November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.

00in (IEEE proceedings) plea2007˙cd:

Teaching and Learning the Daylighting Phenomenon

in Architecture with Physical Models

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

LabCon – Laboratory of Environmental Comfort, PósARQ

Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis/SC, BRAZIL

ABSTRACT: Daylighting considerations influence the whole design process and incorporate as many
conceptual and aesthetics topics as technical ones. The designer needs to acquire a deep
understanding of light behavior in order to have a good estimate of the effects caused by daylighting
design decisions. This research seeks to apply a method for teaching the daylighting phenomenon to
undergraduate architecture students using a physical prototyping environment. For this, a “physical
prototype” of an internal environment is built with shoe boxes and special lenses, with viewing angle
of 200º, for direct visualization. The aim of this workshop is to search for the integration of daylight
theory with the design practice in order to create a connection with the design concepts. The
advantages 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 to
easily preview the effects on daylighting distribution due to different design options, and visually
appreciate them through the viewing lenses and/or digital photography. The workshop has been
applied in daylighting courses, with undergraduate students at the Federal University of Santa
Catarina, Brazil and two Universities in Colombia. The obtained results have shown that the practice
is easily assimilated by the students, effectively helping them to understand daylighting phenomenon
in architecture in a very amused and relaxed way.

Keywords: daylighting, teaching method, physical models

1. INTRODUCTION the studio some experimentation elements, motivating

Daylighting considerations influence the whole
design process and incorporate as many conceptual
and aesthetics aspects as technical ones. Daylight
assumes its meaning in architecture relationally, only
when the designer can understand the intentions in
the way a building is daylit, together with the
strategies used for doing so, he will be able to
conceive his own intentions and the means for
realizing them [1]. The designer needs to acquire a
deep understanding of light behaviour in order to
have a good estimate of the effects caused by
daylighting design decisions [2].
On the other side, the architectural education has
consisted of practical disciplines (studio) and
theoretical-practical ones. The former ones seek to
develop the design practice in studio and the latter
ones, in thesis, are expected to give support to the
others. However, in contrast to the dynamic activity-
based studio work, the support disciplines have
generally been offered in a more conventional format.
The design studio is seen as a place in which the
student can free their creative impulses, while the
support courses are often perceived as the ones that
will give information placing limitations to their
creativity [3].
The building science courses, besides other aims,
should seek for integration to the design practice
creating a connection with design concepts in studio.
A way of integrating theory to practice is to include in
the student to the investigation of a science subject.
Consistently to that, the student is stimulated to see
technology not as something to be incorporated to
architectural design, but as something with the
capacity of inspiring and conducting the design [4].
The experimentation with reduced scale models
for practicing daylighting design in architecture can be
considered as a very effective performance analysis
tool that allows for the prediction of daylight behaviour
in a close relation of cause and effect, that is, what is
the impact of a certain design option.
For this reason, the use of physical models is
present in many architecture schools. In some cases,
many schools seek to bring together experimentation
to quantitative and qualitative analysis through
exercises specifically proposed for that [3], [5], [6].
The reduced scale models provide an excellent
opportunity to investigate architectural mechanisms of
daylight manipulation in a way that two dimension
drawings can not. In addition, it is also possible to
measure daylight levels creating a quantifiable
connection to the visual quality of daylight in the
prototype models.
2. PROTOTYPING ENVIRONMENT
Another way for integrating theory and practice is
to add experimental elements in the support
disciplines. Instead of dictating paradigms or creating
easy design recipes, the lecturer should stimulate the

706
November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings)
student to investigate, research and experiment,
inducing him to follow different paths leading to new
reflections, in a continuum learning process, design
experience and, mainly, know-how acquiring [7].
One of the main characteristics of the
investigation with physical models is that it presents
an approach highly investigative towards spatial
manipulation, besides its tactile nature and three-
dimensional immediacy.
A model, seen as a prototype, can be considered
as “a model built from intentions and preliminary
specifications, adequate for simulating the
appearance and functionality of a certain product,
despite being in a simplified and incomplete form”.
In such a way, a prototyping environment can be
defined as “that one in which the designer can
conceive and test several model characteristics
(aesthetic, ambient, functional and technical ones), in
preliminary stages of development”.
Some general concepts of prototyping adapted to
architecture 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 a
model, simulating the design option appearance and
functionality, as well as bringing into discussion a
myriad of other integrated elemental aspects;
ii) submitting a prototype to performance tests
will assist finding what needs to be changed, before
design being completed;
iii) the prototype should in general be examined
and discussed only by the development team; it is not
to be presented to anyone who does not belong to the
team.
The concept of using reduced scale physical
models agrees with the prototype definition, serving
as a quick and effective tool for verifying the character
of a daylight design option.
The present research aimed to implement a
pedagogical approach focused on the aesthetic
symbiosis of space, light and shadow, emphasizing
the use of daylight and shadow as primary building
design materials, through a prototyping environment.
In the last three years, exercises with reduced
scale models have been introduced in daylighting
courses of the Architectural School of the Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. However, final
evaluations have shown that the students were
assuming the model making as the main exercise
product, instead of using it as a mean for investigating
other design strategies, discussing and assessing
their daylight performance. The idea was to conceive
an exercise with low cost models, easily produced,
modified, and analysed, allowing straight answers to
IF – THEN questions.
3. METHODOLOGY
In contrast to the formally driven building science
courses, the “shoe box” exercise, as it was
denominated, is an attempt of using a design studio
assignment as a vehicle for teaching/learning daylight
issues. The main objective is to provide the student
the opportunity to manipulate the use of daylight and
shadow as primary design materials, and learn with
PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture
plea2007˙cd:
the science behind this manipulation. The exercise
has been applied to 3rd year architecture students, in
daylighting course of the Architectural School of the
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and to
4th and 5th year students of National University of
Colômbia – Medellín Headquarters.
The primary media of reduced scale
models/prototypes, made of shoe boxes and “magic
eye” 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 and
almost costless available (see Fig. 1). The lens is the
one used for door surveillance, with a viewing angle
of 200º (Fig. 2), allowing for a complete view of the
shoe box interior.
Figure 1: Shoe box. Figure 2: “Magic eye”
lens.
When the prototype, made with the shoe box and
the lenses are put together, one gets an amazing tool
for physical simulation and evaluation of the
daylighting phenomenon. Adequately located the lens
provides a complete vision from the interior, which is
very close to the image of a real space. Thus, the
shoe box becomes a way for allowing the student to
visually experiencing the daylight appearance of the
modelled design options.
3.1 Description of the Shoe Box workshop
The workshop is presented in Daylighting Course
as a “warm up” for the final exercise which involves a
complete daylighting analysis and intervention in a
real building. The main objective is to provide the
students with the basic skills and tools required for
manipulating daylight: modelling techniques, material
texture and colour, and drawings and photo-
documentation of daylight conditions. The idea is that
instead of beginning a design with a functional
program, the students start with a character of
daylighting in mind, reinforcing the idea that the
dramatic of daylight can be applied to a functional
space. One of the possibilities is to show in practice
some daylighting theory issues. The direct
observation through the lenses makes the daylight to
assume a substance condition that can be worked
with, modelled and represented in a sketch.
The workshop was developed during two days in
five stages, in order to conduct the students through
the conception, materialization and representation of
an architecture idea having daylight manipulation as
the main design strategy. The stages are as follows:
Day 1:
1. Exercise formulation with the spaces selection;
Time duration: 30 to 45 minutes
707
November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) plea2007˙cd:

2. Sketches of the ideas;

Time duration: 45 minutes
3. Experimental work with the shoe box;
Time duration: 60 minutes

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

The stage results of the workshop developed with

a group of 25 students from 3rd year of Architecture
School of the Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Brazil, are described below.

3.2 Exercise formulation

Although it was decided that the functional
program should be kept loose, each group of students c d
was assigned to a different program, such as:
church/chapel, store, bar/restaurant, house, museum,
etc...
A functional program definition generates a
commitment with the architecture design, besides
supplying expression elements that ease the daylight
incorporation and its use for defining the functional
program rather than vice versa.
The idea is to challenge the student to define a e f
functional space using daylight as the primary
formgiver to architecture. The students were also Figure 3 (a, b, c, d, e, f): Daylighting sketches
asked to understand and use the power of daylight as produced by students.
a dynamic light source, in continuous transformation,
and to attempt to enhance user’s awareness of it.

3.3 Sketches and first representations

It is expected that the architect be able, through
the graphic representation, to develop and establish a
direct communication with clients and staff team. The
architect should be capable of visualizing his spatial
concepts, anticipating its results and ways for
realizing them. So, the present stage is about using
sketching techniques to investigate and represent the
appearance of the daylit interiors. The students are a b
challenged to develop their sketches using a
chiaroscuro representation technique using the light
as a palette (Fig. 3 (a, b, c, d, e, f)).
The students were asked to bring black drawing
paper and white pencils, crayon and chalk for
producing the sketches. At the end of the stage each
group presented their sketches and intentions
regarding daylight manipulation and the expected
visual effects. The images characterize a kind of c d
commitment that the students take to the next stage,
that is, to use the shoe box and simple accessories to
produce a physical model, a prototype of their design
ideas.

3.4 Investigative and experimental work

The third stage of the workshop is the experiment
with the shoe box. The students directly manipulate
de box surfaces, making apertures and systems for e f
capturing and distributing daylight. Starting from the
ideas discussed in the former stage, the work is Figure 4 (a, b, c , d, e, f): Experimental interventions
directed to reproducing them in the prototype model in the shoe box.
(Fig. 4 (a, b, c, d, e, f)).

708 PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture
November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) plea2007˙cd:

The students’ reaction when first viewing the shoe

box interior through the magic-eye lens is of complete
astonishment. This was done outside the classroom
having the real sky as the testing environment.
Although the first results are often not the expected
ones, they do realize how similar to real situations
they can get. They also realize that the simple shoe
box model is not only an effective way for analyzing
daylight effects, but also to conduct them into an
investigative approach toward daylight and space
manipulation, allowing them to easily propose and
test design modifications.
This stage enriches the design process giving a
certain freedom for ideas generation readily followed
by experimentation. The qualitative evaluations from
apertures, transmitting and/or reflecting surfaces
a
happened highly integrated to the architecture design,
and one may affirm that the main motivation was the
students’ enthusiasm with the workshop.
Throughout the experimentation, basic principles
of daylighting were brought into a studio activity,
allowing the students to evaluate how apertures,
skylights, translucent materials, position and colour of
internal surfaces, light ducts, and even simple
furniture interact with the lighting environment.
The consideration of sunlight was easily included
with the use of sundials, providing the appreciation of
shading elements in relation to cooling loads and the
efficient use of daylight.

3.5 Final representation

In this stage, each student group had to produce a
graphic representation of the luminous environment b
obtained in the experimentation stage with the shoe
boxes. This representation seeks not only to
consolidate the students’ ability for representing the
lighting phenomenon in architecture, but also to
compare with their first sketches and evaluate the
evolution (Fig. 5 (a, b, c)). In general, the final
representations were more precise than the ones
produced in the second stage.
The observation of boxes interior through the lens
provided an excellent appreciation of daylight
behaviour, which was complemented for post analysis
by digital photography (Figure 5(c)). Although the
magic-eye lenses do not allow for high resolution
images, the results were quite reasonable (Fig. 6 (a,
b, c, d, e, f)).

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

PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture 709
November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) plea2007˙cd:

a b

c d

e f
b
Figure 6 (a, b, c, d, e, f): Digital images taken
through 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 evaluation

The workshop was concluded with an evaluation
seminar, where the students presented their results.
Each group explained the basic concepts and
strategies they used for reaching their intentions,
commenting about the difficulties and alternatives
found during the exercise development. They used
images and exposed their shoe box for the whole
class appreciation (Figure 7 (a, b, c)). The students
synergy in this final stage were certainly one the most
important and rewarding moments.
c
Figure 7 (a, b, c): Final Seminar.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The Shoe Box workshop, besides focusing
architectural daylight teaching, is in essence a studio
workshop which uses experimental prototyping
manipulation. The whole process proved to be
fundamental for stimulating and improving students’
investigative capabilities regarding the
comprehension of daylight as a primary design
material in architecture. Daylight can be directly
evaluated in its close integration with architecture.

710 PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture
November 12, 2007 22:34 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) plea2007˙cd:

By making use of low cost and easily available

materials, the workshop allows for multiple
experimentations, by the generation of almost any
interior space. Another important fact is the time for
developing its stages; the exercise has been
developed in two sessions of three hours, and can be
easily extended in order to improve daylighting
qualitative evaluation in architecture.
The results of this teaching method have been
evaluated by students as highly positive, especially
for the instrumental and conceptual consolidation of
use of daylight in architecture.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Millet, M., Light Revealing Architecture, Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1996.
[2] N. Baker; A. Fanchiotti; K. Streemers, Daylighting
in Architecture. James & James: London, 1993.
[3] L. Fontein, Teaching Lighting to Architecture
Students: 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: Its
Importance in Architectural Education, Proceedings of
RIGHT LIGHT 4, IAEEL, Copenhagen, Denmark,
(1997), Vol. 2, pp. 169-173
[6] S. Stannard, Designing With Light: A Studio
Investigation, Proceedings of RIGHT LIGHT 4,
IAEEL, Copenhagen, Denmark (1997), Vol. 2, pp.
175-180
[7] M.R. Rufinoni, New and old challenges in the
architecture design studio – ways for creating a
critical conscience. Synergy Journal, São Paulo,
(2002), v. 04, p. 11-15 (in Portuguese)

PLEA2007 — The 24th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture 711