoebox interior through the magic-eye lens is of completeastonishment. This was done outside the classroomhaving the real sky as the testing environment.Although the first results are often not the expectedones, they do realize how similar to real situationsthey can get. They also realize that the simple shoe

box model is not only an effective way for analyzingdaylight effects, but also to conduct them into aninvestigative approach toward daylight and spacemanipulation, allowing them to easily propose andtest design modifications.

This stage enriches the design process giving acertain freedom for ideas generation readily followedby experimentation. The qualitative evaluations fromapertures, transmitting and/or reflecting surfaceshappened highly integrated to the architecture design,and one may affirm that the main motivation was thestudents’ enthusiasm with the workshop.

Throughout the experimentation, basic principlesof daylighting were brought into a studio activity,allowing the students to evaluate how apertures,skylights, translucent materials, position and colour ofinternal surfaces, light ducts, and even simplefurniture interact with the lighting environment.

The consideration of sunlight was easily includedwith the use of sundials, providing the appreciation ofshading elements in relation to cooling loads and theefficient use of daylight.

3.5 Final representationIn this stage, each student group had to produce a

graphic representation of the luminous environmentobtained in the experimentation stage with the shoeboxes. This representation seeks not only toconsolidate the students’ ability for representing the

lighting phenomenon in architecture, but also tocompare with their first sketches and evaluate theevolution (Fig. 5 (a, b, c)). In general, the finalrepresentations were more precise than the onesproduced in the second stage.

The observation of boxes interior through the lensprovided an excellent appreciation of daylightbehaviour, which was complemented for post analysisby digital photography (Figure 5(c)). Although themagic-eye lenses do not allow for high resolutionimages, the results were quite reasonable (Fig. 6 (a,b, c, d, e, f)).

a

b

c

Figure 5 (a, b, c): Some final representations, (a) and(b), and taking digital pictures (c).




a b

c d

e fFigure 6 (a, b, c, d, e, f): Digital images takenthrough the magic-eye lenses from the boxes

interiors.

Figure 6 shows the internal view of different spaces:(a) design office, with a mezzanine;(b) living room, with a winter garden;(c) church;(d) motel room;(e, f) japanese restaurant

3.6 Seminar and final evaluationThe workshop was concluded with an evaluation

seminar, where the students presented their results.Each group explained the basic concepts andstrategies they used for reaching their intentions,commenting about the difficulties and alternativesfound during the exercise development. They usedimages and exposed their shoe box for the wholeclass appreciation (Figure 7 (a, b, c)). The studentssynergy in this final stage were certainly one the mostimportant and rewarding moments.

a

b

c

Figure 7 (a, b, c): Final Seminar.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The Shoe Box workshop, besides focusingarchitectural daylight teaching, is in essence a studioworkshop which uses experimental prototypingmanipulation. The whole process proved to befundamental for stimulating and improving students’investigative capabilities regarding thecomprehension of daylight as a primary designmaterial in architecture. Daylight can be directlyevaluated in its close integration with architecture.

710 PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture



By making use of low cost and easily availablematerials, the workshop allows for multipleexperimentations, by the generation of almost anyinterior space. Another important fact is the time fordeveloping its stages; the exercise has beendeveloped in two sessions of three hours, and can beeasily extended in order to improve daylighting

qualitative evaluation in architecture.The results of this teaching method have been

evaluated by students as highly positive, especiallyfor the instrumental and conceptual consolidation ofuse of daylight in architecture.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Millet, M., Light Revealing Architecture, VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, 1996.[2] N. Baker; A. Fanchiotti; K. Streemers, Daylightingin Architecture. James & James: London, 1993.[3] L. Fontein, Teaching Lighting to ArchitectureStudents: Technology as Design Inspiration,Proceedings of RIGHT LIGHT 4, IAEEL,Copenhagen, Denmark (1997), Vol. 2, pp. 159-163[4] S. Szokolay, Science in Architectural Education,ANZASCA’94, Brisbaine (1994), 5 pages.[5] M. Millet & J. Loveland, Teaching Light: ItsImportance in Architectural Education, Proceedings ofRIGHT LIGHT 4, IAEEL, Copenhagen, Denmark,(1997), Vol. 2, pp. 169-173[6] S. Stannard, Designing With Light: A StudioInvestigation, Proceedings of RIGHT LIGHT 4,IAEEL, Copenhagen, Denmark (1997), Vol. 2, pp.175-180

[7] M.R. Rufinoni, New and old challenges in thearchitecture design studio – ways for creating acritical conscience. Synergy Journal, São Paulo,(2002), v. 04, p. 11-15 (in Portuguese)


Natural Light in Ing Study

Documents

Transcript of Natural Light in Ing Study