Team Members: Tomci M Abraham : @01435579 & Aaron D Welch : @01207597 University Of Texas at San Antonio 07 March 2014
Objective
The objective of this paper is to show methods of analysis and optimization of daylight conditions within a space. Mathematical methods, such as Daylight Feasibility method and Net Glazing Area method, are used to produce a digitized simulation of the analyzed area. Analysis of the existing daylight conditions are provided, including potential for energy savings and methods for achieving optimum day lighting conditions.
Location & Task Design The location of week 1 lab activities took place in room 1.120 on the first floor of the Monterrey building. Room 1.120 is a conference room used to hold staff and student meetings and video conferences. The visual tasks taking place are note taking, viewing video presentations, listening to speakers, and round table meetings. According to IESNA standards, the Average Daylight Factor for offices and conference rooms should be a minimum of 2.0, and the tasks performed in this room classify it as a category C (working spaces where simple visual tasks are performed [recommended 10fc]) and D (performance of visual tasks of high contrast and large size 30fc).
Fenestration & Shading
The video presentations and lecturers take place closest to the exterior glazing. For videos, mini-blinds that are present can be employed to reduce the amount of glare caused by daylight entering the room while lectures can make use of retracting the blinds to help illuminate the room and help backlight the lecturer. The exterior glazing is minimally reflective which helps with the redirection of sunlight, yet still allows for adequate levels of illuminance. Heat gain is not a factor as the orientation and type of glazing minimizes exposure to direct sunlight.
Material Composition
The finished material reflectance values for conference room 1.120 are as follows:
Floor: tight knit high traffic carpeting that is multi colored (blue, orange, red) with a 1` green carpet border around the perimeter. 13.5%
Ceiling: white acoustic ceiling tile 70.2%
Walls: Painted gypsum. Beige upper 42.3%, peach lower 38.1% with a laminate wood border separating the two. 39%
Conference Table: laminated wood table with high gloss finish 51.3%
The materials and colors chosen for finishing are appropriate for this space. With the eastern morning sun coming through the exterior glazing, the light colors of the room help to maximize the usage of the daylight. The gloss of the table helps to reflect light into the room, but does so at an angle that doesnt cause any discomfort glare (due to the low sunlight angle penetration). The carpeting doesnt help the reflectance of light into the space, but generates contrast between the floor and the working plane which is beneficial in task oriented spaces. The acoustic tiles have a high reflectance value creating a more evenly distribution of light penetration to the darker lit areas of room. The quantitative values of material reflectance are sufficient for lighting this space. The space was observed at 9:30 am with optimum sun angle for room illumination, and even so, there were obvious inadequate levels of daylight.
Calculations
Using the information collected during lab sessions and the formulas provided below, we can solve for Average Daylight Factor to compare with IESNA recommendations.
Visible Transmittance for single pane light reflective glass (Table 2) = 0.35 Total Internal Area = 1128.41 sq.ft. Verticle Angle to sky = 90 degrees Weighted area average reflectance of internal surfaces = .50 Required Net Glazing = 45.13
2 x Average Daylight Factor X Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces) Required Net Glazing = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window
Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window x Net Glazing Average Daylight Factor = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 x Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces)
Average Daylight Factor = 0.88
The IESNA recommended Average Daylight Factor values for the evaluated area is 2.0. This value is the minimum suggested amount of daylight for this type of workspace.
Solving for the Feasibility Factor will determine if this space has the option of solely using daylight to properly light the interior.
Feasibility Factor = WWR x VT x OF
Begin by solving equation for WWR (window to wall ratio).
Area of Net Glazing WWR = ----------------------------- Area of Wall
WWR = 45.125sq.ft /128.25 sq.ft = 0.350
Table 2 (below) has Visible Transmittance for Single pane light reflective glass as 0.35.
VT = .35
OF (obstruction factor) - factor used to represent the amount of window obstructions. This factor can be used later to help optimize potential design strategies.
The glazing tested has zero obstructions thus:
OF (obstruction <50 %) = 1
Feasibility Factor = 0.35(WWR) x 0.35(VT) x 1(OF) = .123
If Feasibility Factor 0.25, then day lighting has the potential for significant energy savings. If Feasibility Factor is < 0.25, consider removing obstructions, increasing window area, or increasing VT. If these modifications are not possible, it is unlikely that day lighting will be a cost-effective energy-saving strategy. However, windows can still be designed to provide views and to control glare.
Daylight Factor Comparison (Light Meter vs. Ecotect) Table 1 below is a computer generated model of the day light levels throughout the conference space. In analyzing the data with manually gather Lab 2 calculations, the results are found to be strongly correlated. Both diagrams show the areas in closest proximity to the external glazing having the highest daylight levels with gradual reduction as distance from glazing increases. The Net Glazing method gave accurate levels of daylight throughout the room in comparison to field measurements.
Analysis The results from testing show that the conference room has inadequate levels of daylight for the tasks being performed. Table 1 below illustrates the average daylight distribution. As can be seen, the fluctuations of light intensity (brightness ratio) are minimal with a fairly even distribution of light. At no point in the room is there a 3:1 ratio of brightness amongst adjacent measurements. The problem lies in that the average daylight factor is approximately .88 which is well under the recommended level of 2.0. At no point in the room are there areas designated for task. The calculated feasibility factor of .123 indicates that solely using daylight to illuminate the space is not a viable option. If the feasibility factor were to be at level of .250 or higher then daylight would be highly probably to deliver adequate lighting levels. Options to consider for and increase to the current feasibility factor are: Removing Obstructions -Glazing had no obstructions so this is not a potential factor for increasing feasibility Increase Window Area -This is an option but not the best option available. To achieve recommended daylight levels a total of 806 sq.ft is needed on a wall with a total surface area of 1128.41 Increasing Visible Transmittance -This is the optimal factor to change in order to achieve recommended daylight levels. By increasing the visible transmittance from .35 to .74, we can achieve a feasibility factor of .25 and can make day lighting the space a cost-effective energy-saving strategy.
Using the Net Glazing Area and Daylight Feasibility methods, we can calculate the required net glazing area to provide our space with the adequate levels of daylight. For Average Daylight Factor = 2 We calculate the Net Glazing as follows 2 x Average Daylight Factor X Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces) Required Net Glazing = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window =2 x 2 x 1128.41 x .5/( 0.35 x 90) = 71.645 Sqft For Daylight Feasibility Factor = .25 we do the following calculation to find the WWR WWR = DFF/(VT x OF) = 0.25 / (0.35 x 1) = .7142 This implies the window area = .7142 x Total wall area = 806 Sqft Keeping the WWR same and finding VT VT = DFF / (original WWR*OF) = 0.25 / 0.35 = .7142 The calculations show that increasing the Visible Transmittance to 0.714 without changing the net glazing area would provide conference room 1.120 with enough daylight to meet IESNA recommendations. Though there is the potential for increasing net glazing area to increase feasibility factor, it is not the most cost effective method and increases potential for unwanted heat gain and contrast issues. It is worth noting that with only one wall having access to exterior glazing, maximizing the daylight factor in the room can only be enhanced by adjustments made to one wall. This is also important to note for the fact that increased amounts of light for tasks can only be accomplished through artificial lighting as a skylight or additional windows with different orientation arent applicable.