Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Dynamic daylight simulations: Impact of weather file’s choice

Laura Bellia a,⇑, Alessia Pedace a,b, Francesca Fragliasso a
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
b
Department of Energy, Information Engineering and Mathematical Models, University of Palermo, Italy

Received 16 March 2015; received in revised form 27 April 2015; accepted 1 May 2015
Available online 19 May 2015

Communicated by: Associate Editor Dr. J.-L. Scartezzini

Abstract

This paper is the second step of a research project aimed at investigating the impact of the use of different weather data files on day-
light simulations’ results. Simulations were carried out for a simple standalone office using three weather files (IWEC, Meteonorm and
Satel-Light) for two European locations (Copenhagen and Rome); moreover the office’s exposure was changed according to the four
main orientations (North, East, South and West).
Results were analyzed both in terms of Annual and Monthly Light Exposures, dynamic daylight performance metrics (DA, DAcon,
UDI) and sunlight’s incidence.
It was demonstrated that differences between the results obtained with the different weather files are more significant considering
Annual and Monthly Light Exposures (highest value 20%), whereas they decrease when analyzing illuminances with a statistical
approach (DA, DAcon, UDI). The analysis of sunlight’s incidence also determined similar results using the three weather data files
and the maximum difference is 5% independently from the orientation.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dynamic daylight simulations; Indoor environment quality; Weather data files; Dynamic daylight performance metrics

1. Introduction year, considering its extreme variability over time. The

Daylight provision in indoor environments determines
many benefits both in terms of energy savings and in terms
of improvement of users’ comfort. It allows to reduce the
operating hours of electric lighting systems and conse-
quently energy waste. Furthermore daylight enhances users’
performances and productivity, affects mood and plays also
a fundamental role in the human circadian system’s regula-
tion (Partonen and Lonnqvist, 2000; Heschong, 2002; Boyce
et al., 2003; Stevens et al., 2007; Duffy and Czeisler, 2009).
One of the problems connected with the design of day-
light is the correct definition of its availability during a
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0812538778.
E-mail address: laura.bellia@unina.it (L. Bellia).
need to predict indoor daylight variations due to different
factors (building orientation, weather conditions, time of
day, etc.) led to the development and the spread of the
Climate Based Daylight Modeling (CBDM) calculation
approach, based on dynamic daylight simulations and on
the analysis of the obtained results in terms of dynamic
daylight performance metrics (Mardaljevic, 2000;
Mardaljevich and Nabil, 2005; Reinhart et al., 2006;
Rogers, 2006).
The main characteristic of this calculation method is the
definition of indoor daylight availability basing on the use
of a reference weather data file of the design location.
Weather data files are climatic archives that contain hourly
values related to specific meteorological variables, such as

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.05.002
0038-092X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
dry bulb temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed,
relative humidity, irradiance, illuminance, sky cover.
Weather files can be uploaded in dynamic daylight sim-
ulations software, which import data referred to global and
diffuse irradiances and convert them into illuminances
thanks to a luminous efficacy model (Reinhart, 2006;
Jakubiec and Reinhart, 2011). Then illuminances values
are employed to generate a luminance distribution which
is necessary to model the sky dome and finally simulate
indoor daylight levels (Mardaljevic, 2000).
There are different types of weather data files that can be
used to perform dynamic daylight simulations: IWEC
(International Weather for International Calculation),
Meteonorm, TRY (Test Reference Year), TMY (Typical
Meteorological Year), DRY (Design Reference Year).
Meteorological data reported in each weather file are
obtained by processing historical sets of annual measure-
ments through a statistical calculation model. For example,
an USA TRY weather file is obtained by selecting one real
year between those included in a historical set. The identi-
fication of the typical year is based on an excluding process
which aims at eliminating years characterized by months
with very high or low average temperatures; this process
is repeated until only one year remains (Crawley, 1998).
On the other hand the procedure to develop an IWEC file
is different: it consists in selecting twelve typical months
from the different years available; then these months are
combined together to create a yearlong weather file (U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy).
Considering that each type of weather file is developed
starting from different historical sets and by using a specific
statistical process, the values contained in these files are
likely to diverge if compared (http://www.satel-light.com/
; http://meteonorm.com/; U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy; Crawley, 1998).
Consequently the use of a weather data file or another
could affect the results obtained with dynamic simulations.
Iversen et al. (2012) investigated the effect of using three
different weather data file (DRY, IWEC and Meteonorm)
on the output of dynamic daylight simulations carried out
for a South-oriented office located in Copenhagen. They
analyzed the data in terms of lighting dependencies and
found that differences in results showed variations up to 2%.
Bellia et al. (2015) compared results obtained by per-
forming dynamic daylight simulations of a simple
North-oriented office located in five European cities
(Copenhagen, Milan, Nancy, London, Rome), each one
characterized by different weather conditions, using four
weather data files (IWEC, Meteonorm, Satel-Light and
TRY). They found that the use of IWEC, Meteonorm
and Satel-Light weather data files produces similar results
in terms of dynamic daylight performance metrics
(Daylight Autonomy, Continuous Daylight Autonomy
and Useful Daylight illuminance), whereas significant dif-
ferences are obtained for Annual and Monthly Light
Exposures. Furthermore the study demonstrated that the
225
use of TRY determines indoor daylight levels which are
always lower than those obtained with the other weather
data files. The analysis of data obtained using four different
weather data files for each one of the five cities determined
a great amount of results; consequently the choice of a
North-oriented office simplified the data processing, since
it allowed to neglect sunlight’s contribution.
However the analysis of the impact of the use of a
weather data or another on direct sunlight modeling is fun-
damental for orientations different from North. Indeed, the
prediction of sunlight-related illuminances affects the eval-
uation of disability glare risk due to daylight and of an
environment’s performances in terms of comfort. For
example, the incorrect prediction of sunlight’s incidence
may determine an imprecise evaluation of the number of
hours in a year for which it is necessary to use shading
devices and consequently it may influence their design.
Considering that the use of shadings reduces indoor day-
light levels, thus determining the need to use electric light,
the incorrect modeling of sunlight may also affect the eval-
uation of energy savings.
Given these premises, the goal of this paper is to repeat
the study reported in Bellia et al. (2015), varying the office’s
exposure according to the four main orientations (North,
East, South and West), in order to analyze the effect of
the use of different weather data files also on sunlight’s
modeling.
Given that previous researches (Crawley, 1998; Bellia
et al., 2015) did not recommend the use of TRY, only three
weather data files are considered: IWEC, Meteonorm and
Satel-Light. In order to reduce the amount of results to
process, only two cities, characterized by very different
weather conditions, are selected: Rome and Copenhagen.
2. Method
The study compares dynamic daylight simulations’
results referred to a simple office located in two
European cities, Copenhagen and Rome, and exposed
according to the four main orientations.
As already mentioned in the introduction, Copenhagen
(55°410 N 12°350 E) and Rome (41°530 3500 N 12°280 5800 E)
were chosen because they are characterized by very differ-
ent weather conditions. According to the Köppen climate
classification, Copenhagen belongs to the warm summer
continental or hemiboreal climatic zone and Rome to the
dry-summer subtropical-mediterranean one. In more
detail, in Copenhagen the temperature varies between an
average low equal to 12.3 °C and an average high of
20 °C during summer and between an average low of
1.6 °C and an average high temperature of 2.5 °C during
winter. The Danish city is characterized by yearly precipi-
tation equal to 613 mm and by yearly mean sunshine hours
equal to 1539 (Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut). On the
other hand, in Rome the temperature varies between an
average low of 16.2 °C and an average high of 30.4 °C dur-
ing summer and between an average low temperature of
226 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235

2.6 °C and an average high of 13.3 °C during winter.

Yearly precipitation is equal to 798.5 mm and 2473 yearly
mean sunshine hours are registered (Servizio
Meteorologico Aeronautica Militare).
Simulations are performed by using three different
weather data files: IWEC, Meteonorm and Satel-Light. An
in-depth analysis of the selected weather data and of their
calculation methods can be found in (Bellia et al., 2015).
IWEC data were developed by ASHRAE and are freely
available on the DOE website for 227 locations worldwide
(U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy). They are deduced from an historical
set of 18 years (1982–1999) and contain information about
many weather variables such as dry bulb temperature, dew
point temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, irradi-
ance, illuminance and sky cover. Meteonorm data can be
bought online (http://meteonorm.com/) and are based on
measurements collected by 8325 meteorological stations
worldwide. They contain data referred to global irradiance,
ambient air temperature, humidity, precipitation, days with
precipitation, wind speed, wind direction and sunshine dura-
tion. Data are deduced from four different historical sets:
1961–1990 and 2000–2009 for temperature, humidity, wind
speed and precipitation; 1981–1990 and 1991–2010 for irra-
diance (Meteonorm, Handbook part II: Theory, 2014).
Finally Satel-Light database was developed thanks to an
European research project which goal was to define an
European daylight and solar radiation database and to make
it available on-line (http://www.satel-light.com/).
Satel-Light currently includes satellite measurements related
to only 5 years (from 1996 to 2000), a series of data too mea-
ger to deduce a typical year. However, as already demon- Fig. 1. Office measured plan, section and analysis grid.
strated in Bellia et al. (2015), the comparison between
weather data files and Satel-Light can be useful to investigate only results related to the three sensors belonging to the cen-
the level of correspondence between typical years and a real tral, perpendicular to the window, row are presented.
year. A comparison between the global irradiance values Annual daylight simulations were performed assuming
referred to each year contained in Satel-Light’s database that the office is occupied from Monday to Friday from
and related to the selected cities demonstrated that differ- 8:00 to 16:00 without breaks (total number of occupied
ences between them are minimal (Bellia et al., 2015). For this hours in a year: 2349) and that daylight saving time goes
reason in this study the authors considered that the use of from April 1st to October 31st. Considering the environ-
one year or another may have a negligible effect on the results ment’s use a target illuminance of 300 lx on the workplane
and decided to use the year 1998 for each city since it is not a is assumed (EN 12464-1 Light and lighting – Lighting of
leap year. work places – Part I: Indoor work places, 2011).
The office used to perform simulations is illustrated in Simulations were carried out with DIVA (3.0.0.6 ver-
Fig. 1. sion), a daylighting and energy modeling plug-in for
In Fig. 1 the environment is South-oriented but, as men- Rhinoceros, based on Radiance and Daysim engines, ini-
tioned earlier, simulations were carried out varying the tially developed at the Graduate School of Design at
office’s exposure according to the four main orientations. Harvard University and now distributed by Solemma
A ground plane was also modeled (60 m  60 m). LLC (http://diva4rhino.com/).
Surfaces’ reflectances are the following: external walls Two different computers were used for the simulations,
35%, internal walls 60%; ceiling 80%; floor 30%; outside to reduce calculation time and achieve results in less time,
ground 20%. No furniture is present in the room. The win- and their characteristics and simulation times are the
dow has a double pane glazing (4–16–4 mm) with visual following:
transmittance equal to 80%.
The analysis grid used to perform the simulations is – IntelÒ Core i7 processor (2.70 Ghz), 8 GB RAM, graph-
4 m  4 m, it is located at a height of 0.85 m from the floor ics card: NVIDIA GEFORCEÒ 610 M (1 GB), OS:
and it includes 9 sensors. Therefore, for readability reasons, Windows 7 64 bit.
 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235 227

Table 1
DIVA simulation parameters.
Ambient bounces Ambient divisions Ambient super samples Ambient resolution Ambient accuracy
0 or 7 1500 100 300 0.05

Table 2 In the following graphs IWEC, Meteonorm and

Materials’ parameters. Satel-Light weather data files will be sometimes noted as
Description Material Modifier in DIVA I, M and S. Moreover, as previously stated, results will
External walls Void plastic outsidefacade_35 be reported only for sensors belonging to the central, per-
0 pendicular to the window, row. Independently from the
0 office orientation, the sensors will always be noted accord-
5 0.35 0.35 0.35 0 0 ing to their distance from the window; in other words they
Internal walls Void plastic genericwall_60 will be labeled as N (near), C (central) and F (far).
0
0 3.1. Annual and Monthly Light Exposures
5 0.60 0.60 0.60 0 0
Ceiling Void plastic genericceiling80 Results related to Annual Light Exposure are summa-
0
rized in Tables 3 and 4 and in Fig. 2.
0
5 0.80 0.80 0.80 0 0 Tables 3 and 4 report Annual Light Exposure expressed
in klx  h/year and referred to each city and each orienta-
Floor Void plastic genericfloor_30
0
tion. Graphs reported in Fig. 2 represent the percentage
0 differences between IWEC and Satel-Light results (indi-
5 0.30 0.30 0.30 0 0 cated as I–S) and Meteonorm and Satel-Light ones (indi-
Outside ground Void plastic outsideground_20 cated as M–S). Satel-Light is assumed as reference
0 because, as already mentioned, it is a real year and not a
0 typical one (Bellia et al., 2015).
5 0.20 0.20 0.20 0 0 Tables 3 and 4 and Fig. 2 demonstrate that differences in
Clear double glazing Void glass glazing_doublepane_clear_80 results obtained with the three weather data files are influ-
0 enced by many factors: the city taken into account, win-
0 dow’s exposure and also by the chosen calculation point.
3 0.87 0.87 0.87
In Table 3 it can be noted that IWEC weather files deter-
mine higher values, compared with those obtained using
– Simulation time: about 10 min. the other weather data files, for each orientation except
– IntelÒ Core 2 Duo (2.53 Ghz), 4 GB RAM, graphics for South. On the contrary, the lowest values are obtained
card: NVIDIA GEFORCEÒ GT 220 m (1 GB), OS: with Meteonorm files for East orientation, with Satel-Light
WindowsÒ 7 64 bit. for North and West ones. Annual Light Exposures referred
– Simulation time: about 30 min.
Table 3
Annual Light Exposure values referred to Copenhagen.
Simulation’s and materials’ parameters are reported in
Tables 1 and 2. Ambient bounces are set to 7 in order to Copenhagen Annual Light Exposure (klx  h/year)
calculate indoor illuminances considering both the direct IWEC Meteonorm Satel-Light
and the indirect component of daylight, or to 0 in order North
to evaluate only the sunlight contribution. N 3852 (max) 3460 3443 (min)
The study is divided in the following sections: C 999 (max) 941 923 (min)
F 535 (max) 512 502 (min)

– Annual and Monthly Light Exposures. East

– Analysis of the direct component. N 9565 (max) 8994 (min) 9318
C 1813 (max) 1682 (min) 1738
– DA, DAcon and UDI values.
F 935 (max) 882 (min) 903
South
3. Results
N 15,577 (min) 16,530 (max) 15,903
C 3194 (min) 3706 (max) 3430
The following sections analyze dynamic daylight simula- F 1527 (min) 1694 (max) 1620
tions’ output. In more detail, Sections 3.1–3.3 will report West
the outcome of the results’ analysis in terms of Annual N 8715 (max) 8303 7656 (min)
and Monthly Light Exposures (ALE and MLE), direct C 1689 (max) 1505 1407 (min)
sunlight and DA, DAcon and UDI values. F 811 (max) 776 734 (min)
228 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235

to Rome (Table 4) assume completely different trends. and West exposures, Satel-Light determines the lowest val-
When the window is East or South-facing the highest val- ues for North orientation and Meteonorm for the East one.
ues are calculated with Satel-Light, when it is This means that it is not possible to identify a weather
North-facing they are obtained with IWEC and when it data file that always determines results higher than the
is West-facing they are achieved with Meteonorm. On the others and vice versa, indeed in Fig. 2 I–S and M–S per-
other hand, IWEC provides the lowest values for South centage differences assume positive or negative values
depending on the city taken into account, the orientation
Table 4 and the calculation point.
Annual Light Exposure values referred to Rome. Furthermore, I–S and M–S differences are characterized
Rome Annual Light Exposure (klx  h/year) by a dissimilar order of magnitude. Considering percentage
values, their variation can be quite significant, for example
IWEC Meteonorm Satel-Light
they can range between 20% (I–S, Copenhagen, West ori-
North entation, S5) and 22% (M–S, Rome, S5); or they can also
N 4870 (max) 4492 4018 (min)
C 1347 (max) 1298 1252 (min) be very small (i.e. Copenhagen, North orientation, S4).
F 735 (max) 717 712 (min) I–S and M–S values change depending on the calcula-
tion point. Only for North orientation, I–S and M–S values
East
N 14,128 13,140 (min) 16,256 (max) are always positive for all sensors and they decrease when
C 3134 2917 (min) 3747 (max) the distance from the window increases. This does not
F 1343 1232 (min) 1440 (max) occur for the other orientations.
South To provide an in depth analysis of the results obtained
N 21,376 (min) 23,708 24,860 (max) for each city, orientation and weather data file Montly
C 4599 (min) 4903 5398 (max) Light Exposure were also calculated. Figs. 3 and 4 show
F 1643 (min) 1691 1744 (max) the trend assumed by Monthly Light Exposures [klx  h/-
West month] (MLE) for each city and each orientation. For
N 11,162 (min) 12,950 (max) 12,392 readability reasons the maximum value of the y axis is dif-
C 2141 (min) 2377 (max) 2231
ferent depending on orientation, but a 500 klx  h/month
F 1038 (min) 1137 (max) 1098
step is always assumed between tick marks.

Fig. 2. Percentage differences for Annual Light Exposure referred to Copenhagen and Rome.
 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
Fig. 3. Monthly Light Exposure referred to Copenhagen.
Figs. 3 and 4 demonstrate that the curves tend to be
more similar in winter than in other seasons for North,
East and West orientations, whereas for South the contrary
applies.
Regardless of the window’s orientation it is interesting
to notice that also the slope of the curves can be very dif-
ferent depending on the weather data.
Differences in results observed for the four orientations
are likely to be determined by sunlight’s incidence. Data
reported in the different weather files and related to direct
and diffuse component of irradiance can indeed diverge if
compared. Bellia et al. (2015) analyzed cumulative fre-
quency curves related to global and diffuse horizontal irra-
diances, calculated starting from the data reported in
different weather files (IWEC, Meteonorm, TRY and
Satel-Light) and concerning five cities (Copenhagen,
Milan, London, Nancy, Rome). They demonstrated that
global irradiance curves show very similar trends except
for TRY, whereas those referred to the diffuse component
turn out to be slightly different. For example, considering
the specific case of Rome, they found that Satel-Light’s dif-
fuse irradiance curve assumes lower values compared to
those representing the other files, whereas its global irradi-
ance curve is very similar to those related to IWEC and
Meteonorm. This means that values referred to the direct
component of irradiance, reported in different files, diverge.
229
Consequently, considering that sunlight’s modeling
depends on the direct irradiance data uploaded in the cal-
culation software, results related to indoor daylight avail-
ability may show higher differences for orientations
different from North.
For this reason the following paragraph reports an anal-
ysis of the direct component of daylight entering in the con-
sidered office.
3.2. Analysis of the direct component
An analysis of the direct component of daylight was per-
formed. To do so, simulations were repeated setting the
ambient bounces (ab) parameter to zero, as previously
reported, to exclude any reflection of light by surfaces.
This analysis was only performed for East, West and
South orientations.
Fig. 5a and b reports for Copenhagen and Rome the
annual percentages of occupied hours during which
sunlight-related illuminances (Esun), calculated using the
different weather data files for each orientation, are com-
prised between 0 and 1000 lux or they are greater than
1000 lux. This 1000 lux threshold was assumed since it is
the limit value considered in ASE calculation (IES
LM-83-12 “Approved Method: IES Spatial Daylight
Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE)”,
230 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
Fig. 4. Monthly Light Exposure referred to Rome.
2013). For readability reasons, the order of magnitude of
the graphs related to the East and West exposures in both
cities is different.
It can be noted that the total percentage of occupied
hours during which sunlight is calculated is similar for
both cities. On the contrary, the percentage of occupied
hours for which Esun is greater than 1000 lux is signif-
icantly higher for Rome. In the South orientation in
Rome, using all weather data files, sunlight is not calcu-
lated for the sensor farthest from the window, whereas
the contrary applies to Copenhagen; the explanation
of this result resides in the fact that in Copenhagen
sun’s altitude is lower and therefore it enters deep into
the room.
The greatest differences among weather data files are
found for the sensor near the window in the East orienta-
tion. In more detail, for both cities, using the Meteonorm
file, the percentage of occupied hours for which Esun is
greater than 1000 lux is higher than the one calculated with
IWEC and Satel-Light weather data files (for
Copenhagen); whereas in Rome’s case it is only higher than
the one calculated with the IWEC file.
Usually differences in the total percentage of occupied
hours during which sunlight is calculated are small (not
greater than 5%) and more evident for the sensor near
the window.
3.3. DA and UDI
Fig. 6a and b reports DA and DAcon values for each
city, orientation and weather data file.
From the graphs reported in Fig. 6a and b it can be
noted that the differences in DA and DAcon values
between the chosen weather data files remain small for each
orientation and each city.
It is interesting to highlight that, for Rome, DA and
DAcon values obtained using the Meteonorm file are gen-
erally a little lower than those calculated with the other
weather data files. This is also true for Copenhagen’s
DAcon results, whereas DA values obtained with
Meteonorm weather data file for this city are lower than
the others only in a few cases.
Another interesting finding is that, for both cities, DA
values calculated for the central sensor (C) with the
IWEC weather data file are always higher than the others
for each orientation. Moreover the use of Satel-Light
always determines, for Copenhagen, the highest DA values
for the sensor closest to the window, whereas in Rome’s
case this only occurs in South and West orientations; in
the other orientations IWEC’s and Satel-Light’s DA values
are almost coincident.
Fig. 7a and b reports UDI values for each city and each
orientation.
 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235 231

Fig. 5. (a) and (b): Annual percentage of occupied hours during which 0 < Esun 6 1000 lux or Esun > 1000.
232 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235

Fig. 6. (a) and (b): DA and DAcon values for Rome.

 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235 233

Fig. 7. (a) and (b): UDI values for Copenhagen and Rome.

It can be observed from Fig. 7a and b that the use of
Meteonorm files always determines slightly greater
UDI100 values.
Moreover it is interesting to highlight that the greatest
differences are found between UDI100–2000 and UDI2000
for the sensors near the window in both cities and for all
orientations. In more detail, in Rome such differences are
more significant.
Furthermore the use of IWEC files generally determines
the highest UDI2000 values.
234 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
4. Discussion
The paper presented comparisons between simulations’
results obtained using different weather data files (IWEC,
Meteonorm, Satel-Light) and performed for offices
exposed according to the four main orientations and
located in two different cities, Copenhagen and Rome.
The comparison between Annual Light Exposures
demonstrated that the use of the three selected weather
data files can produce differences in simulations’ results,
the percentage value of which reaches at most 20%.
Furthermore these discrepancies may assume a different
weight depending on many factors (the chosen city, the
window’s exposure and also the considered calculation
point), but in some cases they can be very small (about
1%). The use of different weather data files also produces
variations in the annual trend of daylight indoor availabil-
ity. Indeed, considering Monthly Light Exposure, it can be
noted that results diverge more in summer than in winter if
the window is North, East or West-facing and viceversa if
the office is South-oriented.
An analysis of sunlight’s incidence was performed and
the annual percentage of occupied hours for which direct
sunlight is registered on the workplane was calculated.
Independently from the orientation, the results obtained
by using the three weather files diverge at most by 5%
and the differences are more relevant for the sensor near
the window. Moreover the annual percentage for which
Esun is higher or lower of 1000 lx is calculated. Also in this
case the use of a weather file or another does not greatly
affect the results and the highest differences are observed
for the N sensor and in more detail for East orientation,
both in Copenhagen and in Rome. Considering
Copenhagen, using Meteonorm weather data file, the num-
ber of hours for which Esun 6 1000 lx is lower than that
calculated with Satel-Light and IWEC. On the other hand,
as for Rome, the use of Meteonorm leads to predict a num-
ber of hours for which Esun 6 1000 lx similar to that calcu-
lated with Satel-Light but lower than the one obtained with
IWEC.
Finally an analysis in terms of dynamic daylight metrics
is presented. DA, DAcon and UDI values obtained with
the different weather data files are very similar.
5. Conclusions
The study reported in the present paper represents the
second part of a previous one (Bellia et al., 2015). In more
detail, in the first study only the North orientation was
analyzed, thus excluding the direct component of daylight.
Therefore the present paper includes also the orientations
(West, East, South) for which sunlight has a relevant
incidence.
Nevertheless the results here reported confirm what has
already been highlighted in the first study, in other words
the use of the three weather data files (IWEC,
Meteonorm and Satel-Light) determines very similar
results.
In more detail, comparing the different weather files, the
average differences for ALE are 6% for Copenhagen and
9% for Rome and the maximum ones are about 20%.
As regards DA, DAcon, UDI, the calculated values are
very similar in all cases. For example, the greatest differ-
ence in UDI values are found between UDI100–2000 and
UDI2000 for the sensors near the window in both cities
and for all orientations. The maximum difference is about
20% and the average one is about 9%.
The analysis of Esun demonstrated that results are com-
parable also when considering orientations for which the
influence of the direct component of daylight is relevant.
Moreover the use of Satel-Light demonstrated that,
from a statistical point of view, there is a certain correspon-
dence between real and typical years.
Results’ analyses performed in terms of ALE, DA,
DAcon, UDI and sunlight incidence are fundamental in
lighting design to accurately evaluate the adequate config-
uration of electric lighting systems, shading devices and
control systems and therefore they are related to the calcu-
lation of energy consumptions. Since the present study
demonstrated that there are differences in the results
obtained carrying out daylight simulations with different
weather data files and that, even though such differences
are usually not significant, in some cases they are instead
relevant (20%). Therefore a further step of this research
project may be the analysis of the impact of such differ-
ences on the calculation of energy consumptions and on
comfort’s evaluations.
References
Bellia, L., Pedace, A., Fragliasso, F., 2015. The role of weather data files in
climate-based daylight modeling. Sol. Energy (112), 169–182.
Boyce, P., Hunter, C., Howlett, O., 2003. The Benefits of Daylight
Through Windows. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Crawley, D.B., 1998. Which weather data should you use for energy
simulations of commercial buildings? In: ASHRAE, Trans. 104 (Part
2).
Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut., n.d. <http://www.dmi.dk/vejr/arki-
ver/normaler-og-ekstremer/klimanormaler-dk/> (retrieved 28.10.14).
Duffy, J., Czeisler, C., 2009. Effect of light on human circadian physiology.
Sleep Med. Clin. 4 (2), 165–177.
EN 12464-1. Light and lighting – lighting of work places – Part I – Indoor
work places, 2011.
Heschong, L., 2002. Daylighting and human performance. ASHRAE J.
(446), 65–67.
<http://diva4rhino.com/>, n.d. (retrieved 22 07 14).
<http://meteonorm.com/>, n.d. (retrieved agosto 1, 2013).
<http://www.satel-light.com/>. n.d. (retrieved marzo 29, 2013).
IES LM-83-12. Approved method: IES spatial daylight autonomy (sDA)
and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), 2013.
Iversen, A., Svendsen, S., Nielsen, T.R., 2012. The effect of different
weather data sets and their resolution on climate-based daylight
modelling. Light. Res. Technol. 1–12.
Jakubiec, J.A., Reinhart, F.C., 2011. DIVA 2.0: Integrating daylight and
thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D, Daysim and EnergyPlus.
12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation
Association. Sydney.
 L. Bellia et al. / Solar Energy 117 (2015) 224–235
Mardaljevic, J., 2000. Simulation of annual daylighting profiles for
internal illuminance. Light. Res. Technol. 32 (3), 111–118.
Mardaljevich, J., Nabil, A., 2005. Useful daylight illuminance: a new
paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings. Light. Res. Technol. 37
(1), 41–59.
Meteonorm, Handbook Part II – Theory. (2014, September). <http://
meteonorm.com/images/uploads/downloads/mn71_theory.pdf>
(retrieved 27.10.14).
Partonen, T., Lonnqvist, J., 2000. Bright light improves vitality and
alleviates distress in healthy people. J. Affect. Disord. (57), 1–3.
Reinhart, C.F., 2006. Tutorial on the use of daysim simulations for
sustainable design. Ottawa (Ont.): National Research Council Canada.
Reinhart, C., Mardaljevic, J., Rogers, Z., 2006. Dynamic daylight
performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos 3 (1), 7–31.
235
Rogers, Z., 2006. Daylighting metric development using daylight auton-
omy calculations in the sensor placement optimization tool. <http://
www.archenergy.com/SPOT/download.html>.
Servizio Meteorologico Aeronautica Militare, n.d. <http://www.meteoam.
it/> (retrieved 28.10.14)
Stevens, R., Blask, D., Brainard, G., Hansen, J., Lockley, S., Provencio,
I., Reinlib, L., 2007. Meeting report: the role of environmental lighting
and circadian disruption in cancer and other diseases. Environ. Health
Perspect. 115 (9), 1357–1362.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, n.d.
<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_
about.cfm> (retrieved 22.5.14).