Daylighting c6
Daylighting c6
Introduction 6.1.
Daylighting design is both an art and a science. Qualitative information and visual
feedback on a given daylighting concept are usually as important for the building designer
as the quantitative figures that reflect the engineering aspect of daylighting design.
Design tools are intended to help designers with the qualitative and quantitative elements
of daylighting design through features that commonly include:
• visualisation of the luminous environment of a given daylighting design;
• prediction of daylight factors in a space lit by diffuse daylight;
• identification of potential glare sources and evaluation of visual comfort indices;
• prediction of potential energy savings achievable through daylighting;
• control of the penetration of the sun’s rays and visualisation of the dynamic
behaviour of sunlight.
By providing all information of this type, design tools play a significant role in the
decision-making process that characterises daylighting design. These tools support
designers throughout the sequence of decisions, from formulation of the daylighting
concepts to final implementation of daylighting strategies and innovative techniques in
real buildings.
6-2
This chapter gives an overview of the state of the art of daylighting design tools. Special
emphasis is placed on tools that address the advanced daylighting systems investigated by
IEA SHCP Task 21.
Simple design tools give a designer clues about basic design decisions without requiring
extensive time or detail. These tools are normally used to check performance or estimate
the impact of specific design elements on daylight performance in an early design stage.
They do not require advanced equipment or knowledge and thus non-experts can use them.
Simple tools cannot model complex daylighting strategies and therefore are not suitable
for fine-tuning daylighting designs.
Many traditional simple tools focus on the daylight factor as a design criterion; these tools
should only be used in predominantly cloudy climates. A new generation of “simple”
computer tools embodies complex evaluation models, though these tools are nonetheless
simple from the user’s point of view. A common characteristic of all simple daylighting
design tools is the restriction of input parameters to key design properties such as interior
Table 6-1:
Survey of simple
Erhorn 1998]
Several surveys have been carried out during the past few years to identify the simple design
tools available to practitioners and to estimate the market impact of these tools [Baker et
al. 1993, McNicholl and Lewis 1994, Kenny and Lewis 1995, Aizlewood and Littlefair
1996]. Table 6-1 gives the results of one such survey, conducted recently as part of IEA
Task 21 [de Boer and Erhorn 1998].
Most of the tools listed in Table 6-1 are based on practical experience or simple calculation
methods, e.g., the lumen input method or the split-flux method [CIBSE 1987]. Although older
tools, such as empirical equations, tables, nomograms, diagrams, and protractors, reflect
historical conditions when computer technology was not available, new simple design tools
are typically computer-based.
A fisheye lens with an equidistant projection offers a quick means of analysing obstructions.
When the camera is positioned at the location in question and the lens is pointed at the
sky’s zenith, the photograph is a circular representation of the sky hemisphere including
all obstructions. This photograph can be superimposed on a sun chart either manually or
by using a computer. Attention should be paid to precisely positioning the sun chart to
the true north of the location. The fisheye representation of the surroundings can also be
generated by using a computer-aided design (CAD) system rather than a camera. In this
case, all obstructions need to be included in the model.
Because decisions in the early stages of building design have a large impact on a building’s
daylight performance, simple design tools are essential to help designers navigate this phase.
Simple tools offer hints about key design parameters but cannot be used to evaluate a
strategy in detail or to model advanced systems.
With the advent of personal computers (PCs), powerful processors that can handle
complex calculation algorithms and lighting simulation techniques are available to nearly
all practitioners. In addition to the first generation of simple design tools, which were
translated into numerical programmes, several new pieces of software have been developed
since the 1980s to address the complexity of light propagation into building spaces.
Most of these tools have now been ported to the PC world, mainly for Microsoft Windows
operating systems. Some of them have also been linked to commonly used architectural
CAD programmes, whose graphical means for entering geometric data are much easier to
handle than the conventional numerical input for xyz-coordinate systems used in most of
the older stand-alone daylighting tools. Some tools offer more elaborate graphical user
interfaces which significantly facilitate and speed up the daylighting design and
Table 6-2:
Overview of
daylighting computer
design tools
Application 1996]
Recent surveys have shown that these tools are increasing in number and use for
architectural design. Table 6-2 gives an overview of the existing daylighting computer design
tools in the more complex category. More recent overviews can be found in the IES
publication, Lighting Design and Application, and in other publications.
Two main categories of computer-based tools can be distinguished based on the calculation
methods they use: the radiosity technique and the ray-tracing technique.
Originally developed for energy calculations, the radiosity method was used to determine
the energy balance of a set of surfaces exchanging radiant energy (Figure 6-1). Some of
its basic hypotheses and limitations are that:
• wall surfaces must be subdivided into small finite elements characterised by
homogeneous photometric properties (e.g., reflection coefficient);
• all elements must be perfect diffusers (Lambert’s law);
• similar hypotheses must be applied to all of the external obstructions situated in
front of windows and openings.
energy) in the
Figure 6-2:
Visualization of a
daylighting calculation
radiosity method
[Compagnon 1993]
In spite of its weaknesses, the radiosity method has some advantages compared to the other
well-known image rendering method, the ray-tracing technique. These include the radiosity
method’s view-independent calculation and the pre-eminence of major light sources in the
images it renders.
Originally developed for imaging purposes, some ray-tracing programmes (e.g., RADIANCE,
GENELUX, and PASSPORT) were adapted and optimised for calculation of daylighting
within building spaces [Ward and Rubinstein 1988]. In this case, light rays are traced until
they reach the main daylight source, which is usually the sun position (clear and
intermediate skies) or the sky vault (cloudy skies). Figure 6-3 illustrates the principle of
ray tracing, showing the viewpoint (P) and view direction of the observer as well as the
main light source, represented by the sun.
P, to different
(the sun)
Most daylighting and electric lighting calculation programmes currently use this backward
ray-tracing technique (from the viewpoint to the source). A slightly different technique is
used by some software to improve daylighting calculations, especially for clear sky
conditions (with sun). A forward rather than backward ray-tracing technique is used by
the GENELUX programme to follow rays from the light source to a scene.
The principal features of the ray-tracing technique for all types of light calculations are the
following:
• the method accounts for every optical phenomenon that can be analytically
expressed by physical equations;
• the method can consider specular materials, like window panes and glossy
surfaces;
• the method can effectively simulate non-homogeneous textures and surface
points.
Thanks to their large range of applications, ray-tracing techniques play a significant role
in the design and simulation of advanced daylighting systems. Figure 6-4 shows the
numerical simulation of a room equipped with two different daylighting systems (a
conventional window pane and a zenithal anidolic collector) created by a programme using
a backward ray-tracing technique (RADIANCE); this simulation allows comparison of the
luminous performance of the two daylighting systems.
Computer simulation
and image of an
using a ray-tracing
technique.
Top: Reference
pane window
Bottom: Anidolic
zenithal collector
The objective was to develop an integrated lighting analysis tool for building design
purposes which is intended to assist the building designer and consultant in all issues
associated with daylighting and electric lighting design. The general structure of the
integrated programme system is depicted in Figure 6-5. The lighting calculations are
executed using the algorithms of Superlite and Radiance. Several different pre- and post-
processors around these core algorithms facilitate daylighting design and analysis during
different design stages:
Simple Input
Early design phases account for the basic and often irreversible decisions concerning the
daylight supply. The general floor layout, size and position of daylight openings decide
whether daylight supply is sufficient or not. A tool to be used at this stage thus should allow
for fast handling and quick access to the requested information while avoiding complex
geometric modeling. ADELINE supports, as shown in Figure 6-6, a set of simple floor plan
layouts which rely only on parametric input. Daylighting studies and design parameter
variations can be performed in a fraction of the time usually required when applying CAD
tools. The parametrically defined layouts can be used within ADELINE as starting point for
more complex models.
Object Libraries
A material database with numerous opaque and transparent or translucent materials is
included. Access to luminaire databases is provided. Using furniture in simulations enables
more realistic and representative visualisations. Individual libraries can be established or
existing ones can be used. More than 350 objects such as tables, chairs, and office
equipment, Figure 6-8, can be selected from a furniture library to allow for representative
visualisations. Selection and preview dialogues allow the convenient placement and
arrangement of objects within the graphical scene editor.
A typical outcome of this calculation is shown in Figure 6-10. The hourly lighting energy
input can be used to perform hourly thermal simulation with dynamic building simulation
programs such as tsbi5, SUNCODE, DOE2, or TRNSYS.
Figure 6-5:
ADELINE 3
Programme System
Parametrically
definable basic
geometries of
the Simple
Input Mode
Figure 6-7:
Wire Frame
representation
of Radiance
Scene Editor
Figure 6-8:
Examples from
the luminaire
and furniture
database
Figure 6-9:
Iso-contour line
representation
of illuminances in
a working plan
Annual electrical
energy saved as a
function of different
daylight-dependent
artificial lighting
control strategies
results calculated
with SUPERLINK
Simple computer-based design tools can only handle calculations for diffuse skylight,
CIE or uniform luminance distribution or both. The algorithms commonly used for
direct sky and external reflected components are based on the solid angle formulas
derived from double integrals [Hopkinson et al. 1966]. Some tools have “computerised”
simple manual tools, such as BRS protractors, Waldram diagrams, or other diagrams or
tables. For the internal reflected component, these tools will often rely on the BRS split
flux or other applications of the integrating sphere theory, sometimes with some
sophisticated corrections added.
These programmes can produce highly accurate direct and external reflected component
calculations given that the cases to be analysed have very simple geometry. Serious
inaccuracies may, however, result in calculation of the internal reflected component. In
the critical dark deep zones of a room, this component is a major contributor to the daylight
factor. Thus, simple calculation tools have problems with accuracy in this zone.
Although computer design tools can play a substantial role in daylighting design, most
are more appropriate for analysis of daylighting performance. An accurate physical
description is often required for the device to be analysed (e.g., for ray-tracing simulation)
at stages where designers usually need suggestions for appropriate architectural and
technical solutions.
Figure 6-11:
Fuzzy
characterisation
of the brightness
of walls using
fuzzy subsets
The international version of the program LESODIAL, which was developed as part of IEA
Task 21, uses this novel approach. Based on fuzzy logic, this daylighting decision tool,
described in Figure 6-12, has the following features:
• it takes into account imprecise parameters, expressed in vague terms, during
architectural pre-design phases;
• it facilitates problem description through graphical and linguistic expressions;
• it uses fuzzy inference rules to give daylighting diagnosis and recommendations
for a design;
• it compares and outranks architectural reference objects by means of fuzzy
outranking relations from a building database.
Figure 6-12:
Flow chart of
a daylighting
decision tool
based on
fuzzy logic
In addition, the programme calculates daylight factors and the percentage of the year when
daylight is sufficient by means of an analytical (BRE split-flux) method and statistical climate
data. Diagnosis and recommendations to improve the daylighting design are provided in
the form of graphics and verbal comments. A vocabulary of lighting terminology helps
designers to use the programme with very little tutoring.
Scale models of buildings are used all over the world for daylighting design. The main
advantages and interest of this approach compared to other design methods are that:
• architects use scale models as design tools to study various aspects of building
design and construction;
• it is a “soft technology,” well known to and shared by architects and other
building professionals;
• when properly constructed, scale models portray the distribution of daylight within
the model room almost as exactly as in a full-size room.
All these features are a result of the extremely small size of light wavelengths (380–780
nanometers). Thus, the physical behaviour of light is absolutely the same for a 1 m2 area
in a full-size room as it is for the corresponding 4 cm2 area of a 1:50 scale model. In other
words, even the smallest of scale models can produce very accurate results.
Table 6-3:
Scale choice as a
function of
daylighting design
purpose
Common rules must be applied, however, in the construction of any model, whatever its
scale. The principal rules are:
Materials
• the walls of the model must be absolutely opaque, and all the joints must be
light proof;
Other Criteria
• the overall dimensions and weight of the model must be such that it can be
supported (e.g., on a heliodon) or moved (e.g., movable mock-up rooms);
• the size of the model must be reasonable with regard to the distance to light
sources (e.g., 0.6 m in height for a 5-m-diameter sky dome);
• the fixing of the model parts should be strong enough to allow different
movements (e.g., mock-up rooms) and even vertical positions (e.g., heliodon);
• access to the model’s interior, through apertures or removable parts, must be
possible for placing illuminance sensors or imaging devices.
Because of the difficulty in meeting all these requirements, physical modeling generally
achieves relative rather than absolute results. The search for relative improvements in
performance is thus a more appropriate goal than attempting to obtain accurate quantitative
measurements.
These difficulties are even more important when models are placed under real sky
conditions and not under sky or sun simulators, for example, in the case of on-site
performance assessment and for mock-up room measurements, which depend upon the
sky luminance distribution at the site. The use of a reference facade in conjunction with
the facade is necessary to overcome this difficulty and produce a relative performance
assessment. Indoor and outdoor testing situations will be considered in the following
sections.
Principle sky
simulator
configurations
Some proposed new sky simulator configurations are based on a scanning process
[Tregenza 1989, Michel et al. 1995]. Of these, one uses a scanning process to rebuild the
overall sky hemisphere, starting with a sixth of a hemisphere. This novel apparatus,
shown in Figure 6-13, was used in IEA Task 21. Its numerous advantages are summarised
in Table 6-4.
scanning sky
simulator
(Switzerland),
mirror sky
(UK), below
The novel principle on which the scanning sky simulator is based allows accurate
reproduction of the luminance distributions of every type of sky. Some of these distributions,
standardised by the CIE recommendations, are described by analytical functions. These
distributions are used in daylighting studies and, although theoretical, have the important
Table 6-5:
Principle quantifiable
on occupants
A designer can optimise a daylighting system and room configuration using the assessment
data. Most of the information gained by this procedure can be used to increase user
acceptance of the designed system in the real building.
Conclusion 6.5.
Design tools play a significant role in the decision-making process that characterises
daylighting design in a building project. These tools support designers through the
sequence of decisions that leads from original daylighting concepts to their final
implementation in a building.
To be efficient and accepted by practitioners, design tools must fit the most significant
phases of the architectural projects where crucial decisions regarding daylighting strategies
are made. These tools might even propose appropriate options.
Different types of daylighting design tools are available today for practitioners, providing
qualitative and quantitative information. These tools include:
• simple tools, which are most appropriate for early design phases and are best
suited for basic design problems;
• computer-based tools, which can handle advanced daylighting systems and
provide a vast variety of output (images, visual comfort calculations, etc.);
• physical models, which are well-known and shared by architects and other
building professionals.
No design tool will ever replace designers themselves, who must make the choices
involved in the daylighting design of a building. However, these tools can accompany the
designer in a creative process of devising an enjoyable and productive built environment
while saving energy through the use of daylighting.