Comparative Evaluation of Daylighting Simulation Programs

Abstract:

Daylighting simulation programs use different methods and algorithms for illuminance calculations in buildings. It is widely known that results of different lighting simulation programs does not have to be the same for two or more identical rooms. Hence CIE issued Technical Report 171: 2006 which presents test cases to assess the accuracy of lighting computer programs. However, these test cases are simple and the accuracy of daylighting computer programs can be different for more complex cases. The purpose of this paper is a comparison of differences in the results computed by various daylighting simulation programs for selected test cases according to CIE 171: 2006 and for more complex cases.

References

[1] C. Reinhart, A. Fitz, Findings from a Survey on the Current Use of Daylight Simulations in Building Design, Energy and Buildings, 2006, 38 (7) 824-835.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.012

[2] BS 8206-1: Lighting for Buildings – Part 2, British Standards Institution, London, (2008).

[3] ČSN 73 0580-1: Daylighting in Buildings – Part 1, Český normalizační institut, Praha, (2007).

[4] R. Hopkinson, G. P. Petherbridge, J. Longmore, Daylighting, Heinemann, London, (1966).

[5] D. Ibarra, C. Reinhart, Daylight Factor Simulations – How Close Do Simulation Beginners Really' Get, IBSA, Glasgow, 2009, 196-203.

[6] E. Ng, A Study on the Accuracy of Daylighting Simulation of Heavily Obstructed Buildings in Hong Kong, IBSA, Rio de Janeiro, 2001, 1215-1222.

[7] J. Mardaljevic, Validation of a Lighting Simulation Program under Real Sky Conditions, Lighting Research and Technology, 1995, 27(4), 181-188.

DOI: 10.1177/14771535950270040701

[8] L. Gábrová, Comparison of Measured and Calculated Daylight Factor Values in Obstructed Room, Juniorstav 2015, Brno University of Technology, Brno, 2015, 1-8.

[9] J. Du, S. Sharples, Assessing and Predicting Average Daylight Factors of Adjoining Spaces in Atrium Buildings under Overcast Sky, Building and Environment, 2011, 46 (11), 2142-2152.

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.020

[10] A. Tsangrassoulis, V. Bourdakis, Comparison of Radiosity and Ray-Tracing Techniques with a Practical Design Procedure for the Prediction of Daylight Levels in Atria, Renewable Energy, 2003, 28 (13), 2157-2162.

DOI: 10.1016/s0960-1481(03)00078-8

[11] Technical Report CIE 171: Test Cases to Assess the Accuracy of Lighting Computer Programs, CIE, Bureau, (2006).

[12] F. Maamari, Simulation nume´rique de l'e´clairage, limites et potentialite´s, INSA de Lyon, Lyon, (2004).

[13] P. Tregenza, Daylighting algorithms, ETSU S 1350, UK Department of Trade and Industry on Behalf of the Energy Technology, 1993, 43.

[14] ENTPE – DGCB / CNRS Laboratory, Assessment of Velux Daylight Visualizer 2 against CIE 171: 2006 Test Cases, Vaulx-en-Velin Cedex, (2009).

[15] Dau Design and Consulting Inc., Validation of AGi32 against CIE 171: 2006, Calgary, (2007).

[16] Information on http: /www. edsl. net/main/Software/Validation/Daylight. aspx.

[17] Information on http: /www. dialplus. ch/#!df/cvwa.

[18] F. Vajkay, M. Hlásková, L. Gábrová, Appropriateness of Test Cases Included in the CIE 171/2006 Test Report, ATF 2014, TGM – Federal Institute of Technology, Vienna, 2014, 228-231.

[19] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Radiance, Berkeley.

[20] Relux Informatik AG, ReluxPro 2014, Münchenstein.

[21] DIAL GmbH, DIALux 4. 12, Lüdenscheid.

[22] ASTRA 92, Wdls 4. 1, Zlín.

[23] F. Vajkay, Optimisation of Light Conditions in Buidlings, Brno University of Technology, Brno, (2012).

[24] Relux Informatik AG, Relux Light Simulation Tools: Fit for ReluxSuite, (2013).

[25] Information on http: /forum. dial. de/viewtopic. php?f=28&t=62&p=76&hilit=wall+thickness#p.76.