Interactions between louvers and ceiling geometry for maximum daylighting performance.

The impact of ceiling geometries on the performance of louvers was investigated using physical model experiments and Radiance simulations. Two performance indicators, the illuminance level and its distribution uniformity, were used to assess daylighting performance in a room located in a subtropical climate region. It was found that the performance of the louvers can be improved by changing the ceiling geometry. The illuminance level increased in the rear of the room, and decreased in the front—near the window—compared to rooms having horizontal ceilings. Radiance results were found to be in good agreement with physical model data obtained under a clear sky and high solar radiation. Louvers' daylighting performance was reduced by tilting the louvers downward. The best ceiling shape was found to be one that is chamfered in the front and rear of the room.

[1]  Wjm van Bommel,et al.  Lighting for work: a review of visual and biological effects , 2004 .

[2]  DHW Li,et al.  Predicting daylight illuminance by computer simulation techniques , 2004 .

[3]  Aris Tsangrassoulis,et al.  Comparison of radiosity and ray-tracing techniques with a practical design procedure for the prediction of daylight levels in atria , 2003 .

[4]  John Mardaljevic.  Verification of program accuracy for illuminance modelling: assumptions, methodology and an examination of conflicting findings , 2004 .

[5]  Danny H.W. Li,et al.  A study of the daylighting performance and energy use in heavily obstructed residential buildings via computer simulation techniques , 2006 .

[6]  Daylighting in Architecture: A European Reference Book , 1993 .

[7]  Simon Hayman.  Daylight measurement error , 2003 .

[8]  P. Greenup,et al.  Test room measurements and computer simulations of the micro-light guiding shade daylight redirecting device , 2004 .

[9]  Aris Tsangrassoulis,et al.  Theoretical and experimental analysis of daylight performance for various shading systems , 1996 .

[10]  I. G. Capeluto,et al.  Evaluating visual comfort and performance of three natural lighting systems for deep office buildings in highly luminous climates , 2006 .

[11]  Russell P. Leslie,et al.  Capturing the daylight dividend in buildings: why and how? , 2003 .

[12]  S W A Cannon-Brookes,et al.  Simple scale models for daylighting design: Analysis of sources of error in illuminance predictiont , 1997 .

[13]  Gregg D. Ander,et al.  Daylighting Performance and Design. , 1995 .

[14]  Wu Wei,et al.  Advanced Lighting Simulation in Architectural Design in the Tropics , 2001, CAADRIA proceedings.

[15]  John Mardaljevic,et al.  The BRE-IDMP dataset: a new benchmark for the validation of illuminance prediction techniques , 2001 .

[16]  P. J. Littlefair,et al.  The performance of innovative daylighting systems , 1994 .

[17]  Marie-Claude Dubois,et al.  Shading devices and daylight quality: an evaluation based on simple performance indicators , 2003 .

[18]  J. Scartezzini,et al.  Comparing daylighting performance assessment of buildings in scale models and test modules , 2005 .

[19]  Christoph F. Reinhart,et al.  The simulation of annual daylight illuminance distributions — a state-of-the-art comparison of six RADIANCE-based methods , 2000 .

[20]  P. Greenup,et al.  Daylighting in the tropics , 2002 .

[21]  Chia-Peng Chou.  The Performance of Daylighting with Shading Device in Architecture Design , 2004 .