Comparative analysis shows light shelves enhance illuminance and reduce glare in mosque prayer halls, suggesting improved worship environments.
Daylighting plays a pivotal role in mosques, shaping their sacred atmosphere and enhancing the spiritual experience for worshippers. Beyond a mere architectural consideration, the integration of natural light into mosque design fundamentally influences the ambiance and functionality of these religious spaces. This study investigates the key factors that enhance daylight levels and visual comfort within prayer halls. It specifically evaluates illuminance levels, light distribution, and glare in four domed mosques located in Saudi Arabia. Field measurements were conducted beneath the domes of these prayer spaces, each featuring clerestory windows of varying forms and dimensions. Based on architectural specifications and material properties, daylight simulations and modeling were performed using the RADIANCE engine integrated with Grasshopper. The simulation results were validated against on-site illuminance measurements to ensure model accuracy and reliability. The primary objective was to assess whether the existing daylighting conditions comply with the recommended illuminance standards for reading and prayer, typically ranging from 150 to 500 lux. This study revealed that the illuminance levels in the central dome area exceeded the recommended values, reaching over 3000 lux. To improve daylight distribution, shading systems such as flat and curved shelves were added to the drum’s windows. This research concludes that the light shelves and vacuum double glazing significantly improved indoor daylight performance by preventing direct sunlight entry into the prayer hall and redirecting it towards the dome. This intervention successfully reduced excessive illuminance levels to a more optimal level of around 447–774 lux during the noon prayer period, ensuring a balanced and comfortable environment for worshippers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AlKhater et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: