## 3 Results and Discussion
### Hourly Daylighting Quantity  
#### 3.2.1 Men's Prayer Hall Analysis  
In our investigation of various daylighting scenarios within mosque spaces, several patterns emerge as presented in Figure 8. Starting with the multi-lateral lighting (Scenario 1), this design capitalizes on multiple vertical openings positioned strategically on three sides. The predominant focus on the south-north axis and the eastern facade ensures ample daylight penetration. At 2 m during summer at 12.30 PM, the illuminance reaches a \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenarios (Men’s Prayer Hall)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**LEED v4.1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\) (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**WPI (lux)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-4}  & **sDA\({}_{300\text{--}50\%}\) (\%)** & & & \\ \hline Multi-lateral lighting (S1) & 100 & 32.7 & 71.1 & 4196 \\ \hline Clerestory lighting (S2) & 99.1 & 1.4 & 83.7 & 2224 \\ \hline Skylight (top lighting) (S3) & 100 & 51.8 & 56.5 & 6970 \\ \hline Multi-lateral lighting +SD (S1) & 100 & 24.5 & 86.2 & 2948 \\ \hline Clerestory lighting +SD (S5) & 84.1 & 0.5 & 79.4 & 1373 \\ \hline Skylight (top lighting) +SD (S6) & 87.7 & 32.7 & 70.3 & 3804 \\ \hline Hybrid typology (case study) (S7) & 100 & 76.7 & 42.8 & 7631 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Average annual results of CBDM and LEED v4.1 simulation for men’s prayer hall. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenarios (Women’s Prayer Hall)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**LEED v4.1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\) (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**WPI (lux)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-4}  & **sDA\({}_{300\text{--}50\%}\) (\%)** & & & \\ \hline Multi-lateral lighting (S1) & 100 & 41.7 & 73.3 & 3269 \\ \hline Clerestory lighting (S2) & 93.3 & 0 & 78.5 & 686 \\ \hline Skylight (top lighting) (S3) & 100 & 30 & 86.2 & 2058 \\ \hline Multi-lateral lighting +SD (S1) & 100 & 25 & 83.3 & 2347 \\ \hline Clerestory lighting +SD (S5) & 15 & 0 & 26.1 & 290 \\ \hline Skylight (top lighting) +SD (S6) & 28.3 & 0 & 39.9 & 340 \\ \hline Hybrid typology (case study) (S7) & 100 & 26.7 & 81.7 & 2809 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Average annual results of CBDM and LEED v4.1 simulation for women’s prayer hall. staggering 20,101 lux. However, as one ventures further from these fenestrations, there is an evident decline in brightness, underscoring the dominant influence of these direct openings. Yet, the Ui value of 0.45 suggests challenges in maintaining uniformity, especially in areas distant from these fenestrations. Scenario 4 introduces a twist to the multi-lateral lighting by integrating vertical shading devices. These shading structures aim to temper the direct sunlight, mitigating potential glare. While the illuminance at 2 m is slightly moderated compared to Scenario 1, it still remains significantly high. The vertical shades, although effective in reducing direct glare, do little to enhance the uniformity, as indicated by a Ui of 0.44. Transitioning to the clerestory design (Scenario 2), this strategy leverages elevated windows, often positioned higher than eye level. Such a design inherently diffuses sunlight, ensuring that even areas distant from the windows receive a fair share of daylight. The  
Figure 8: Comparison of the WPI distribution for different daylighting strategies in the men’s prayer hall during the solstice, specifically at 12:30 PM (**A1**) and 3:30 PM (**A2**) in summer, followed by the same times during the winter solstice at 12:30 PM (**A3**) and 3:30 PM (**A4**). The uniformity index for various daylighting strategies is compared for the summer solstice (**B1**) and the winter solstice (**B2**). implementation of horizontal shading in Scenario 5 further refines this design. At 2 m, during Summer at 12.30 PM, the illuminance stands at 1031.6 lux, an acceptable level that neither overwhelms nor underwhelms.