ARC 3353 Building Technology V

Day Lighting Analysis and Design

Lab Assignment 3


Team Members:
Tomci M Abraham : @01435579
&
Aaron D Welch : @01207597
University Of Texas at San Antonio
07 March 2014







Objective

The objective of this paper is to show methods of analysis and optimization of daylight
conditions within a space. Mathematical methods, such as Daylight Feasibility method and Net Glazing
Area method, are used to produce a digitized simulation of the analyzed area. Analysis of the existing
daylight conditions are provided, including potential for energy savings and methods for achieving
optimum day lighting conditions.

Location & Task Design
The location of week 1 lab activities took place in room 1.120 on the first floor of the Monterrey
building. Room 1.120 is a conference room used to hold staff and student meetings and video
conferences. The visual tasks taking place are note taking, viewing video presentations, listening to
speakers, and round table meetings. According to IESNA standards, the Average Daylight Factor for
offices and conference rooms should be a minimum of 2.0, and the tasks performed in this room classify
it as a category C (working spaces where simple visual tasks are performed [recommended 10fc]) and D
(performance of visual tasks of high contrast and large size 30fc).

Fenestration & Shading

The video presentations and lecturers take place closest to the exterior glazing. For videos,
mini-blinds that are present can be employed to reduce the amount of glare caused by daylight entering
the room while lectures can make use of retracting the blinds to help illuminate the room and help
backlight the lecturer. The exterior glazing is minimally reflective which helps with the redirection of
sunlight, yet still allows for adequate levels of illuminance. Heat gain is not a factor as the orientation
and type of glazing minimizes exposure to direct sunlight.






Material Composition

The finished material reflectance values for conference room 1.120 are as follows:


Floor: tight knit high traffic carpeting that is multi colored (blue, orange, red) with a 1`
green carpet border around the perimeter. 13.5%

Ceiling: white acoustic ceiling tile 70.2%

Walls: Painted gypsum. Beige upper 42.3%, peach lower 38.1% with a laminate wood
border separating the two. 39%

Conference Table: laminated wood table with high gloss finish 51.3%



The materials and colors chosen for finishing are appropriate for this space. With the eastern
morning sun coming through the exterior glazing, the light colors of the room help to maximize the
usage of the daylight. The gloss of the table helps to reflect light into the room, but does so at an angle
that doesnt cause any discomfort glare (due to the low sunlight angle penetration). The carpeting
doesnt help the reflectance of light into the space, but generates contrast between the floor and the
working plane which is beneficial in task oriented spaces. The acoustic tiles have a high reflectance
value creating a more evenly distribution of light penetration to the darker lit areas of room. The
quantitative values of material reflectance are sufficient for lighting this space. The space was observed
at 9:30 am with optimum sun angle for room illumination, and even so, there were obvious inadequate
levels of daylight.


Calculations

Using the information collected during lab sessions and the formulas provided below, we can
solve for Average Daylight Factor to compare with IESNA recommendations.


Visible Transmittance for single pane light reflective glass (Table 2) = 0.35
Total Internal Area = 1128.41 sq.ft.
Verticle Angle to sky = 90 degrees
Weighted area average reflectance of internal surfaces = .50
Required Net Glazing = 45.13




2 x Average Daylight Factor X Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces)
Required Net Glazing = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window


Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window x Net Glazing
Average Daylight Factor = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 x Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces)


Average Daylight Factor = 0.88


The IESNA recommended Average Daylight Factor values for the evaluated area is 2.0. This
value is the minimum suggested amount of daylight for this type of workspace.


Solving for the Feasibility Factor will determine if this space has the option of solely using
daylight to properly light the interior.


Feasibility Factor = WWR x VT x OF


Begin by solving equation for WWR (window to wall ratio).


Area of Net Glazing
WWR = -----------------------------
Area of Wall

WWR = 45.125sq.ft /128.25 sq.ft = 0.350


Table 2 (below) has Visible Transmittance for Single pane light reflective glass as 0.35.

VT = .35


OF (obstruction factor) - factor used to represent the amount of window obstructions. This factor
can be used later to help optimize potential design strategies.


The glazing tested has zero obstructions thus:

OF (obstruction <50 %) = 1

Feasibility Factor = 0.35(WWR) x 0.35(VT) x 1(OF) = .123


If Feasibility Factor 0.25, then day lighting has the potential for significant energy savings. If
Feasibility Factor is < 0.25, consider removing obstructions, increasing window area, or increasing VT. If
these modifications are not possible, it is unlikely that day lighting will be a cost-effective energy-saving
strategy. However, windows can still be designed to provide views and to control glare.

Daylight Factor Comparison (Light Meter vs. Ecotect)
Table 1 below is a computer generated model of the day light levels throughout the conference
space. In analyzing the data with manually gather Lab 2 calculations, the results are found to be strongly
correlated. Both diagrams show the areas in closest proximity to the external glazing having the highest
daylight levels with gradual reduction as distance from glazing increases. The Net Glazing method gave
accurate levels of daylight throughout the room in comparison to field measurements.

Analysis
The results from testing show that the conference room has inadequate levels of daylight for
the tasks being performed. Table 1 below illustrates the average daylight distribution. As can be seen,
the fluctuations of light intensity (brightness ratio) are minimal with a fairly even distribution of light. At
no point in the room is there a 3:1 ratio of brightness amongst adjacent measurements. The problem
lies in that the average daylight factor is approximately .88 which is well under the recommended level
of 2.0. At no point in the room are there areas designated for task.
The calculated feasibility factor of .123 indicates that solely using daylight to illuminate the
space is not a viable option. If the feasibility factor were to be at level of .250 or higher then daylight
would be highly probably to deliver adequate lighting levels. Options to consider for and increase to the
current feasibility factor are:
Removing Obstructions
-Glazing had no obstructions so this is not a potential factor for increasing feasibility
Increase Window Area
-This is an option but not the best option available. To achieve recommended daylight
levels a total of 806 sq.ft is needed on a wall with a total surface area of 1128.41
Increasing Visible Transmittance
-This is the optimal factor to change in order to achieve recommended daylight levels.
By increasing the visible transmittance from .35 to .74, we can achieve a feasibility
factor of .25 and can make day lighting the space a cost-effective energy-saving
strategy.

Using the Net Glazing Area and Daylight Feasibility methods, we can calculate the required net
glazing area to provide our space with the adequate levels of daylight.
For Average Daylight Factor = 2
We calculate the Net Glazing as follows
2 x Average Daylight Factor X Total Internal Area x (1-Area weighted average reflectance of internal surfaces)
Required Net Glazing = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visible transmittance x Vertical angle of the sky visible from the center of the window
=2 x 2 x 1128.41 x .5/( 0.35 x 90)
= 71.645 Sqft
For Daylight Feasibility Factor = .25 we do the following calculation to find the WWR
WWR = DFF/(VT x OF)
= 0.25 / (0.35 x 1)
= .7142
This implies the window area = .7142 x Total wall area = 806 Sqft
Keeping the WWR same and finding VT
VT = DFF / (original WWR*OF)
= 0.25 / 0.35
= .7142
The calculations show that increasing the Visible Transmittance to 0.714 without changing the
net glazing area would provide conference room 1.120 with enough daylight to meet IESNA
recommendations. Though there is the potential for increasing net glazing area to increase feasibility
factor, it is not the most cost effective method and increases potential for unwanted heat gain and
contrast issues. It is worth noting that with only one wall having access to exterior glazing, maximizing
the daylight factor in the room can only be enhanced by adjustments made to one wall. This is also
important to note for the fact that increased amounts of light for tasks can only be accomplished
through artificial lighting as a skylight or additional windows with different orientation arent applicable.

Table 1 Digital Analysis of Daylight Distribution









Table 2 - Typical VT for Window Glazing