Simulation study demonstrates optimal luminaire configurations for visual and circadian lighting in badminton halls, indicating that tilt angle is the primary driver of performance.
Lighting is an important element in building design, including sports halls. Lighting design for badminton sports halls traditionally emphasizes visual criteria while overlooking nonvisual aspects. This study aims to optimize the electric lighting design in a badminton sports hall to meet the minimum targets for predetermined visual and nonvisual parameters, following a prior validation of the simulation tool. The multispectral lighting simulation tool adaptive lighting for alertness (ALFA) was validated by comparing simulated and measured spectral irradiance data across five courts, showing an acceptable level of agreement. Sensitivity analysis quantified the practical impact of design variables, revealing that luminaire tilt angle had the largest nominal effect size on illuminance ( r = −0.96) and nonvisual metrics ( r = −0.77), whereas surface reflectance primarily influenced vertical illuminance ( r = 0.60). The target output parameters are average horizontal illuminance ( E h ,ave ) ≥ 750 lx, melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (mel-EDI ave ) ≥ 250 lx, uniformity ( U ave ) ≥ 0.7, and circadian stimulus (CS d ) ≥ 0.43. Optimization was performed using the weighted scoring method to determine the best design combination, which was achieved at a luminaire height of 11 m, a tilt angle of 30°, a court floor reflectance of 0.2, and interluminaire distances of dx = 0.45 m and dy = 1.8 m. The luminous flux of each luminaire was adjusted to 15,065, 11,337, 11,108, 11,256, and 15,630 lm for Courts 1–5, respectively, to satisfy all targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nurhuda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: