Световоды являются одним из наиболее эффективных методов передачи дневного света в глубокие внутренние помещения. Для адаптации к сложным строительным конструкциям рекомендуется использовать один или несколько отводов для перенаправления света. Однако важно определить потери света, вызванные добавлением отводов в систему, особенно по сравнению с прямыми трубами одинаковой длины. Целью данного исследования, в первую очередь, является тестирование различных конфигураций отводов на легких трубах. Кроме того, он направлен на оценку тенденций эффективности, связанных с различной длиной как прямых, так и изогнутых световодов при одинаковой конфигурации. В качестве основного метода в этом анализе используются проверенные инструменты моделирования и подключаемые модули, известные своей точностью. Базовый пакет программного обеспечения включает Rhinoceros для 3D-моделирования, Grasshopper для алгоритмического редактирования графики, а также плагины Ladybug и Honeybee для моделирования дневного света. Различные конфигурации были проанализированы в условиях ясного и пасмурного неба на основе максимального и среднего уровней освещенности на рабочей плоскости. Результаты показали, что прямые трубы с небольшим удлинением обеспечивают наивысший уровень освещенности, но при ясном небе создают блики на рабочей поверхности. Для труб с двойным изгибом потери света значительно увеличиваются с увеличением длины трубы по сравнению с трубами других типов. Но было обнаружено, что при ясном небе и в помещениях с более низким уровнем освещенности система работает адекватно, когда направление прохождения света намеренно изменяется.
1. Katia, R., Rakha, T. 2024. Evaluating Annual Sun Exposure in LEED v4 for Commercial Office Buildings: Inclusion of Annual Glare to Enhance the Occupant Visual Performance and Comfort. LEUKOS, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2024.24 05490
2. Hosenuzzaman, M., Rahim, N. A., Selvaraj, J., Hasanuzzaman, M., Malek, A. A., Nahar, A. 2015. Global prospects, progress, policies, and environmental impact of solar photovoltaic power generation. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 41, 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.046
3. Goharian A, Mahdavinejad M. 2020. A novel approach to multi – apertures and multi – aspects ratio light pipe. Journal of Daylighting. 7(2):186–200. https://doi.org/10.15627/ jd.2020.17
4. Sharp, F., Lindsey, D., Dols, J., Coker, J. 2014. The use and environmental impact of daylighting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.092
5. Spacek A D, Neto J M, Biléssimo L D, Ando Junior O H, Santana M V F D, Malfatti C D F. 2018. Proposal of the tubular daylight system using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (abs) metalized with aluminum for reflective tube structure. Energies. 11(1):199. https://doi.org/10.3390/en110101
6. Aizenberg, Y. B., Budak, V. P. 2018. The science of light engineering, fields of application and theoretical foundations. Light & Engineering, 26(3), 4–6.
7. Budak, V. P., Aizenberg, J. B. 2021. The light field and the scope of light science. Light & Engineering, 29(1), 4–10.
8. Zhang X, Muneer T, Kubie J. 2002. A design guide for performance assessment of solar light – pipes. Lighting Research & Technology. 34(2):149–168. https://doi.org/10.1191/1365782802li041oa
9. Tsang E K, Kocifaj M, Li D H, Kundracik F, Mohelníková J. 2018. Straight light pipes’ daylighting: A case study for different climatic zones. Solar Energy. 170:56–63. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.05.042
10. Mayhoub M S. 2014. Innovative daylighting systems’ challenges: A critical study. Energy and Buildings. 80:394–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.019
11. Aizenberg J.B. 2009. Hollow Light Guides. Znack Publishing House, 208.
12. Aizenberg, J. B. 2020. International activity in field of light and engineering: creative report. Light & Engineering, 28(3).
13. Mahawan, J., & Thongtha, A. 2021. Experimental investigation of illumination performance of hollow light pipe for energy consumption reduction in buildings. Energies, 14(2), 260. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020260
14. Sharma, L., Ali, S. F., Rakshit, D. 2018. Performance evaluation of a top lighting light – pipe in buildings and estimating energy saving potential. Energy and Buildings, 179, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.022
15. Shin, J. Y., Yun, G. Y., Kim, J. T. 2012. Evaluation of daylighting effectiveness and energy saving potentials of light – pipe systems in buildings. Indoor and built environment, 21(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x11420011
16. Salam Azad, A., Salman, M., Kaushik, S. C., Rakshit, D. 2020. Energy saving potential of tubular light pipe system with different colors on internal surfaces. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 14(4), 793–837. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijesm‑12–2018–0001
17. Von Wachenfelt, H., Vakouli, V., Diéguez, A. P., Gentile, N., Dubois, M. C., Jeppsson, K. H. 2015. Lighting energy saving with light pipe in farm animal production. Journal of Daylighting, 2(2), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.15627/jd.2015.5
18. Jenkins D, Muneer T. 2003. Modelling light – pipe performances – a natural daylighting solution. Building and environment. 38(7):965–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360–1323(03)00061–1
19. Li, D. H., Tsang, E. K., Cheung, K. L., Tam, C. O. 2010. An analysis of light – pipe system via full – scale measurements. Applied Energy, 87(3), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.09.008
20. Garcia – Hansen V, Edmonds I. 2015. Methods for the illumination of multilevel buildings with vertical light pipes. Solar Energy. 117:74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener. 2015.04.017
21. Darula S, Kocifaj M, Mohelníková J. 2013. Hollow light guide efficiency and illuminance distribution on the light – tube base under overcast and clear sky conditions. Optik – International Journal for Light and Electron Optics. 124(17):3165–3169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2012.09.052
22. Malet – Damour B, Guichard S, Bigot D, Boyer H. 2016. Study of tubular daylight guide systems in buildings: Experimentation, modelling, and validation. Energy and buildings. 129:308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.019
23. Garcia Hansen V, Edmonds I. 2003. Natural illumination of deep – plan office buildings: light pipe strategies. In ISES Solar World Congress 2003.
24. Mohelnikova J, Vajkay F. 2009. Study of tubular light guides illuminance simulations. Leukos. 5(4):267–277. https://doi.org/10.1582/LEUKOS.2008.05.04.001
25. Carter D. 2014. LRT Digest 2 Tubular daylight guidance systems. Lighting Research & Technology. 46(4):369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153514526081
26. Baglivo C, Bonomolo M, Beccali M, Congedo P M. 2017. Sizing analysis of interior lighting using tubular daylighting devices. Energy Procedia. 126:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.138
27. Baglivo C, Bonomolo M, Congedo P M. 2019. Modeling of light pipes for the optimal disposition in buildings. Energies. 12(22):4323. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224323
28. Kocifaj M, Kundracik F, Darula S, Kittler R. 2012. Availability of luminous flux below a bended light – pipe: design modelling under optimal daylight conditions. Solar Energy. 86(9):2753–2761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.06.01729. CIE. 2006. CIE‑173 Technical Report:Tubular Daylight Guidance Systems. Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/10.25039/tr.173.2006
30. Kocifaj M, Kundracik F, Darula S, Kittler R. 2010. Theoretical solution for light transmission of a bended hollow light guide. Solar Energy. 84(8):1422–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.05.002
31. Wang C, Gao Q, Gao W, Ouyang J. 2022. Discussion about calculation method of light transmission efficiencies of elbows in cylindrical light pipes. Solar Energy. 238:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.04.024
32. Samuhatananon S, Chirarattananon S, Chirarattananon P. 2011. An experimental and analytical study of transmission of daylight through circular light pipes. Leukos. 7(4):203–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15502 724.2011.10732147
33. Jenkins D, Muneer T, Kubie J. 2005. A design tool for predicting the performances of light pipes. Energy and buildings. 37(5):485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.09.014
34. Carter D J. 2008. Tubular guidance systems for daylight: UK case studies. Building Research & Information. 36(5):520–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801987855
35. Kocifaj M, Darula S, Kittler R. 2008. HOLIGILM: Hollow light guide interior illumination method – An analytic calculation approach for cylindrical light – tubes. Solar energy. 82(3):247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.07.003
36. Verso V R L, Pellegrino A, Serra V. 2011. Light transmission efficiency of daylight guidance systems: An assessment approach based on simulations and measurements in a sun/sky simulator. Solar Energy. 85(11):2789–2801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.08.017
37. Solatube. 2024a. Tubular Skylight. [accessed 2024 June 12] https://solatube.com/residential/tubular – skylights/
38. Monodraught. 2024a. Sunpipe. [accessed 2024 June 12], from https://www.monodraught. com/products/natural – lighting
39. Atalay, F., Kurtay, C. 2023. Daylight Performance of Elbow Geometry in Light Pipe Models. Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, 54(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPar.22503
40. Rahmani Asl M, Zarrinmehr S, Yan W. 2013. Towards BIM – based parametric building energy performance optimization. In Proc. of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.52842/ conf.acadia.2013.101
41. Grasshopper. 2024. Grasshopper, Algorithmic Modeling for Rhino. [accessed 2023 June 12]. https://www.grasshopper3d.com/
42. Roudsari M S, Pak M. 2013. Ladybug: a parametric environmental plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally – conscious design. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2013.249
43. Pilechiha P, Mahdavinejad , RahimianF P, Carnemolla P, Seyedzadeh S. 2020. Multi – objective optimisation framework for designing office windows: quality of view, daylight, and energy efficiency. Applied Energy. 261:114356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114356
44. Kharvari F. 2020. An empirical validation of daylighting tools: Assessing radianceparameters and simulation settings in Ladybug and Honeybee against field measurements. Solar Energy. 207:1021–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.07.054
45. Shirzadnia Z, Goharian A, Mahdavinejad M. 2023. Designerly approach to skylight configuration based on daylight performance;Toward a novel optimization process. Energy and Buildings. 286:112970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.112970
46. Reinhart C, Breton P F. 2009. Experimental validation of Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design 2009 and DAYSIM 3.0. Leukos. 6(1):7–35. https://doi.org/10.1582/leukos.2009.06.0100147. Ladybug. 2024a. EPWMap. [accessed 2023 June 12] https://www.ladybug.tools/epwmap/
48. Ladybug. 2024b. Point – in – time Grid Based. [accessed 2024 June 1] https://docs.ladybug.tools/hb–radiance–primer/components/3_recipes/point–in–time_grid–based
49. IES. 2011. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. The Lighting Handbook 10th Edition, Reference, and Application. IESNA,1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365782807079518

• Предыдущая статья
• Следующая статья

• эффективность дневного света
• распределение света
• изогнутая труба
• световоды
• система пропускания света
• моделирование