Climate-Based Daylight Analysis for Residential Buildings

Impact of various window congurations, external obstructions, orientations and location on useful daylight illuminance
Dr. John Mardaljevic Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development De Montfort University The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK e-mail jm@dmu.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 116 257 7972

Executive Summary: The IESD were commissioned by VELUX to carry out a parametric climate-based daylight analysis for two residential building types with various window congurations and external obstructions. Each of the ten building congurations was evaluated for all combinations of eight orientations and six climate zones. Thus there were 480 sets of unique climate-based daylight simulations. The evaluation was founded on the useful daylight illuminance (UDI) scheme which determines the occurrence of absolute levels of illumination within four ranges: less than 100 lux; 100 to 500 lux, 500 to 2,500 lux; and, over 2,500 lux. The limits of these ranges are founded on human factors data from occupant surveys. The key indicator for good daylighting is the degree of occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux (labelled the UDI-a metric) since this range: provides adequate illumination for the majority of tasks; is associated with a very low probability for the switching-on of electric lights; and, the higher values in this range are now believed to have benecial eects for both productivity and long-term health. This study has shown that the addition of skylights invariably improves the overall daylighting performance of the space. For some designs, the addition of skylights led to a typical increase in the occurrence of the key UDI-a metric from 12% to 45% of the occupied period of the year (i.e. 08h00 to 20h00).

Contents
1 Introduction 2 Daylight Prediction 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Climate-based daylight modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 UDI: A climate-based daylight metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 An overview of ndings on occupant response to varying levels of daylight illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Useful daylight illuminance range limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 UDI and good daylighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Simulation methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The climate data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 The building models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Parametric scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Generation of basic illuminance data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Standard daylight factor evaluation and comparison with the DC computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Results: Graphical Data 3.1 Workplane plots: Distribution in UDI and cumulative illumination 3.1.1 UDI plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Cumulative annual plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Cumulative monthly plots - total and direct sun . . . . . . 3.1.4 A note on viewing the plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Plots of UDI metrics based on mean and median values . . . . . . 3.2.1 Polar plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Individual cases across all climate and orientations . . . . 3.2.3 Change in UDI plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Overall graphical summary of change in UDI metrics . . . . . . . 3.4 Daylight factor plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 12 12 14 23 30 31

. . . . . . . . . . .

. 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 38 38 38 39 39 43 48 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 65

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Results: Tabular Data 4.1 Group 1: UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations . . . . . . 4.2 Group 2: UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations . . . 4.3 Group 3: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations 4.4 Group 4: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Summary: Salient features in the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 A1 u to A2 u (Workplane 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 A2 u to A3 u (Workplane 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 A1 u to A3 u (Workplane 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 B1 u to B2 u (Workplane 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 Obstructed cases (as above - workplane 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.6 Change from unobstructed to obstructed (Workplane 1) . . . . . . . 4.5.7 A1 u to A2 u (Workplane 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.8 A2 u to A3 u (Workplane 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 of 91

4.5.9 A1 u to A3 u (Workplane 2) 4.5.10 B1 u to B2 u (Workplane 2) 4.5.11 Remaining for workplane 2: unobstructed to obstructed . 5 Conclusion and Discussion Supplementary Reports (SRs) References

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obstructed . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . cases and . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . changes . . . . .

. . . . 65 . . . . 65 from . . . . 65 86 88 89

3 of 91

List of Figures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Daylight coecient 145 patch scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Toronto, Canada (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Munich, Germany (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Nice, France (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Finningley, UK (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Los Angeles, USA (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate le illuminance data for Seattle, USA (interpolated to 15 minute time-step). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplane areas superposed with the various window congurations . . . . Three views of building A1 without (A1 u) and with (A1 o) external tree obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three views of building A2 without (A2 u) and with (A2 o) external tree obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three views of building A3 without (A3 u) and with (A3 o) external tree obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three views of building B1 without (B1 u) and with (B1 o) external tree obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three views of building B2 without (B2 u) and with (B2 o) external tree obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplane UDI plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplane cumulative annual illuminance plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplane cumulative monthly illuminance plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplane cumulative direct sun illuminance plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polar plot showing sensitivity of UDI metrics to building orientation . . . . Individual cases across all climate and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dierence in metrics resulting from a change of the building type . . . . . Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp1 Cases: unobstructed . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp2 Cases: unobstructed . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp1 Cases: obstructed . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp2 Cases: obstructed . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A1 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A2 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A3 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A1 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A2 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: A3 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: B1 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: B2 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: B1 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daylight factor - building: B2 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

4 of 91

36

Comparison of UDI-c with DF for case A2 u, orientation 135, climate FRA Nice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5 of 91

List of Tables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The six climate les used in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - mean values - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - median values - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - mean values - all climates and orientations UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - median values - all climates and orientations Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85

6 of 91

Introduction

The IESD were commissioned by Velux to carry out a parametric climate-based daylight analysis for two residential building types with various window congurations and external obstructions. Each of the ten building congurations was evaluated for all combinations of eight orientations and six climate zones. Thus there were 480 sets of unique climatebased daylight simulations. The evaluation was founded on the useful daylight illuminance scheme. The structure of the report is as follows. An overview of the daylight prediction methodology, the formulation of the daylight metrics and the scope of the parametric study are given in Section 2. The results are presented in Sections 3 and 4. The form and interpretation of the graphical data are presented in Section 3 (the graphical data themselves are in supplementary PDF les). The results as tabular data are given in Section 4. The report closes with a Conclusion and Discussion (Section 5).

2
2.1

Daylight Prediction
Background

It is acknowledged that by maximising the use of natural lighting (daylight) a signicant reduction in articial lighting and thus primary energy consumption can be achieved [1]. A good provision of daylight is now considered to be highly desirable in terms of building occupants well-being and productivity [2]. The goal of making good use of daylight provision however needs to be tempered by the need to prevent the undue occurrence of very high levels of daylight illuminance since these are associated both with visual discomfort and the likelihood of excessive solar gain (i.e. increased cooling loads). Design guidelines recommend daylight provision in terms of the long-established daylight factor (DF). Formulated in the UK over fty years ago, the daylight factor is simply the ratio of internal illuminance to unobstructed horizontal illuminance under standard CIE overcast sky conditions [3]. It is usually expressed as a percentage, so there is no consideration of absolute values. The luminance of the CIE standard overcast sky is rotationally symmetrical about the vertical axis, i.e. about the zenith. And, of course, there is no sun. Thus for a given building design, the predicted DF is insensitive to either the building orientation (due to the symmetry of the sky) or the intended locale (since it is simply a ratio). In other words, the predicted DF value would be the same if the building had North-facing window in Stornoway or South-facing window in Brighton. The same would be true if the locations were Seattle and Miami - or indeed for any city in any country. The inability of the currently-used methods to quantify absolute measures of natural illumination with any reliability has resulted in a situation where the promotion of daylight rests on vaguely substantiated claims regarding the actual benets. A signicant factor that hinders the widespread uptake of daylighting systems is the lack of an evaluative scheme to determine their actual performance under realistic conditions.

2.2

Climate-based daylight modelling

It now appears to be widely accepted that the daylight factor method does not allow for improvement by incremental means, and that signicant advancement can only be achieved by considering predictions for absolute values of daylight illuminance founded 7 of 91

on realistic meteorological data, i.e. climate-based daylight modelling. Climate-based daylight modelling is the prediction of various radiant or luminous quantities (e.g. irradiance, illuminance, radiance and luminance) using sun and sky conditions that are derived from standard meteorological datasets [4]. Climate-based modelling delivers predictions of absolute quantities (e.g. illuminance) that are dependent both on the locale (i.e. geographically-specic climate data is used) and the building orientation (i.e. the illumination eect of the sun and non-overcast sky conditions are included), in addition to the buildings composition and conguration. The term climate-based daylight modelling does not yet have a formally accepted denition - it was rst coined by Mardaljevic in the title of a paper given at the 2006 CIBSE National Conference [4]. However it is generally taken to mean any evaluation that is founded on the totality (i.e. sun and sky components) of contiguous daylight data appropriate to the locale for a period of a full year. In practice, this means sun and sky parameters found in, or derived from, the standard meteorological data les which contain hourly values for a full year. Given the self-evident nature of the seasonal pattern in daylight availability, an evaluation period of a full year is needed to fully capture all of the naturally occurring variation in conditions that is represented in the climate dataset. The exact pattern of hourly values in a standard climate dataset is unique and, because of the random nature of weather, it will never be repeated in precisely that way. Climate datasets are however representative of the prevailing conditions measured at the site, and they do exhibit much of the full range in variation that typically occurs. A climate-based analysis is intended to represent the prevailing conditions over a period of time, rather than be simply a snapshot of specic conditions at a particular instant. Because of the seasonal variation of daylight, the evaluation period is normally taken to be an entire year, although sometimes seasonal or monthly analyses may be required. Analyses may be restricted to include just those hours in the year that cover, for example, the working period. There are a number of possible ways to use climatebased daylight modelling [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The two principal analysis methods are cumulative and time-series. A cumulative analysis is the prediction of some cumulative measure of daylight (e.g. total annual illuminance) founded on the aggregated luminance (or radiance) eect of (hourly) sky and the sun conditions derived from the climate datset. It is usually determined over a period of a full year. This could equally be carried out on seasonal or monthly basis, i.e. predicting a cumulative measure for each season or month in turn. The cumulative method can be used for predicting the micro-climate and solar access in urban environments, the long-term exposure of art works to daylight, and the seasonal dynamics of daylight and/or shading at the early design stage. Time-series analysis involves predicting instantaneous measures (e.g. illuminance) based on all the hourly (or sub-hourly) values in the annual climate dataset. These predictions are used to evaluate, for example, the overall daylighting potential of the building, the occurrence of excessive illuminances or luminances, as inputs to behavioural models for light switching and/or blinds usage, and in assessing the performance of daylight responsive lighting controls.

2.3

UDI: A climate-based daylight metric

For this study, the evaluation is founded on an analysis of a time-series of predicted daylight illuminance values across the workplane. Time-varying daylight illuminance val8 of 91

ues were predicted at approximately 1000 points evenly distributed across the workplane. The analysis of the predicted illuminance values was carried out using the useful daylight illuminance (UDI) scheme [10, 11, 7, 4, 8]. 2.3.1 An overview of ndings on occupant response to varying levels of daylight illumination

It is acknowledged that there is a large range of lighting conditions over which the human eye performs satisfactorily, and that there is a large range of variation among individuals as to what comprises satisfactory visual conditions. Whilst there are no absolutely conclusive studies that correlate daylighting provision or occupant satisfaction with worker productivity, there is mounting evidence that workers do appreciate oces that provide daylight and a view of the outside, and that glare-free and thermally comfortable spaces have quantiable eects on workers satisfaction and performance [12, 13]. The UK Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Code for Interior Lighting recommends that oces should have a design illuminance level of 500 lux. A design illuminance of 500 lux is, in fact, commonplace throughout much of the developed world. Consequently, electric lighting is usually designed to deliver 500 lux of (articial) illuminance evenly across the workplane. When sucient daylight is available, electric lighting may be reduced, or switched o altogether, by either the occupants themselves or some control mechanism. The Cost-Eective Open-Plan Environment (COPE) eld study, conducted by the Institute for Research Construction (National Research Council Canada) recorded that illuminances larger than, or equal to, 150 lux were classied as appreciable daylight [14]. Furthermore, the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) of North America recommends 50 to 100 lux, provided directly onto the individual task area, as the general range of illuminance required for working with CRT screens in laboratory areas [15]. In fact, during a survey of the work spaces of a computer hardware and software distribution company, where each of the oces contained at least two computers, measurements showed that most employees felt comfortable with a lighting level of around 100 lux (as opposed to the standard regulations of workplaces demanding 300 lux to 500 lux at desk level) [16]. It has also been observed that people tend to tolerate much lower illuminance levels of daylight than articial light, particularly in diminishing daylight conditions at the end of the day, such as continuing to read at daylight levels as low as 50 lux [17]. In a eld study carried out by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (USA), oce workers were allowed to create their own lighting environment by manually controlling blade angles of mechanical Venetian blinds and varying the intensity of electric lighting. The illuminances recorded during the study were in the range 840 lux to 2146 lux in the morning and 782 lux to 1278 lux in the afternoon. This indicated that the occupants either preferred or, at least, tolerated higher light levels than those set by the automatic control system (510 lux to 700 lux) [12]. Studies relating to oce workers impressions of daylight and lighting signied that most oce occupants wanted to work under some form of daylighting. However, in heavily glazed oces, people were often less satised due to the high levels of daylight provision and the associated propensity for discomfort [18]. While noting that satisfaction with daylight is a complicated issue depending on many other factors such as facade orientation, obstructions, and the eectiveness of shading devices, levels of daylight that are considered too low may easily be supplemented by electric lighting, whereas levels that are too high are associated with problems that are more complex to deal with (for example, glare and 9 of 91

overheating) [18]. In fact, occupant surveys have uncovered shortcomings for conventional design practice and have expanded the denition of an adequate oce visual environment [19]. For example, variation in daylight levels is considered desirable provided that the range in experienced levels is not too great. Occupants prefer a space with a variation in the natural light pattern, and where they have a slightly higher task illuminance than the general surround illuminance, their visual perception can be enhanced [19]. Furthermore, researchers have noticed that lighting levels that are markedly higher than the typical design workplane illuminance level (for example, 500 lux) are tolerated by the occupants unless there is glare or direct sun, in which case the occupants may opt to operate a shading device [20]. Observations made by Roche over several weeks suggested that the visual environment, when facing a computer workstation which was at a right angle to the window (as is recommended), was reasonably comfortable when the workplane illuminance was below 1800 lux [18, 21]. During that same experiment, it was noted that the daylight illuminance range of 700 lux to 1800 lux appeared to be acceptable for both computer and paper-oriented tasks. The visual eects of lighting have been an area of investigation since the emergence of the science of optics hundreds of years ago. The physiological eects of illumination levels on humans, however, are a relatively recent area of study. Following the discovery in 2002 of novel photoreceptor cells in the eye, with additional nerve connections to the brain, it is now better understood how light inuences and controls a large number of biochemical processes in the human body. Signicant amongst these is the control of the biological clock and the regulation of important hormones through consistent light-dark rhythms [22]. These studies have revealed that light has a signicant inuence on health, wellbeing, alertness, and even the quality of sleep that is much greater than was suspected only 25 years ago [23]. Additionally, several recent studies, such as that by Partonen [24], show that bright light exposure improves mood and reduces depressive symptoms among subjects working indoors, particularly in winter for locales with high latitudes. In fact, more and more studies are bolstering the notion that current indoor lighting levels and standards are too low for biological stimulation as well as for most peoples preferences, and that the criteria for good lighting need to be reconsidered [23, 25]. 2.3.2 Useful daylight illuminance range limits

Put simply, achieved UDI is dened as the annual occurrence of illuminances across the work plane that are within a range considered useful by occupants. The range considered useful is based on a survey of reports of occupant preferences and behaviour in daylit oces with user operated shading devices. Daylight illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux are considered eective either as the sole source of illumination or in conjunction with articial lighting. Daylight illuminances in the range 500 to around 2,000 or maybe 2,500 lux are often perceived either as desirable or at least tolerable. Note that these values are based on surveys carried out in non-residential, largely oce buildings where daylight-originated glare on visual display devices is a common problem. Many of these surveys were carried out before LCD display panels - which are much less prone to glare than CRT screens - became commonplace. In contrast to oce buildings, tasks in the domestic setting are not, of course, largely desk and display screen orientated. For these reasons, it is believed reasonable to recommend a higher upper limit for UDI achieved for the residential setting than for the oce environment. Accordingly, the upper limit for preferred/tolerated daylight illuminance used for this study was 2,500 lux. UDI achieved therefore is the dened as the annual occurrence of daylight illuminances 10 of 91

that are between 100 and 2500 lux. The UDI range is further subdivided into two ranges called UDI-supplementary and UDI-autonomous. UDI-supplementary gives the occurrence of daylight illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. For these levels of illuminance, additional articial lighting may be needed to supplement the daylight for common tasks such as reading. UDI-autonomus gives the occurrence of daylight illuminances in the range 500 to 2500 lux where additional articial lighting will most likely not be needed. The UDI scheme is applied by determining at each calculation point the occurrence of daylight levels where: The illuminance is less than 100 lux, i.e. UDI fell-short (or UDI-f). The illuminance is greater than 100 lux and less than 500 lux, i.e. UDI supplementary (or UDI-s). The illuminance is greater than 500 lux and less than 2,500 lux, i.e. UDI autonomous (or UDI-a). The illuminance is greater than 100 lux and less than 2,500 lux, i.e. UDI combined (or UDI-c). The illuminance is greater than 2,500 lux, i.e. UDI exceeded (or UDI-e). As noted, the UDI ranges were based on a distillation of values from surveys carried out in oce spaces, and many of them before LCD screens became commonplace. Also, the recent ndings regarding the role of illumination in maintaining the circadian rhythm suggest that regular exposure to high illuminances during daytime could have long-term benecial health eects [26]. Webb notes a Japanese study by Noguchi who found that: . . . bright lighting in the oce (2500 lux compared to 750 lux, provided for 2 hours in the morning and one hour after lunch for several weeks) boosted alertness and mood, especially in the afternoon. It also seemed to promote melatonin secretion and fall in body temperature at night, changes that should improve the quality of sleep. Although this work was based on a small number of people and further work is needed, it shows promise for alterations in oce lighting in terms of productivity and health of the workers. Thus it is recommended here that the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (i.e. UDI-e) should not, by design, be eliminated altogether, and that moderate occurrence may in fact be benecial. What exactly the optimum levels of exposure might be is not yet known. For those cases where solar gain in summer must be controlled to minimise cooling requirements, careful attention should be paid to the degree of occurrence of the UDI-e metric.

11 of 91

2.3.3

UDI and good daylighting

Whilst there are no ocial guidelines or recommendations yet for illuminance levels predicted using climate-based modelling, there is sucient evidence in the published literature to propose the following: Good daylighting is deemed to be that which oers high levels of useful daylight (i.e. 100 to 2,500 lux), and where a signicant part of the occurrence of useful daylight is due to illuminances that fall within the autonomous range (i.e. 500 to 2,500 lux). Furthermore, recent ndings regarding the benecial health eects of occasional high illuminances (i.e. greater than 2,500 lux) suggest that moderate occurrences of UDI exceeded should de considered desirable and not excluded altogether. Provision of adequate levels daylight illuminance is known to aect the use of electric lighting. For non-domestic buildings a number of studies have found that the switch-on probability is small for desktop illuminances above 250 lux [27, 28]. At present, it is uncertain how these ndings for users in oce buildings might relate to user behaviour in a domestic setting - this is clearly an area where information is lacking at present. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to suppose that similar behaviour will ensue, and so good levels of daylight illuminances are likely to be associated with lower levels of electric lighting usage. Consequently, the following can be reasonably assumed or stated: The switch-on probability will be high for illuminance less than 100 lux (i.e. UDI-e). The switch-on probability will reduce from high to low as the illuminances increase from 100 to 500 lux (i.e. that covered by the UDI-s range). There is signicant variability and associated uncertainty in user switching behaviour over the illuminance range where the probability of switching on reduces from high to low. Thus, there is reasonable certainty that an illuminance in the UDI-a range (i.e. 500 to 2,500 lux) will not result in a switch-on, whereas there is considerable uncertainty regarding the probability of a swicth-on event when the illuminance is in the UDI-s range (i.e. 100 to 500 lux). Accordingly, maximization of the occurrence of the UDI-a metric should be taken as the most reliable indicator that the overall level of electric lighting usage (for that space) will be low.

2.4

Simulation methodology

In principle, climate-based daylight modelling (CBDM) could be carried out using either computer simulation techniques or scale models in a sky simulator (i.e. physical modelling). To date however CBDM has been demonstrated using only computer simulation techniques.1 Computer simulation techniques were used for this study. The basic steps in the evaluation were as follows - for every combination of building orientation and locale:
Sky simulator domes are subject to both fundamental limiting factors such as parallax error [29] and several practical/operational constraints such as lamp stability, incomplete sky coverage and the demonstrated inaccuracy of scale model construction [30].
1

12 of 91

1. Obtain basic climate data from the designated standard meteorological le for that locale. 2. Generate a sky luminance distribution using a sky model based on the value for diuse horizontal illuminance in the climate data. 3. Create a description of the sun (position and luminance) from the value of direct normal illuminance in the climate data. 4. Compute the internal daylight illuminance distribution (repeat steps 2 to 4 for each time-step). 5. Process the illuminance predictions to determine various daylight metrics and generate plots etc. A so called brute-force approach would require a full lighting simulation for each of the four thousand or so unique sky and sun congurations that can be derived from all the daylight hours in the climate dataset. Although a brute-force approach is tractable, the simulation times may prove excessively long. In 1983, Tregenza and Waters described an accelerated approach to predict internal illuminance based on what they called daylight coecients [31]. The daylight coecient approach requires that the sky be broken into many patches. The internal illuminance at a point that results from a patch of unitluminance sky is computed and cached. This is done for each patch of sky. It is then possible, in principle, to determine the internal illuminance for an arbitrary sky luminance distribution (and sun luminance/position) using relatively simple (i.e. quick) arithmetic operations on matrices. The computational expense of a daylight coecient calculation for a sky with N patches is comparable to that for N standard simulations. Provided therefore that the number of patches is less than the number of skies that need to be modelled, the technique has the potential to be computationally more ecient than treating each sky individually. The computational engine that was used to predict the daylight daylight coecients was the freely available Radiance lighting simulation system [32]. The Radiance system is the most rigourously validated lighting simulation program currently available. Radiance has been proven to be capable of high accuracy predictions and it has become a de facto standard for researchers and practitioners world-wide. The basic daylight coecient (DC) scheme described by Tregenza and Waters was implemented into the Radiance lighting simulation system and illuminance tested against the BRE-IDMP validation dataset [33]. That scheme divided the sky into 145 patches and used these to determine the contribution from both the sun and the sky. The basic DC scheme produced large errors whenever there was a signicant divergence between the actually occurring sun position and the nearest pre-computed DC patch value. The basic DC scheme was improved and a rened formulation was devised which gave accuracies comparable the best that could achieved using the standard Radiance calculation method, i.e. typically within 10% of measurements from the BRE-IDMP validation dataset [5, 34]. The rened DC method computes separate coecients for the direct and diuse components from the 145 patches on the hemisphere. A schematic is shown in Figure 1. Additionally, the direct sun component is determined from a nely discretised set of 5000 patches on the hemisphere. This ensures that the important direct sun component is precisely determined. This also allows a time-step shorter than one hour to be used without 13 of 91

loss of precision. Preparatory tests showed that the hourly time-step of the climate data needs to be reduced using suitable interpolation methods to minimise alias-like sampling errors in the prediction of the degree (magnitude and occurrence) and spatial distribution of direct solar illumination. The prediction of this component needs to be both reliable and consistent so as not to confound the metrics since they are particularly sensitive to the degree and occurrence of direct solar illumination. Interpolation of the climate data to a 15 minute time-step was found to be sucient to nely resolve the progression of the sun thereby reducing sampling errors to a minimum. Internal daylight lluminances therefore were predicted at 15 minute intervals. The sky model mixing function described in Mardaljevic [35] was used to determine the varying sky luminance patterns at each time-step. Eight building orientations were evaluated covering the 360 compass range in steps of 45 . Note that Radiance was used in its standard backwards ray-tracing mode. The skylights for building B had a moderately deep shaft, however the sides had a diuse nish and the light transfer through the skylight shaft can be accurately modelling using standard backwards ray-tracing. The forward ray-tracing add-on Pmap would be required to model specular nish and/or very long shafts or light-pipes.

145 patches distributed across the hemisphere

Figure 1: Daylight coecient 145 patch scheme

2.5

The climate data

The principal sources of basic data for climate-based daylight modelling are the standard climate les which were originally created for use by dynamic thermal modelling programs [36]. These datasets contain averaged hourly values for a full year, i.e. 8,760 values for each parameter. For lighting simulation, the required parameters may be either of the following pairs:

14 of 91

 Global horizontal irradiance and either diuse horizontal irradiance or direct normal irradiance. Global horizontal illuminance and either diuse horizontal illuminance or direct normal illuminance. Standard climate data for a large number of locales across the world are freely available for download from several websites. One of the most comprehensive repositories is that compiled for use with the EnergyPlus thermal simulation program [37]. Climate data for the six locales used in this study were sourced from the EnergyPlus website2 . The EnergyPlus weather data les are derived from 16 sources. They have all undergone validation procedures with varying degrees of rigour. Comprehensive documentation (e.g. denitions, format, etc.) is also available for download from the EnergyPlus website. The six locales were Toronto (Canada), Munich (Germany), Nice (France), Finningley (UK), Los Angeles (USA) and Seattle (USA). The lat/lon coordinates of each city/station and the short name ID given for this study are listed in Table 1. The climate le data used for the simulations was diuse horizontal illuminance and direct normal illuminance. The pattern of hourly values in a climate dataset is unique and, because of the random nature of weather, it will never be repeated in precisely that way. Climate datasets are however representative of the prevailing conditions measured at the site, and they do exhibit much of the full range in variation that typically occurs. Furthermore, these standard datasets provide denitive yardstick quantities for modelling purposes. The last column in Table 1 gives the number of sunny for each of the climate les. There is no widely accepted denitive denition for the occurrence of a sunny day in a climate le. Here, a sunny day was taken to be one where more than half of the daily total of global horizontal illuminance was due to direct solar radiation. This quantity varied from 39 days (Finningley) to 221 (Los Angeles) and appears to serve as a sensitive discriminator to summarize the overall degree of sunnyness for the climates. The results for one locale will be applicable to nearby places with similar climates. For example, the Finningley (UK) dataset should be applicable to much of central and northern England. However, care should be taken in extrapolating results where it is known that there are signicant gradients in the prevailing meteorology over relatively short spatial scales, as can often be the case for coastal zones and those locales near to, say, mountain ranges. Further, more exhaustive, sensitivity testing would delineate the limits of extrapolation of results from one locale to another. The climate le illuminance data interpolated to a 15 minute time-step is shown in Figures 2 to 7. Interpolated values of diuse horizontal illuminance and direct normal illuminance over a period of a full year are shown as (tiny) shaded rectangles arranged in a 365 (i.e. days of the year) by 96 (i.e. 24 hours in 15 minute steps) matrix. The diuse horizontal illuminance is the visible energy (i.e. light) from the sky that is incident on an unobstructed horizontal surface. The direct normal illuminance is the visible energy from the sun and circumsolar region incident on a surface that is normal to the direction of the sun. Local time is shown, i.e. summertime is local time plus one hour. The start and end period of summertime varies slightly from year to year and between locations. For consistency, the start and end dates were the same for each locale: day numbers 85 and 301 respectively. These days are indicated by vertical dashed lines in each of the gures. The hours of the day over which daylight availability was assessed was taken to be the
2

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather data.cfm

15 of 91

period 08h00 tp 20h00. These times are indicated in the gures by horizontal dashed lines. The shading in Figures 2 to 7 represents the magnitude of the illuminance with zero values shaded light-gray. Presented in this way it is easy to appreciate both the prevailing patterns in either quantity and their short-term variability. Most obvious is the daily/seasonal pattern for both illuminances: short periods of daylight in the winter months, longer in summer. The hour-by-hour variation in the direct normal illuminance (smoothed by interpolation to a 15 minute step) is clearly visible, though it is also present to a lesser degree in the diuse horizontal illuminance (i.e. from the sky). Of course, both diuse and direct illuminances will, in reality, vary over periods shorter than an hour. Interpolation of the dataset to a time-step shorter than one hour will provide a smoother traversal of the sun, and so reduce the potential for alias-like artefacts in the realisation of the directly illuminated surfaces in the simulation. Interpolation alone however will not introduce short-term variability into the values for diuse horizontal and direct normal illuminance. This variability would have to be synthesised using stochastic models [38]. This however is only to be recommended for detailed investigation of behavioural models and so was not considered appropriate for this study. ID CAN Toro DEU Muni FRA Nice GBR Finn USA LosA USA Seat City/ Station Toronto Munich Nice Finningley Los Angeles Seattle Country Canada Germany France UK USA USA Latitude 43.67 48.13 43.65 53.48 33.93 47.45 Longitude 79.63 -11.70 -7.20 1.00 118.40 122.30 Sunny days 138 78 182 39 221 109

Table 1: The six climate les used in the study

16 of 91

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

CAN_Toro

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

17 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 2: Climate le illuminance data for Toronto, Canada (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

DEU_Muni

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

18 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 3: Climate le illuminance data for Munich, Germany (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

FRA_Nice

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

19 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 4: Climate le illuminance data for Nice, France (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

GBR_Finn

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

20 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 5: Climate le illuminance data for Finningley, UK (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

USA_LosA

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

21 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 6: Climate le illuminance data for Los Angeles, USA (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

Diffuse Horizontal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

USA_Seat

lux
80000 60000

Direct Normal Illuminance

24 20 16 Hour 12 8 4

40000 20000 0

22 of 91

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 7: Climate le illuminance data for Seattle, USA (interpolated to 15 minute time-step).

2.6

The building models

The 3D building geometry for the simulations was provided by VELUX already in Radiance format. Daylight provision for a total of ten variants of two building types was evaluated. Residential building type A had three window variants: A1, A2 and A3, indicating no skylights, two skylights and two pairs of three skylights, respectively. Residential building type B had two window variants: B1 and B2, indicating no skylights and four skylights, respectively. Views from above of each of the ve building types is shown in Figure 8 with superposed images of the workplane areas. For both building types, the illumination across two distinct workplane areas wp1 and wp2 was evaluated - these are shaded red and blue in Figure 8. Horizontal illumination at a height of 0.7 m above the oor was predicted for the two workplane areas, though the workplanes themselves were not modelled as actual objects. It should be noted that, for building B, workplane 2 has no skylight above it for any of the situations. Internal surfaces were assigned diuse reectance values typical of ceiling, walls and oor, i.e. 0.70, 0.55 and 0.25 respectively. All windows were modelled as clear double-pane 6mm low-emissivity with a transmittance of 0.74. Three views of each of the ten building congurations (i.e. ve building types each without and with obstructions) are given in Figures 9 to 13. The external obstructions were ovoid shapes intended to represent trees. These were given a reectance of 0.20 and should be considered as providing only light to moderate obstruction. In addition to the trees, there was a cylindrical wall which represented the obstruction to the horizon that would be expected in any typical housing development.

23 of 91

1000

A1_u wp2
Jul Aug

A2_u wp2

A3_u

100

wp2
10

wp1

wp1

wp1

B1_u

wp2
Dec

B2_u

wp2

North

Nov

wp1

wp1

Figure 8: Workplane areas superposed with the various window congurations

24 of 91

A1_u

A1_o

Figure 9: Three views of building A1 without (A1 u) and with (A1 o) external tree obstructions

25 of 91

A2_u

A2_o

Figure 10: Three views of building A2 without (A2 u) and with (A2 o) external tree obstructions

26 of 91

A3_u

A3_o

Figure 11: Three views of building A3 without (A3 u) and with (A3 o) external tree obstructions

27 of 91

B1_u

B1_o

Figure 12: Three views of building B1 without (B1 u) and with (B1 o) external tree obstructions

28 of 91

B2_u

B2_o

Figure 13: Three views of building B2 without (B2 u) and with (B2 o) external tree obstructions

29 of 91

2.7

Parametric scheme

The daylighting performance was evaluated for all 480 unique combinations of building type (x5), obstruction (x2), climate (x6) and orientation (x8). A schematic showing the various parameters is given in Figure 14.

Ten building types

_u unobstructed

_o obstructed A1 A2 A3 B1 B2

X
Six climates

X
Eight orientations

=
480 combinations
Figure 14: Parametric scheme

30 of 91

2.8

Generation of basic illuminance data

The following values were predicted for every calculation point at each 15 minute timestep and for each of the 480 permutations of building type (x5), obstruction (x2), climate (x6) and orientation (x8): Direct sun illuminance - light that arrives at the calculation point directly from the sun. Indirect sun illuminance - light from the sun that arrives at the calculation point following one or more reections (internal and/or external). Direct sky illuminance - light that arrives at the calculation point directly from the sky vault. Indirect sky illuminance - light from the sky that arrives at the calculation point following one or more reections (internal and/or external). Note the daylight coecient scheme was devised to predict daylight illuminance as four separate components. For this study however, total daylight illuminance (i.e. the sum of the four components) was the main quantity of interest. A total of approximately 140 Gb of illuminance data were generated from the pre-computed daylight coecients. Rather than store this considerable volume of data, the illuminance data were generated on-the-y from the daylight coecients and the plots, summary metrics etc. produced from the temporarily stored illuminance data. The generation of illuminance data (from pre-computed DCs) and the production of plots etc. takes approximately 35 hours for all 480 combinations of building, climate and orientation. This timing was for use of both processors (100% utilization) on a twin-G5 (2.5 GHz, 4 Gb RAM) Mac Pro (UNIX) workstation.

2.9

Standard daylight factor evaluation and comparison with the DC computation

In addition to the climate-based analyses described above, the workplane daylight factor for each of the ten window and conguration types was predicted using standard CIE overcast sky conditions [3]. Computationally, the prediction of the daylight coecients for one building type is 145 times more demanding than a daylight factor computation (for the DC scheme devised by the author). The simulation time for the daylight factor computation was of the order of a few minutes, with a DC computation requiring 145 times the computational eort, i.e. a number of hours. Note however that, for this study, each set of DCs were used to derive approximately 768,000 illuminance values (for every point on the workplane), i.e. 4,000 (hrs) x 4 (15 min time-step) x 8 (orientations) x 6 (climates). With an ecient workow established, the preparation for the DC simulation is not much greater than that required for a DF simulation. For example, the following tasks need to be carried out for both types of simulation: the Radiance model must be checked-over, viewpoints established, workplanes identied, testing of the ambient parameters to ensure reliable convergence and low variance, etc. As noted in the previous section, with a parametric climate-based evaluation, the larger part of the user eort is with the post-processing and reduction of the voluminous generated illuminance data. 31 of 91

3
3.1

Results: Graphical Data

Workplane plots: Distribution in UDI and cumulative illumination

The illuminance prediction data were processed to generate plots showing the distribution across the workplane using false-colour for the following quantities: Useful daylight illuminance - combined (100 to 2500 lux), supplementary (100 to 500 lux), autonomous (500 to 2500 lux), fell-short (<100 lux) and exceeded (>2500 lux). Cumulative annual illuminance - total illuminance (i.e. sum of the four components) and plots for the individual components (units in klux hrs). Cumulative monthly illuminance - total illuminance for each of the twelve months (units in klux hrs). Monthly direct sun illuminance - direct sun illuminance for each of the twelve months (units in klux hrs). Each of the above four items constitutes a single page plot. Thus a total of 1920 (i.e. 4 x 480) plots were generated to show these various values for all combinations of building, obstruction, orientation and climate. Those plots are supplied as four individual PDF les which accompany this report. Example workplane plots are shown below: Figures 15 to 18. 3.1.1 UDI plots

The UDI plots (example: Figure 15) are annotated with the mean and median values for which each metric is achieved over the individual workplanes. For example, the mean value across workplane 1 for combined UDI was 3,201 hrs, and the median value was 3,237 hrs. The closeness of the mean and median values indicates a near equal propensity for low and high values about the mean. When the mean is markedly greater than the median, this tends to indicate the presence of a localized hotspot of high values. This can be seen on workplane 2 for the UDI-exceeded metric where there is a localized high occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (top left hand corner of wp2). This is the cause of the localized coldspot for the UDI-combined metric. Note also that, when the median is markedly greater than the mean, this tends to indicate the presence of a localized coldspot of low values as was the case for the UDI-combined metric on wp2. The mean value is the most readily understood. However for this application where there are occasional hot or cold spots (but rarely both), the median is perhaps a more typical value. A compass icon (arrow pointing North) is used on all this series of plots to indicate the absolute orientation of the building, i.e. the rotation from the default orientation (see Figure 8). 3.1.2 Cumulative annual plots

The cumulative annual plots (example: Figure 16) are annotated in a similar fashion to the UDI plots: the mean and median exposure on each workplane (in units of lux hrs) is 32 of 91

given for the total illumination and the four components of illumination. The signicance or otherwise of dierences between the mean and median values is, in principle, the same as described above for the UDI metrics. Note that a logarithmic false-colour scale is used to show the large range in daylight exposures for the total daylight and the four components. The scale ranges from 50 klux hrs to 50,000 klux hrs. Zero values (which generally occur only for the direct sun component) are shaded black. Following the example UDI plot for the same case (Figure 15), the pattern in UDIexceed on wp2 is clearly due to the high levels of direct sun exposure supplemented by smaller - but still signicant - direct sky illumination. Note that, for this case, the prevailing levels of indirect illumination from the sun are comparable to the levels of indirect illumination from the sky. 3.1.3 Cumulative monthly plots - total and direct sun

The cumulative monthly plots (example: Figures 17 and 18). The monthly plots are given for illustrative purposes. Their purpose is to disclose the annual dynamic in daylight exposure. An example plot for total illumination is given in Figure 17, and one for direct sun illumination is shown in Figure 18. Logarithmic scales are used again only now the range is from 10 klux hrs to 10,000 klux hrs. 3.1.4 A note on viewing the plots

The data generated for this parametric study is vast and not easy to assimilate. Furthermore, in this early, exploratory stage of using climate-based daylight metrics, eective means to reduce the data are only just emerging. The various plots presented in these reports were devised specically for this study to disclose as much information as possible visually. They are the result of much experimentation and selection, however it is readily acknowledged that they are open to further renement as end-user requirements for the outcomes of climate-based daylight studies becomes more dened. The plots in this report are intended primarily for on-screen viewing. A screen 20 inches (50 cm) or larger is preferable. It is recommended that the report PDFs are opened directly in Acrobat Reader and viewed in full-screen mode (i.e. control-L on a PC or command-L on a Mac). In particular, the order of presentation of the plots for the various cases has been carefully determined so that (in full-screen mode) the reader can easily see the changes that result in, say, changing from the A1 u to the A2 u building variants. Almost all of the plots are printed in landscape orientation to make best use of the aspect ratio of the screen (Acrobat Reader will adjust automatically between portrait and landscape orientation during viewing). This arrangement also lends itself to direct presentation of the report PDFs using data projects. The section, gure, table and reference numbers are enabled as hypertext links: a click takes you to the linked item anywhere in the document. The back button in Acrobat Reader (alt-left-arrow on a PC, command-left-arrow on a Mac) will return you the last page.

33 of 91

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

UDI: 100 < E < 2500 lux
14 3227 / 3460 [hrs] 12
3000

UDI supp: 100 < E < 500 lux

1026 / 937 [hrs]

UDI auto: 500 < E < 2500 lux

2201 / 2285 [hrs]

hrs
4000

10

2000

1000

1580 / 1658 [hrs]

1621 / 1670 [hrs]

253 / 220 [hrs] 0

440 / 122 [hrs]

2 2

3201 / 3237 [hrs] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

567 / 504 [hrs]

152 / 85 [hrs]

UDI fell-short: E < 100 lux

UDI exceeded: E > 2500 lux

34 of 91

Mean / median North arrow

Figure 15: Workplane UDI plots

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

Total annual illumination [lux hrs]
14

Logarithmic scale
Direct sky comp of TAI
2572 / 1679 [klux hrs]

Indirect sky comp of TAI

1085 / 1107 [klux hrs]

7637 / 5065 [klux hrs] 12

10000

klux hrs

10
1000 1083 / 786 [klux hrs] 661 / 657 [klux hrs]

8
100

1029 / 1038 [klux hrs]

2951 / 1440 [klux hrs]

Zero values shaded black

2 2

3972 / 3032 [klux hrs] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

698 / 687 [klux hrs]

1530 / 782 [klux hrs]

Indirect sun comp of TAI

Direct sun comp of TAI

35 of 91

Mean / median

Figure 16: Workplane cumulative annual illuminance plots

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

Jan Feb Mar Apr

Logarithmic scale
klux hrs
10000

1000

100

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
10

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

36 of 91

Monthly total illumination [klux hrs]

Figure 17: Workplane cumulative monthly illuminance plots

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

Jan Feb Mar Apr

Logarithmic scale
klux hrs
10000

1000

100

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
10

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Monthly direct sun illumination [klux hrs]

Figure 18: Workplane cumulative direct sun illuminance plots

Zero values shaded black

37 of 91

3.2

Plots of UDI metrics based on mean and median values

The plots in this section are graphical presentations of some or all of the ve UDI summary metrics. 3.2.1 Polar plots

This series of plots (example: Figure 19) show the sensitivity of the mean and median of the ve UDI metrics with respect to building orientation. Individual plots for each workplane are shown alongside each other on the same page. A beaded line-style is used for the median value. The number of hours for each value is given by the radial distance from the centre. A series of concentric circles at 500 hour intervals are shown also. Displayed in this intuitive, compass arrangement the sensitivity to building orientation is readily apparent. Note that UDI-combined is relatively insensitive to building orientation. This is because UDI-c can be achieved by illuminances down to 100 lux. Often these illuminances result from overcast skies which, of course, have a luminance distribution that is symmetric with respect to rotation about the zenith axis. In contrast, the UDI-autonomous and UDI-supplementary metrics disclose the orientation-dependant contribution of illuminance from the sun. 3.2.2 Individual cases across all climate and orientations

This series of plots (example: Figure 20) show the ve UDI metrics as mean (or median) values for daylight exposure across the workplane for each building variant in turn. Four of the UDI metrics are plotted as bars: UDI-fell-short; UDI-supplementary; UDIautonomous and UDI-exceeded. UDI-combined is plotted as an x symbol. For the mean value, UDI-combined is the sum of UDI-supplementary and UDI-autonomous which are shown as stacked bars, i.e. the combined magnitude is equivalent to UDI-combined and so the plot mark appears at the top of the stacked bars. However, there is no similar relation for the median value and the plot mark for UDI-combined may appear above or below the top of the stacked bars. The eight orientations for each climate are shown alongside each other running from 0 to 315 . Alternate orientations are shaded with a grey background for clarity and there is a small gap between climates. The bar for UDI-autonomous is plotted at the bottom with the value for UDI-supplementary on top. This is to give a xed baseline so that changes in UDI-autonomous can be more readily appreciated, since for a given UDI-combined, it is generally preferable to have the greater part made of the higher illuminances in the UDI-autonomous range (i.e. 500 to 2,500 lux). An overview of the sensitivity of UDI metrics to climate and orientation is readily apparent from these plots. Also, from the series of these plots in the accompanying report, the sensitivity in all of these metrics from one building variant to the next is likewise readily disclosed.

38 of 91

3.2.3

Change in UDI plots

This series of plots (example: Figure 21) show the dierence in the UDI metrics that results from a change in the window conguration for either of the building types. Plots for the following changes in window and building conguration were produced: A1 u to A2 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 1 skylights). A2 u to A3 u (i.e. no 2 x 1 skylights to 2 x 3 skylights). A1 u to A3 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights). B1 u to B2 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 2 skylights). A1 o to A2 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 1 skylights for obstructed case). A1 o to A3 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights for obstructed case). A2 u to A3 u (i.e. no 2 x 1 skylights to 2 x 3 skylights for obstructed case). B1 o to B2 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 2 skylights for obstructed case). Additionally, the following change in UDI plots were generated to quantify the eect of introducing obstruction for each particular building conguration. A1 u to A1 o (i.e. unobstructed to obstructed). A2 u to A2 o (i.e. unobstructed to obstructed). A3 u to A3 o (i.e. unobstructed to obstructed). B1 u to B1 o (i.e. unobstructed to obstructed). B2 u to B2 o (i.e. unobstructed to obstructed). 3.2.4 Summary

The polar, individual case and change in UDI metric plots are presented in an accompanying PDF to this report.

39 of 91

A2_u FRA_Nice
UDI Metrics [hrs]
Workplane 1
N

Example polar plots

Workplane 2
N

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 500

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

Fell-short <100lux

S
UDI-supp 100-500 lux UDI-auto 500-2500lux UDI-comb 100-2500lux Exceeded > 2500lux Mean Median

40 of 91

Figure 19: Polar plot showing sensitivity of UDI metrics to building orientation

Workplane: wp1 Case: A2_u Mean

CAN_Toro DEU_Muni FRA_Nice

UDI-a and UDI-s values 'stacked' [sum = UDI-c for mean only]
GBR_Finn USA_LosA USA_Seat

4000

3000

N [hrs]

2000

1000

000

090

180

270

000

090

180

270

000

090

180

270

000

090

180

270

000

090

180

270

000

090

180

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux

UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Figure 20: Individual cases across all climate and orientations

270

41 of 91

Workplane: wp1 Case: A1_o to A2_o Mean

CAN_Toro DEU_Muni FRA_Nice

+ve means greater value after change -ve means smaller value after change
GBR_Finn USA_LosA USA_Seat

2000

1500

1000

+ve
N [hrs]
500

-500

-ve
000 090 180 270 000 090 180 270 000 090 180 270 000 090 180 270 000 090 180 270 000 090 180

-1000

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux

UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Figure 21: Dierence in metrics resulting from a change of the building type

270

42 of 91

3.3

Overall graphical summary of change in UDI metrics

These four plots (Figure 22 to Figure 25) present an overview of the change in the UDI metrics as a percentage of the occupied year for the following change in window congurations: A1 u to A2 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 1 skylights). A2 u to A3 u (i.e. no 2 x 1 skylights to 2 x 3 skylights). A1 u to A3 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights). B1 u to B2 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 2 skylights). A1 o to A2 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 1 skylights for obstructed case). A1 o to A3 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights for obstructed case). A2 u to A3 u (i.e. no 2 x 1 skylights to 2 x 3 skylights for obstructed case). B1 o to B2 o (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 2 skylights for obstructed case). The change in the mean and median values for the UDI metrics are shown for all 48 combinations of climate and orientation. A triangle down symbol ( ) is used for the mean values and a triangle up symbol ( ) for the median values. Additionally, the average of the 48 mean and the average of the 48 median values is shown using the respective symbol oversized with a vertical line above (for the mean) or below (for the median) forming an arrow symbol. These plots present a synoptic overview of the most signicant features in the data, i.e. the change in daylighting performance due to the addition of skylights. Note the large scatter in the data, particularly for the the key UDI-a metric (i.e. occurrences of illuminance in the range 500 to 2,500 lux). For example, the change from A1 u to A3 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights) produces, for workplane 1, an overall mean increase in the median values of approximately 33% (Figure 22). However, the range of the change goes from approximately 19% to 47%. The standard deviation associated with these values was 6%. Note the numerical data giving the overall mean values (i.e. the arrow symbols used in the gures) together with the associated standard deviation, which is a measure of the dispersion or scatter in the values, are listed in Table 14 to Table 17. More than any other set, these four plots show how sensitive is the change in UDI metrics to climate and orientation. This observation further demonstrates the sensitivity of UDI metrics to building conguration.

43 of 91

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Mean values Median values

A1_u_to_A2_u

A2_u_to_A3_u

A1_u_to_A3_u

B1_u_to_B2_u

44 of 91

-20

-10

0 10 20 30 Change in UDI metrics as a % of the occupied year - wp1

40

50

Figure 22: Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp1 Cases: unobstructed

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Mean values Median values

A1_u_to_A2_u

A2_u_to_A3_u

A1_u_to_A3_u

B1_u_to_B2_u

45 of 91

-20

-10

0 10 20 30 Change in UDI metrics as a % of the occupied year - wp2

40

50

Figure 23: Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp2 Cases: unobstructed

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Mean values Median values

A1_o_to_A2_o

A2_o_to_A3_o

A1_o_to_A3_o

B1_o_to_B2_o

46 of 91

-20

-10

0 10 20 30 Change in UDI metrics as a % of the occupied year - wp1

40

50

Figure 24: Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp1 Cases: obstructed

Fell-short <100lux

UDI-supp 100-500 lux

UDI-auto 500-2500lux UDI-comb 100-2500lux

Exceeded > 2500lux

Mean values Median values

A1_o_to_A2_o

A2_o_to_A3_o

A1_o_to_A3_o

B1_o_to_B2_o

47 of 91

-20

-10

0 10 20 30 Change in UDI metrics as a % of the occupied year - wp2

40

50

Figure 25: Change in UDI metrics - Workplane: wp2 Cases: obstructed

3.4

Daylight factor plots

The last plots for this section are those showing the daylight factor predicted under standard CIE overcast sky conditions [3]. The same simulation engine used for the climate-based predictions (i.e. Radiance) was used to generate the daylight factor values. As with the plots of cumulative annual and monthly illumination, a logarithmic falsecolour scale is used, Figure 26 to Figure 35. The plots are annotated as before with the mean and median daylight factor values across each respective workplane. The character of the daylight factor plots is markedly dierent from those for the all the UDI metrics except perhaps for UDI exceeded. This is to be expected since both DF and UDI-e simply scale with increasing levels of illumination, the only dierence being that UDI-e scales from a threshold value of 2,500 lux. A illustration of the dierence in the fundamental form of a UDI distribution compared to a DF distribution for the same building is given in Figure 36. It is evident from the shading that the highest DF values are invariably regions where UDI-c is lowest (i.e. negative correlation). Although there are regions showing positive correlation (indicated on Figure 36) they can be closely positioned to regions showing the opposite. Recall also the large scatter in measures of UDI achieved, in particular the UDI-a metric (Figure 20). The magnitude and form of the UDI metrics varies greatly across climates and orientations for any one building type, where, of course, the DF distribution will be unchanging. Thus it seems that there is no potential for the DF to serve in any way as a proxy for any of the UDI achieved metrics (i.e. UDI-s, UDI-a or UDI-c). Note also the marked dierence between the wp1 and wp2 daylight factors for both the mean and median values (A building).

48 of 91

A1_u
Daylight factor [%]
14 3.4 / 2.2 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

1.4 / 0.9 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

49 of 91 Figure 26: Daylight factor - building: A1 u

A2_u
Daylight factor [%]
14 4.2 / 3.5 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

1.7 / 1.4 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

50 of 91 Figure 27: Daylight factor - building: A2 u

A3_u
Daylight factor [%]
14 5.8 / 5.5 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

3.2 / 2.9 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

51 of 91 Figure 28: Daylight factor - building: A3 u

A1_o
Daylight factor [%]
14 3.3 / 2.1 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

1.3 / 0.8 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

52 of 91 Figure 29: Daylight factor - building: A1 o

A2_o
Daylight factor [%]
14 3.9 / 3.2 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

1.6 / 1.3 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

53 of 91 Figure 30: Daylight factor - building: A2 o

A3_o
Daylight factor [%]
14 5.7 / 5.5 [%] 12
10.0

DF [%]

10
1.0

8
0.1

2 2

3.1 / 2.8 [%] 4 6 [m] 8 10 12

54 of 91 Figure 31: Daylight factor - building: A3 o

B1_u
Daylight factor [%]
16 3.4 / 1.5 [%]
10.0

DF [%]

14

1.0

12

10

0.1

6 2.0 / 0.8 [%] 6 8 10 12 [m] 14 16 18

55 of 91 Figure 32: Daylight factor - building: B1 u

B2_u
Daylight factor [%]
16 3.4 / 1.5 [%]
10.0

DF [%]

14

1.0

12

10

0.1

6 2.5 / 1.7 [%] 6 8 10 12 [m] 14 16 18

56 of 91 Figure 33: Daylight factor - building: B2 u

B1_o
Daylight factor [%]
16 3.4 / 1.5 [%]
10.0

DF [%]

14

1.0

12

10

0.1

6 2.0 / 0.8 [%] 6 8 10 12 [m] 14 16 18

57 of 91 Figure 34: Daylight factor - building: B1 o

B2_o
Daylight factor [%]
16 3.4 / 1.5 [%]
10.0

DF [%]

14

1.0

12

10

0.1

6 2.5 / 1.7 [%] 6 8 10 12 [m] 14 16 18

58 of 91 Figure 35: Daylight factor - building: B2 o

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

UDI: 100 < E < 2500 lux
14

A2_u 135 FRA_Nice

A2_u 270 USA_Seat

A2_u
UDI supp: 100 Daylight factor [%] < E < 500 lux 14
1026 / 937 [hrs]

UDI auto: 500 < E < 2500 lux

2201 / 2285 [hrs]

3227 / 3460 [hrs] 12

hrs
4000

-ve correlation

4.2 / 3.5 [%]

10.0

DF [%]

12
3000

10

2000

10
1.0 1580 / 1658 [hrs] 1621 / 1670 [hrs]

1000

8
253 / 220 [hrs] 440 / 122 [hrs] 0.1

-ve correlation
0

2 2

3201 / 3237 [hrs] 4 6 [m] 8 10

+ve correlation
2 12

567 / 504 [hrs]

1.7 / 1.4 [%] 8

152 / 85 [hrs]

2 UDI fell-short: E < 100 lux 4 6 [m]

10 UDI exceeded: E12 2500 lux >

59 of 91

Figure 27: Daylight factor - building: A Figure 36: Comparison of UDI-c with DF for case A2 u, orientation 135, climate FRA Nice

41 of 78

Results: Tabular Data

The tabular data further reduces the data shown in the plots by taking the mean value of various sets of UDI metrics in an attempt to summarize the overall performance of the building types and the performance changes in moving from one type to another, e.g. from A1 u to A2 u. In addition to the mean, a value for the standard deviation (labelled StDev) is also given. The standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion in the values that were used to calculate the mean. The tables present UDI metrics averaged across all 48 climates and orientations. This data reduction attempts to give a typical value for: The daylighting performance of each of the ten building congurations. The change in daylighting performance for any of eleven comparisons listed in Section 3.2.3. The UDI metrics, of course, are dependant on climate and orientation. So these metrics must be treated as approximate estimators of either the absolute or the change in daylighting performance - recall the scatter in the values shown in Figure 22 to Figure 25. As noted, the standard deviation gives a measure of how much variation there was in the values that were averaged to give a mean. The greater the standard deviation the more uncertain the estimate of the mean (i.e. typical) value for the daylighting performance metrics. The four groups are: Group 1 - UDI metrics as number of hours occurred throughout the occupied period for each individual window and building conguration (Section 4.1). Group 2 - UDI metrics as a percentage of the occupied period for each individual window and building conguration (Section 4.2). Group 3 - Change in UDI metrics (number of hours occurred throughout the occupied period) in switching from one window/building conguration to another (Section 4.3). Group 4 - Change in UDI metrics (as a percentage of the occupied period) in switching from one window/building conguration to another (Section 4.4).

4.1

Group 1: UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations

The rst group of four tables (Table 2 to Table 5) show occurrence of the ve UDI metrics averaged across all 48 climates and orientations for each building type in turn: Workplane 1, mean values (Table 2). Workplane 1, median values (Table 3). Workplane 2, mean values (Table 4). Workplane 2, median values (Table 5).

60 of 91

For illustration, consider the UDI metrics (mean values) for wp1 (Table 2) for buildings A1 u, A2 u and A3 u. The mean (i.e. average) value of the occurrence of UDI-a (across all climates and orientations) was 816, 1132 and 1903 hours for buildings A1 u, A2 u and A3 u, respectively. The corresponding standard deviation values were 348, 418 and 301, indicating signicant scatter about the mean. Nonetheless, the data shows signicant increase in the occurrence of UDI-a in going from building A1 u to A2 u to A3 u. Note also the decrease in UDI-f: 860, 676 and 353 (for A1 u, A2 u and A3 u respectively). UDI-c varies by a few hundred hours, and the corresponding values for UDI-s show that the major shift in UDI metrics is a displacement of occurrences from UDI-s to the more preferable UDI-a range. This trend is even greater when the median values for the UDI metrics are considered (Table 3).

4.2

Group 2: UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations

The second group shows the same data as the rst group normalised to the percentage of the occupied year, i.e. the hours occurrence values divided by 4380. Percentage values are rounded to the nearest whole number, Table 6 to Table 9). Repeating the illustration given above, the occurrence of UDI-a (across all climates and orientations) was 19, 26 and 43% of the occupied year for buildings A1 u, A2 u and A3 u, respectively. The corresponding standard deviation values were 8, 10 and 7%. The decrease in the UDI-f metrics: from 20% (A1 u), 15% (A2 u) to 8% (A3 u). As noted above, the trend is even greater when the median values for the UDI metrics are considered (Table 7). The tables giving the data as a percentage of the occupied year are perhaps a more easily appreciable indicator of overall performance than those showing the number of hours. Tables showing both the number of hours and the percentage of the occupied year are given, however it is recommended that, for communication purposes, comparisons are made using the latter. Changes in daylighting performance are more readily apparent in the tables that follow.

4.3

Group 3: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations

This group of four tables show the changes in daylighting performance for the eleven cases noted in Section 3.2.3. The data are presented in Table 10 to Table 13. A negative value indicates a decrease in that metric in changing from, say, window conguration A1 u to A2 u. The rst two tables show the changes based on the mean and median values for wp1, the following pair show the same for wp2.

4.4

Group 4: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations

The fourth group shows the same data as the third group normalised to the percentage of the occupied year (Table 14 to Table 17). This group are perhaps the best to indicate overall changes performance in daylighting performance between the eleven combinations of window and conguration type considered.

61 of 91

4.5

Summary: Salient features in the data

The discussion here is based mainly on the data presented in Table 14 to Table 17 (Section 4.4). 4.5.1 A1 u to A2 u (Workplane 1)

For this unobstructed case, the addition of a single skylight (i.e. A1 u to A2 u) results in the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 14 and Table 15): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -4% (mean values) and -7% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -3% (mean values) and -5% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 7% (mean values) and 12% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. 4% (mean values) and 7% (median values). No change in UDI-e, i.e. 0% and 0%. Thus, using the more typical median values, the addition of a single skylight results in a 12% (of the occupied year) increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux. This is accompanied with a 7% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux, and a 5% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. There is no change in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux. As noted, these values are the average (or mean) change across all climates and orientations. Thus the change for some climate and orientation combinations will be greater and for others it will be smaller - this applies to all the data in the tables. 4.5.2 A2 u to A3 u (Workplane 1)

Continuing with this unobstructed case, the addition of two further skylights (i.e. A2 u to A3 u) results in the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 14 and Table 15): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -7% (mean values) and -7% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -13% (mean values) and -15% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 18% (mean values) and 21% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. 5% (mean values) and 4% (median values). An increase in UDI-e, i.e. 3% (mean values) and 1% (median values). Using again the more typical median values, the addition of a two further skylights results in a 21% (of the occupied year) increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux. This is accompanied with a 7% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux, and a 15% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. There is now an increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux of 1%. Note that, the increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (i.e. UDI-e) is 3% based on the mean values and only 1% based on the median values. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a mean value markedly greater than the median is indicative of the presence of a localized hotspot (see Section 3.1.1)3 .
Or in this case, the averaged eect of multiple hotspots, i.e. for all 48 combinations of climate and orientation
3

62 of 91

4.5.3

A1 u to A3 u (Workplane 1)

Rounding o the evaluation for this unobstructed case, this comparison determines the change resulting from the addition of three skylights where none were present before (i.e. A1 u to A3 u). This produced the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 14 and Table 15): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -12% (mean values) and -14% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -16% (mean values) and -20% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 25% (mean values) and 33% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. 9% (mean values) and 11% (median values). An increase in UDI-e, i.e. 3% (mean values) and 1% (median values). As expected, the greatest changes so far are for this case. Using the median values, the addition of three skylights (where none were present before) results in a 33% increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux. This is accompanied with a 14% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux, and a 20% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. The increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux was the same as for case A2 u to A3 u, i.e. 3% based on the mean values and only 1% based on the median values. 4.5.4 B1 u to B2 u (Workplane 1)

For this unobstructed building type, the addition of two pairs of skylights (i.e. B1 u to B2 u) results in the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 14 and Table 15): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -12% (mean values) and -13% (median values). An increase in UDI-s, i.e. 2% (mean values) and 1% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 9% (mean values) and 21% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. 11% (mean values) and 14% (median values). No change in UDI-e, i.e. 0% and 0%. Continuing the use of the more typical median values, the addition of two pairs of skylights for this building type results in a 21% (of the occupied year) increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux. This is accompanied with a 13% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux, and a 1% increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. There is no change in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux. 4.5.5 Obstructed cases (as above - workplane 1)

For the obstructed cases, the changes are similar to the unobstructed cases only the degree of change tends to be slightly greater in the UDI-a metric (i.e. illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux) since the proportional eect of adding the skylights is greater in daylighting terms (Table 14 and Table 15). The relatively small dierences compared to 63 of 91

the corresponding unobstructed cases indicates that the overall level of obstruction must be considered to be small. With greater degrees of obstruction - which invariably aect the windows rather than the skylights - the proportional increase in the UDI-a metric is likely to be greater than for the unobstructed cases. These point-by-point comparisons would be much the same as they were in the preceding four sections, and so are not discussed any further here. 4.5.6 Change from unobstructed to obstructed (Workplane 1)

The change in UDI metrics from unobstructed to corresponding obstructed case (e.g. A1 u to A1 o) is also listed in Table 14 and Table 15. As noted earlier, the changes are relatively small and are not listed in detail here. They can be summarized by the following: The detrimental eect on daylighting of obstruction is always greatest for the building without any skylights. The detrimental eect on daylighting in manifested mainly in the reduction of UDI-a and a corresponding increase in UDI-f and UDI-s. The small changes evident in these metrics is consistent with the argument in the preceding section, i.e. that the degree of obstruction modelled in these examples must be considered to be small. 4.5.7 A1 u to A2 u (Workplane 2)

Turning the attention now to workplane 2, for this unobstructed case the addition of a single skylight (i.e. A1 u to A2 u) results in the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 16 and Table 17): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -2% (mean values) and -3% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -7% (mean values) and -12% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 8% (mean values) and 12% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. 1% (mean values) and 2% (median values). An increase in UDI-e for the mean value (1%) and no change in the median value (0%). Thus, using the more typical median values, the addition of a single skylight results in a 12% (of the occupied year) increase in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 500 to 2,500 lux. This is accompanied with a 3% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux, and a 12% decrease in the occurrence of illuminances in the range 100 to 500 lux. There is no change in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux. Whilst the change in UDI-a (median values) for wp2 is the same as for wp1 (rounded to the nearest whole number), the changes in the UDI-f and UDI-s metrics are quite dissimilar. This is because the UDI metrics appear to be highly sensitive to the particular conguration of the building. Thus, at this stage it seems unlikely that extrapolation of results from one building type or conguration to another can be carried out with any reliability. 64 of 91

4.5.8

A2 u to A3 u (Workplane 2)

Continuing with this unobstructed case, the addition of two further skylights (i.e. A2 u to A3 u) results in the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 16 and Table 17): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -2% (mean values) and -2% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -7% (mean values) and -9% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 4% (mean values) and 3% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. -4% (mean values) and -4% (median values). An increase in UDI-e, i.e. 6% (mean values) and 8% (median values). For workplane 2, there is now a marked increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (i.e. 8% for the median value). 4.5.9 A1 u to A3 u (Workplane 2)

Rounding o the evaluation for this unobstructed case (workplane 2), this comparison determines the change resulting from the addition of three skylights where none were present before (i.e. A1 u to A3 u). This produced the following changes for the ve UDI metrics (Table 16 and Table 17): A decrease in UDI-f, i.e. -4% (mean values) and -6% (median values). A decrease in UDI-s, i.e. -14% (mean values) and -21% (median values). An increase in UDI-a, i.e. 11% (mean values) and 16% (median values). An increase in UDI-c, i.e. -3% (mean values) and -2% (median values). An increase in UDI-e, i.e. 7% (mean values) and 8% (median values). For workplane 2, the increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (i.e. 8% for the median value) is the same as it was for the change A2 u to A3 u. The increase in UDI-a is much greater (i.e. 16% for the median value) than it was for either of the other two changes in window type. 4.5.10 B1 u to B2 u (Workplane 2)

For this unobstructed building type, the addition of two pairs of skylights (i.e. B1 u to B2 u) results in no signicant change in UDI metrics for workplane 2 (Table 16 and Table 17). Recall that, for building B2, the skylights are situated in the roof area above workplane 1 (see Figure 8). This demonstrates that light spillage from the skylights above workplane 1 will have little or no signicant impact on the daylighting metrics for workplane 2. 4.5.11 Remaining for workplane 2: Obstructed cases and changes from unobstructed to obstructed

The pattern for the obstructed cases is much the same as that for workplane 1. Similarly for the changes from unobstructed to obstructed cases. These are not discussed any further here. 65 of 91

Group 1 tables UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations

66 of 91

UDI metrics (hrs) for wp1 - mean values Useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 2084 816 2901 336 348 251 1950 1132 3082 383 418 203 1389 1903 3293 333 301 151 2093 693 2786 292 300 270 1991 1011 3002 338 388 216 1452 1827 3279 331 305 145 1632 874 2505 165 149 261 1720 1285 3004 154 231 183 1583 838 2421 165 141 262 1734 1237 2971 142 222 185

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 860 241 676 188 352 96 983 262 765 204 382 101 1167 254 660 156 1255 258 698 161

UDI-e 57 42 60 44 174 124 49 36 51 38 156 113 145 70 153 72 141 68 149 70

Table 2: UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

67 of 91

UDI metrics (hrs) for wp1 - median values Useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 2242 530 2861 362 424 287 2039 1046 3148 433 552 192 1377 1987 3336 364 306 158 2226 383 2708 310 331 323 2067 899 3089 370 529 203 1459 1908 3327 374 325 152 1760 413 2574 221 353 295 1825 1313 3175 275 327 167 1691 346 2503 216 310 304 1853 1248 3155 247 317 169

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 934 275 614 176 300 77 1092 311 686 191 320 80 1124 287 553 129 1210 304 572 132

UDI-e 21 20 25 24 86 68 17 16 21 21 76 61 4 6 16 11 3 4 15 11

Table 3: UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

68 of 91

UDI metrics (hrs) for wp2 - mean values Useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 1385 1751 3136 359 317 162 1100 2086 3186 258 252 147 779 2246 3025 176 173 158 1458 1657 3116 354 323 158 1164 2021 3185 253 254 137 819 2237 3056 175 167 138 1540 1160 2700 155 143 195 1540 1174 2713 156 147 194 1549 1106 2656 140 136 201 1552 1119 2671 140 140 200

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 381 112 294 84 198 61 426 122 324 89 212 62 775 190 761 187 847 200 831 197

UDI-e 300 131 337 134 596 176 276 118 309 119 549 157 342 126 343 126 315 115 316 115

Table 4: UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

69 of 91

UDI metrics (hrs) for wp2 - median values Useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 1556 1700 3282 446 408 167 1023 2239 3370 268 290 138 641 2388 3206 162 193 168 1651 1581 3238 450 422 174 1078 2185 3356 271 286 133 669 2394 3239 166 182 139 1704 1071 2767 295 321 254 1705 1099 2781 297 312 252 1726 964 2705 257 344 258 1737 990 2721 255 337 257

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 398 113 255 67 148 48 437 121 271 68 156 48 641 169 633 166 728 193 715 188

UDI-e 59 44 76 45 408 216 52 39 66 38 346 183 27 24 27 24 22 19 22 19

Table 5: UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

70 of 91

Group 2 tables UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations

71 of 91

UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - mean values Useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) % occ yr UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 48 19 66 8 8 6 45 26 70 9 10 5 32 43 75 8 7 3 48 16 64 7 7 6 45 23 69 8 9 5 33 42 75 8 7 3 37 20 57 4 3 6 39 29 69 4 5 4 36 19 55 4 3 6 40 28 68 3 5 4

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 20 5 15 4 8 2 22 6 17 5 9 2 27 6 15 4 29 6 16 4

UDI-e 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2

Table 6: UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - mean values - all climates and orientations

72 of 91

UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - median values Useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) % occ yr UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e 51 12 65 0 8 10 7 0 47 24 72 1 10 13 4 1 31 45 76 2 8 7 4 2 51 9 62 0 7 8 7 0 47 21 71 0 8 12 5 0 33 44 76 2 9 7 3 1 40 9 59 0 5 8 7 0 42 30 72 0 6 7 4 0 39 8 57 0 5 7 7 0 42 28 72 0 6 7 4 0

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 21 6 14 4 7 2 25 7 16 4 7 2 26 7 13 3 28 7 13 3

Table 7: UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - median values - all climates and orientations

73 of 91

UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - mean values Useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) % occ yr UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c 32 40 72 8 7 4 25 48 73 6 6 3 18 51 69 4 4 4 33 38 71 8 7 4 27 46 73 6 6 3 19 51 70 4 4 3 35 26 62 4 3 4 35 27 62 4 3 4 35 25 61 3 3 5 35 26 61 3 3 5

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 9 3 7 2 5 1 10 3 7 2 5 1 18 4 17 4 19 5 19 4

UDI-e 7 3 8 3 14 4 6 3 7 3 13 4 8 3 8 3 7 3 7 3

Table 8: UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - mean values - all climates and orientations

74 of 91

UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - median values Useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) % occ yr UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e 36 39 75 1 10 9 4 1 23 51 77 2 6 7 3 1 15 55 73 9 4 4 4 5 38 36 74 1 10 10 4 1 25 50 77 2 6 7 3 1 15 55 74 8 4 4 3 4 39 24 63 1 7 7 6 1 39 25 63 1 7 7 6 1 39 22 62 1 6 8 6 0 40 23 62 1 6 8 6 0

Variant A1 u A2 u A3 u A1 o A2 o A3 o B1 u B2 u B1 o B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev UDI-f 9 3 6 2 3 1 10 3 6 2 4 1 15 4 14 4 17 4 16 4

Table 9: UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - median values - all climates and orientations

75 of 91

Group 3 tables Change in UDI metrics (hrs) across all climates and orientations

76 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for wp1 - mean values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -183 -135 316 181 2 57 142 88 58 3 -325 -560 771 211 114 97 179 194 151 82 -508 -695 1087 392 116 153 278 184 205 84 -507 88 411 499 8 116 205 103 118 3 -217 -102 318 215 2 63 161 100 65 2 -383 -538 816 277 106 109 180 159 164 77 -601 -641 1134 493 108 171 310 157 225 79 -558 151 399 550 8 118 203 101 120 3 123 9 -123 -114 -9 37 94 61 42 7 89 41 -121 -80 -9 27 70 48 33 7 30 63 -76 -13 -17 8 35 38 18 12 88 -49 -36 -84 -4 14 21 12 15 3 37 15 -48 -33 -4 8 17 14 9 3

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 10: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

77 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for wp1 - median values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -320 -203 516 287 4 109 236 178 121 6 -314 -662 941 189 61 102 242 335 122 47 -635 -865 1457 476 65 205 393 271 237 52 -571 65 899 600 12 173 378 258 157 8 -406 -159 515 381 4 136 265 229 150 6 -366 -608 1010 238 55 115 250 284 144 43 -772 -767 1525 618 59 242 452 209 286 48 -638 162 902 652 12 191 357 241 168 8 157 -16 -147 -152 -4 56 139 110 59 4 72 28 -148 -59 -4 26 100 57 29 4 20 83 -79 -10 -10 6 48 64 11 7 86 -69 -67 -71 -1 23 33 58 19 1 19 28 -64 -19 -1 6 42 23 5 2

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 11: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

78 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for wp2 - mean values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -87 -285 335 50 37 30 149 145 32 16 -97 -321 160 -161 258 25 107 147 80 71 -184 -606 495 -111 295 55 246 271 109 85 -14 0 14 13 1 4 8 5 4 0 -102 -294 363 69 33 34 151 145 37 14 -111 -345 216 -129 240 28 107 142 81 68 -213 -639 579 -60 273 62 247 264 114 80 -16 3 13 16 1 4 8 5 4 0 45 73 -94 -20 -24 12 29 31 22 14 29 64 -65 -1 -28 7 23 31 20 16 15 40 -9 31 -46 3 16 31 24 23 72 9 -54 -45 -28 17 30 13 22 14 70 13 -55 -42 -28 16 30 13 21 14

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 12: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

79 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for wp2 - median values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -144 -534 539 88 17 49 273 273 50 17 -106 -382 149 -163 332 24 139 165 131 181 -250 -916 688 -75 348 71 373 376 163 192 -8 1 28 14 0 4 26 24 6 0 -165 -573 603 118 14 55 283 286 61 14 -116 -409 209 -118 280 25 141 167 99 155 -281 -982 813 0 294 78 381 384 140 165 -13 11 25 16 0 6 29 19 7 0 38 95 -119 -43 -7 11 36 40 14 7 17 55 -54 -13 -9 3 24 30 10 9 8 28 5 32 -62 2 13 29 44 37 87 22 -106 -63 -5 29 105 47 17 7 82 33 -109 -61 -5 28 100 47 15 7

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 13: Change in UDI metrics (hrs) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

80 of 91

Group 4 tables Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) across all climates and orientations

81 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - mean values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) % occ yr UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -4 -3 7 4 0 1 3 2 1 0 -7 -13 18 5 3 2 4 4 3 2 -12 -16 25 9 3 3 6 4 5 2 -12 2 9 11 0 3 5 2 3 0 -5 -2 7 5 0 1 4 2 1 0 -9 -12 19 6 2 2 4 4 4 2 -14 -15 26 11 2 4 7 4 5 2 -13 3 9 13 0 3 5 2 3 0 3 0 -3 -3 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 -3 -2 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 -2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 14: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for mean values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

82 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp1 - median values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) % occ yr UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -7 -5 12 7 0 2 5 4 3 0 -7 -15 21 4 1 2 6 8 3 1 -14 -20 33 11 1 5 9 6 5 1 -13 1 21 14 0 4 9 6 4 0 -9 -4 12 9 0 3 6 5 3 0 -8 -14 23 5 1 3 6 6 3 1 -18 -18 35 14 1 6 10 5 7 1 -15 4 21 15 0 4 8 6 4 0 4 0 -3 -3 0 1 3 3 1 0 2 1 -3 -1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 -2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 -2 -2 -2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 15: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for median values across wp1 - all climates and orientations

83 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - mean values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (mean values) % occ yr UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -2 -7 8 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 -2 -7 4 -4 6 1 2 3 2 2 -4 -14 11 -3 7 1 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -7 8 2 1 1 3 3 1 0 -3 -8 5 -3 5 1 2 3 2 2 -5 -15 13 -1 6 1 6 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -2 0 -1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 -1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 16: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for mean values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

84 of 91

Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for wp2 - median values Change in useful daylight illuminance metric (median values) % occ yr UDI-f UDI-s UDI-a UDI-c UDI-e -3 -12 12 2 0 1 6 6 1 0 -2 -9 3 -4 8 1 3 4 3 4 -6 -21 16 -2 8 2 9 9 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 -4 -13 14 3 0 1 6 7 1 0 -3 -9 5 -3 6 1 3 4 2 4 -6 -22 19 0 7 2 9 9 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 -3 -1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 -1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 -2 -1 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 -2 -1 0 1 2 1 0 0

Variant A1 u to A2 u A2 u to A3 u A1 u to A3 u B1 u to B2 u A1 o to A2 o A2 o to A3 o A1 o to A3 o B1 o to B2 o A1 u to A1 o A2 u to A2 o A3 u to A3 o B1 u to B1 o B2 u to B2 o

Statistic Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev

Table 17: Change in UDI metrics (% occ yr) for median values across wp2 - all climates and orientations

85 of 91

Conclusion and Discussion

A parametric study of the daylighting performance of a number of residential buildings with and without skylights has been presented. A total of 480 scenarios were evaluated. This number represents all possible combinations of: ve building types, two obstruction conditions, six climates and eight building orientations. Five UDI metrics and a number of cumulative total illuminance metrics were predicted using computer simulation. A range of plots and tables were produced to present, reduce and help analyse the data. The key ndings and points for discussion were as follows: The distribution and annual occurrence of the UDI metrics for each of the 10 building cases is shown to be highly sensitive to the climate and the building orientation. The addition of skylights invariably improves the overall daylighting performance of the space, and often by considerably more than 10% of the occupied year (i.e. 08h00 to 20h00). For example, the change from A1 u to A3 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights) produces, for workplane 1, an overall mean increase in the median values of approximately 33% (Figure 22). That is, from 12% of the occupied year (A1 u) to 45% of the occupied year (A3 u). Also see Table 7. The range of the change goes from approximately 19% to 47% - this is indicated by the scatter in the UDI-a symbol for the median values in Figure 22. The addition of skylights results in a signicant reduction in the occurrence of illuminances less than 100 lux (i.e. UDI-f). For example, the change from A1 u to A3 u (i.e. no skylights to 2 x 3 skylights) produces, for workplane 1, an overall mean decrease in the median values of approximately 14% (Figure 22). As with all the UDI metrics and comparison between building designs, there is scatter across the the 48 results for each unique combination of climate and orientation. The addition of skylights results in an increase in the occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux (i.e. UDI-e). This increase is fairly small for workplane 1, i.e. never greater than 5% for median values of UDI-e (Figure 22). However, for workplane 2 the increase in UDI-e for the design changes A2 u to A3 u and A1 u to A3 u is noticeably greater, i.e. the greatest increase is for nearly 18% of the occupied year, Figure 23. As noted in the report, moderate occurrence of illuminances greater than 2,500 lux may in fact be benecial. The magnitude and character of the improvement in daylighting performance resulting from the addition of skylights is highly sensitive to the climate and building orientation (see Figure 22 to Figure 25). This, of course, could not have been revealed by the daylight factor which is totally insensitive to either of these parameters. Thus the study has clearly demonstrated the value of climate-based modelling over the traditional daylight factor method. The magnitude and character of the improvement in daylighting performance resulting from the addition of skylights is highly sensitive to the building design compare change in performance for workplane 1 (Figure 22) and workplane 2 (Figure 23) for building A. Thus the addition of similar arrangements of skylights to dierent building designs will not necessarily produce similar outcomes.

86 of 91

 The magnitude and character of the improvement in daylighting performance resulting from the addition of skylights will be greater than that shown here for settings where the vertical windows are subjected to levels of obstruction greater than the fairly low levels used for this study. As a function of orientation for any one climate, the greatest sensitivity tends to be for the UDI-s and the UDI-a parameters (see polar plots in separate report and example in Figure 19). These can often vary with the change in one matched by a similar sized change in the opposite sense for the other leading to small overall variation in UDI-c. There is evidence in the literature to indicate that a signicant increase in the overall provision of illuminances in the UDI-a range (i.e. 500 to 2,500 lux) is likely to result in signicant reduction in electric lighting usage due to the reduced switchon probability. Maximization of the occurrence of the UDI-a metric should be taken as the most reliable indicator of good daylight provision, and, consequently, that the overall level of electric lighting usage will be low. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that illuminances in the UDI-a range have benecial eects for general well-being, productivity and long-term health. A wealth of insightful data on the daylighting performance of residential buildings with and without skylights has been generated, plotted, reduced and analysed. The daylighting performance has been analyzed using the recently formulated useful daylight illuminance scheme. The UDI scheme has shown itself to be a powerful tool to aid the reduction and interpretation of the voluminous amount of data generated by this parametric study. The important features of the results have been noted and the improvement in performance from the addition of skylights quantied.

87 of 91

Supplementary Reports (SRs)

SR 1: Polar plots
PDF le: sr1 pol.pdf [153 pages]

SR 2: Individual case plots

PDF le: sr2 ind.pdf [41 pages]

SR 3: Change in UDI plots

PDF le: sr3 ciu.pdf [53 pages]

SR 4: Distribution in UDI metrics across the workplanes

PDF le: sr4 udi.pdf [530 pages]

SR 5: Distribution in total annual illuminance across the workplanes

PDF le: sr5 tai.pdf [530 pages]

SR 6: Distribution in total monthly illuminance across the workplanes

PDF le: sr6 mtt.pdf [530 pages]

SR 7: Distribution in direct monthly illuminance across the workplanes

PDF le: sr7 msd.pdf [530 pages]

88 of 91

References
[1] V. Crisp, P. Littlefair, I. Cooper, and G. T. McKennan. Daylighting as a passive solar energy option: An assessment of its potential in non-domestic buildings. Building Research Establishment Report, Garston, CRC, 1988. [2] L. Heschong. Daylighting and human performance. ASHRAE Journal, 44(6):6567, 2002. [3] R. G. Hopkinson. Architectural physics - lighting. Her Majestys Stationery Oce, London, 1963. [4] J. Mardaljevic. Examples of climate-based daylight modelling. CIBSE National Conference 2006: Engineering the Future, 21-22 March, Oval Cricket Ground, London, UK, 2006. [5] J. Mardaljevic. The simulation of annual daylighting proles for internal illuminance. Lighting Research and Technology, 32(3):111118, 2000. [6] C. F. Reinhart and S. Herkel. The simulation of annual illuminance distributions a state-of-the-art comparison of six radiance-based methods. Energy and Buildings, 32(2):167187, 2000. [7] A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic. Useful daylight illuminances: A replacement for daylight factors. Energy and Buildings, 38(7):905913, 2006. [8] C. F. Reinhart, J. Mardaljevic, and Z. Rogers. Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos, 3(1), 2006. [9] J. Mardaljevic. Time to see the light. Building Services Journal, September:5962, 2006. [10] J. Mardaljevic and A. Nabil. The useful daylight illuminance paradigm: A replacement for daylight factors. Lux Europa, Berlin, pages 169174, 2005. [11] A Nabil and J Mardaljevic. Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings. Lighting Research and Technology, 37(1):4157, 2005. [12] E. Vine, E. S. Lee, R. Clear, D. DiBartolomeo, and S. Selkowitz. Oce workers response to an automated venetian blind and electric lighting system - a pilot study. Energy and Buildings, 28(2), 1998. [13] S. Selkowitz. High performance glazing systems - architectural opportunities for the 21st century. Proceedings of Glass Processing Days (GPD) Conference, Tampere, Finland, 1999. [14] C. F. Reinhart. Eects of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan oces. Conference Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Ecient Buildings, pages 112, 2002. [15] IES. Outline of a standard procedure for computing visual comfort ratings for interior lighting LM-42-72. Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) of North America, 1991.

89 of 91

[16] M. Schuler. Building simulation in application: Developing concepts for low energy buildings through a co-operation between architect and engineer. Proceedings of the Solar World Congress, the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), Harare, Zimbabwe, 1995. [17] N. Baker. We are all outdoor animals. Proceedings of PLEA 2000, Cambridge, 2000. [18] L Roche, E. Dewey, and P. Littlefair. Occupant reaction to daylight in oces. Lighting Research and Technology, 32(3), 2000. [19] S. Selkowitz, M. Rubin, E. S. Lee, and R. Sullivan. A review of electrochromic window performance factors. SPIE International Symposium on Optical Materials Technology for Energy Eciency and Solar Energy Conversion XIII, Freiburg, Germany, 1994. [20] E. S. Lee, D. L. DiBartolomeo, and S. Selkowitz. The eect of venetian blinds on daylight photoelectric control performance. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 28(1), 1999. [21] L Roche. Summertime performance of an automated lighting and blinds control system. Lighting Research and Technology, 34(1):1125, 2002. [22] George C. Brainard, John P. Hanin, Jerey M. Greeson, Brenda Byrne, Gena Glickman, Edward Gerner, and Mark D. Rollag. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: Evidence for a novel circadian photoreceptor. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(16):64056412, 2001. [23] WJM van Bommel and GJ van den Beld. Lighting for work: a review of visual and biological eects. Lighting Research and Technology, 36(4):255266, 2004. [24] T. Partonen and J. Lonnqvist. Bright light improves vitality and alleviates distress in healthy people. Journal of Aective Disorders, 57(1-3), 2000. [25] S.H.A. Begemann, G.J. den Beld, and A.D. Tenner. Daylight, articial light, and people in an oce environment: Overview of visual and biological responses. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1997. [26] Ann R. Webb. Considerations for lighting in the built environment: Non-visual eects of light. Energy and Buildings, 38(7):721727, 2006. [27] D. R. G. Hunt. The use of articial lighting in relation to daylight levels and occupancy. Building and Environment, 14(1):2133, 1979. [28] C. F. Reinhart and K Voss. Monitoring manual control of electric lighting and blinds. Lighting Research and Technology, 35(3):243258, 2003. [29] J Mardaljevic. Quantication of parallax errors in sky simulator domes for clear sky conditions. Lighting Research and Technology, 34(4):313327, 2002. [30] S. W. A. Cannon-Brookes. Simple scale models for daylighting design: Analysis of sources of error in illuminance prediction. Lighting Research and Technology, 29(3):135142, 1997. [31] P. Tregenza and I. M. Waters. Daylight coecients. Lighting Research and Technology, 15(2):6571, 1983. 90 of 91

[32] G. Ward Larson and R. Shakespeare. Rendering with Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting Visualization. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998. [33] J Mardaljevic. The BRE-IDMP dataset: a new benchmark for the validation of illuminance prediction techniques. Lighting Research and Technology, 33(2):117134, 2001. [34] J. Mardaljevic. Daylight Simulation: Validation, Sky Models and Daylight Coecients. PhD thesis, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK, 2000. [35] J. Mardaljevic. Sky model blends for predicting internal illuminances: A comparison against measured sky luminance distributions. Lux Europa, Berlin, pages 249253, 2005. [36] J. A. Clarke. Energy Simulation in Building Design 2nd Edition. ButterworthHeinemann, 2001. [37] D. B. Crawley, L. K. Lawrie, F. C. Winkelmann, W. F. Buhl, Y. J. Huang, C. O. Pedersen, R. K. Strand, R. J. Liesen, Daniel E. Fisher, M. J. Witte, and J. Glazer. EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and Buildings, 33(4):319331, 2001. [38] A. Skartveit and J. A. Olseth. The probability density and autocorrelation of shortterm global and beam irradiance. Solar Energy, 49(6):477487, 1992.

91 of 91