Abstract:This study examines the performance of attached prismatic panels, which have shading capability, in a side-lit deep plan room to find out the least possible WWR value in relation to room depth satisfying the required daylight availability. The methodology is based on simulating a base model in Relux and testing it with alternative models composed of incrementally defined WWR and room depth values. In accordance with minimum IES requirements, the most satisfying sDA value was found to be 48.54 % in a room of 12 m depth with 67 % WWR. An sDA of 51.59 % and 59.26 % was achieved in a room of 9m depth with 43 % WWR and 6m depth with 30 % WWR, respectively. The least ASE values were obtained with the least WWR alternative of 30 % in all room depths. This study presents a new approach with the consideration of innovative daylight redirecting systems to propose revisions for the requirements mentioned in standards about daylight in buildings but based on conventional fenestration systems.
References:1. Reinhart, C. F. “A simulation-based review of the ubiquitous window-head-height to daylit zone depth ruleof-thumb,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International IBPSA Conference Montréal, Canada, Agust 15–18, 2005. 2. Kim, J., Wineman J. Are windows and views really better? A quantitative analysis of the economic and psychological value of views. New York: Lighting Research Centre, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2005. 3. Bayram, G., Kazanasmaz, T. Simulation based retrofitting of an educational building in terms of optimum shading device and energy efficient lighting criteria. Light and Engineering, 2016. V24, No.2, pp. 45–55. 4. Littlefair, P.J. Solar shading of buildings. London: Construction Research Communications by permission of Building Research Establishment, 1999. 5. Laura, B., Marino, C., Minichiello, F., Pedace, A. An overview on solar shading systems for buildings. Energy Procedia, 2014. V62, pp. 309–317. 6. Ünver, R. Prediction of interior daylight availability for external obstructions in Istanbul. Light and Engineering, 2009. V17, No.3, pp. 54–64. 7. Ruck, N., Aschehoug, Ø., Aydinli, S., Christoffersen, J., Courret, G., Edmonds, I., Jakobiak, R., Kischkowweit-Lopin, M., Klinger, M., Lee, E., Michel, L., Scartezzini, J-L, & Selkowitz, S. Daylight in Buildings-A source book on daylighting systems and components. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. 8. Kazanasmaz, T., Fırat Örs, P. Comparison of advanced daylighting systems to improve illuminance and uniformity through simulation modelling// Light & Engineering, 2014. V 22, No.3, pp. 56–66. 9. Siteco Stationary and Movable Prism Systems. [Online] Available from: https://www.siteco.com/en/home [Accessed August 2017]. 10. British Standards Institution. BS8206–2:1992. Code of Practice for daylighting. London: BSI, 1992. 11. van Dijk, D., Platzer, W.J. Reference office for thermal, solar and lighting calculations. IEA-SHC Task 27, 2001.
User Lighting Preferences Based on Navigation and Space Quality in Virtual Exhibition Environments L&E 28 (2) 2020
An Empirical Validation of Estimation Model (OptimLUM) for Energy Efficient Luminaire Layout Design in Offices L&E 28 (1) 2020
Examining Occupancy and Architectural Aspects Affecting Manual Lighting Control Behaviour in Offices Based on a User Survey . L&E 26 (2) 2018