The Implications of Assumed Boundary Conditions for the Reliability of Indoor Illuminance Predictions: A Case Study

Abstract:

In order to model daylight availability and distribution in architectural spaces, simulation tools require reliable representations of boundary conditions – typically in terms of sky luminance distribution models. However, the impact of sky model errors on simulation-based indoor illuminance predictions is not well documented. There are different tools and methods to simulate indoor illuminance conditions and related daylight indicators. In the present study, we selected Radiance lighting simulation program. In order to generate sky scene description, Radiance contains two routines, namely, Gendaylit and Gensky. These routines require, as input, information on both direct and diffuse components of solar radiation. To explore the implications of the sky model selection on the fidelity of simulation results, we used Radiance to compute the indoor illuminance in an existing test space on the rooftop of a university building. Thereby, the aforementioned two sky models were considered. A third option (SC) was a sky model generated based on measured values obtained from a sky scanner. Simultaneously, the actual illuminance levels in this room were monitored under different outdoor conditions (clear, intermediate, overcast). The comparison of the measurement results with multiple model prediction results facilitates an empirically based evaluation of the reliability of indoor illuminance predictions in the face of different assumptions pertaining to the prevailing boundary conditions.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 861)
• Pages: 501-508
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.861.501
• Online since: December 2016
• Authors: Ghazal Etminan*, Ehsan Vazifeh, Ardeshir Mahdavi
• Keywords: Indoor Illuminance, Sky Luminance Distribution Models

References

[1] A.R. Webb, Considerations for lighting in the built environment: Non-visual effects of light, Energ. Buildings 38 (2006) p.721–727.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.004

[2] Low energy buildings in Europe: current state of play, definitions and best practice, European Commission, Brussels, (2009).

[3] A. Mahdavi, Predictive simulation-based lighting and shading systems control in building, Build. Simul. 1 (2008) pp.25-35.

DOI: 10.1007/s12273-008-8101-4

[4] P. Littlefair, A comparison of sky luminance models with measured data from Garston, Sol. Energy 53 (1994) p.315–322.

DOI: 10.1016/0038-092x(94)90034-5

[5] J. Mardaljevic, Validation of a lighting simulation program under real sky conditions, Lighting Res. Technol. 27 (1995) pp.181-188.

DOI: 10.1177/14771535950270040701

[6] C.F. Reinhart and M. Andersen. Development and validation of a radiance model for a translucent panel, Energ. Buildings 38 (2006) pp.890-904.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.006

[7] C.F. Reinhart and O. Walkenhorst, Validation of dynamic RADIANCE-based daylight simulations for a test office with external blinds, Energ. Buildings 33 (2001) pp.683-697.

DOI: 10.1016/s0378-7788(01)00058-5

[8] P. R. Sharples and S. Tregenza, New Daylight Algorithm. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, (1995).

[9] J. Mardaljevic, Daylight simulation: validation, sky models and daylight coefficents. Phd- Dissertation: De Montfort University, Leicester, (2004).

[10] MATLAB version 8. 4. 0. 150421, The Math Works Inc., Natick, (2014).

[11] R. Perez, R. Seal and J. Michalsky, All Weather Model for sky luminance distribution preliminary configuration and validation, Sol. Energy 50 (1993) pp.235-245.

DOI: 10.1016/0038-092x(93)90017-i

[12] Information on http: /www. sketchup. com/products/sketchup-pro.

[13] Information on http: /www. jaloxa. eu/mirrors/curtin_radiance/sketchup. shtml.

[14] Information on https: /www. google. de/maps.