IES Daylight and Thermal Comfort Analysis (Firrdhaus)

ARCH 11042: Advanced Sustainable Design Elaboration


Daylight and Thermal Comfort Analysis For ‘Leith Ecology Learning Centre’

Prepared by:

Mohd Firrdhaus Mohd Sahabuddin (s1131077) MSc. Advanced Sustainable Design Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (ESALA) The University of Edinburgh Semester 2 / 2012


Contents

Introduction

Part 1: The Site

Part 2: Aims

Part 3: Research Methodologies - Daylight

- Thermal Comfort - The IES Limitations

Part 4: Daylight Analysis

- Model 1: Benchmarking - Model 2: Testing

- Model 3: Refining

Part 5: Thermal Comfort Analysis - Model 1: Testing

- Model 2: Refining

Part 6: Conclusion

References


Introduction Nowadays the climate change has become a key issue in the world. It is not only effects the global environment, but also the impact on the economy and life of mankind. The bad effects of climate change are most deeply felt in rural areas but even worse in the urban areas. The role of designers is to find a solution to this issue, especially in urban areas. PART 1: The Site The site is a disused railway line at the end of the Pilrig Park and opposite. The advantage of this site is its location at the starting point of the master plan. It also flourishes with natural habitats and wildlife. Located at the middle of the Leith Walk transect, which would be enormous potential as a main route for human, social interaction and wildlife movement. It serves for the two divided areas, Pilrig Park at west of Leith Walk as well as linking Leith Links at east side.

Figure 1: The location of the site in the master plan The proposed building is an ecological overpass, which is serving as a social route crossing for cyclists & pedestrians. At the same time, it accommodates a few areas for learning, exhibiting and relaxing. Those activities are defining by levels, which is lectures room and cafeteria on the first level and exhibition space at the ground level. PART 2: Aims

The overall building aims are implementing the renewable energy technologies such as solar panel and rain water harvesting system, using of low carbon materials and organic base materials, and promoting a balanced ecosystem on the building envelope horizontally and vertically.


For this assignment, only the exhibit space will be analyse. This area is unique because it is a south facade, and a part of the space is a double volume. The glazed area is about 550 m2 and potentially, it has overheated and glares problems. So the aims are to achieve the best result of thermal and day lighting design. The analyses design solutions are on the passive devices only which using IES software.

Figure 2: The overall building perspective

The target for sustainability standard is between ‘minimum standard’ and ‘best practice’ regulations set up by Max Fordham (refer to galleries, museums and archives sustainability matrix).

Proposed Building Regulations Min. Standard Best Practice 1 CO2 Emission design target 95 CO2/m2/yr 70-80 CO2/m2/yr 2 DEC rating G - D rating F – 4 rating 3 Energy consumption:

• Heating & hot water • Mechanical cooling • Lighting

180 kWh.m2/yr 45 kWh/m2/yr 60 kWh/m2/yr

120 kWh.m2/yr 37 kWh/m2/yr 40 kWh/m2/yr

4 On site energy generation Up to 20% >20% 5 U-values (W/m2K):

• Wall • Average window • Roof • Ground floor

0.35 2.20 0.25 0.25

0.20 1.40 0.15 0.15

6 Airtightness 10 m3/h.m2 at 50Pa

3.5 m3/h.m2 at 50Pa


Design consideration and strategies: Design Consideration

Minimum Standard Best Practice

Daylight No daylight or windows of any orientation covering only part of a bigger gallery space, with or without blinds

Roof lights with fixed solar shading/aspect/geometry that exclude direct sun – i.e. north light only, plus blinds for black out

Artificial lighting and controls

50W/m2 max installed load.

25 W/m2 max installed load.

Source: The measurements above are extracted from Max Fordham’s galleries, museums and archives sustainability matrix.

Figure 3: The interior perspectives of exhibition area As a conclusion, the thermal equilibrium in the exhibition space and the inclusion of a reasonable sunlight are the prime targets of this assignment. These two aspects are particularly prominent in deciding comfort level that determines the success of the design. PART 3: Research Methodologies The research methodology comprises into two areas of study, which are ‘thermal comfort’ and ‘daylight’ analysis. There are three models for each analysis. The first model is to determine the default settings without any influence from the devices. Meanwhile, the second measurement is on a model that has been in place the devices. Finally, the third model is the development of the evaluation results earlier.


Thermal Comfort The definition of thermal comfort is ‘the state of mind in humans that express satisfaction with the surrounding environment’ (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55). Therefore, maintaining the right thermal comfort for users inside the building is a challenge for all designers. Indeed, in this period the task needs specific and empirical evidence. The best solution is using low cost passive design, with minimal usage of any mechanical equipment. The importance of achieving the right temperature within the minimal expenses is the most crucial element in building design today. This described in ‘Historical Scotland Technical Paper 14’ written by Rev. Prof. Micheal Humphreys (Oxford Brooks University), Prof. Fergus Nicol (London Metropolitan University) and Prof. Susan Roaf (Heriot-Watt University) as below: “If a normal central heating system (with boiler and radiators) is installed and run at 20 to 22 degrees Celsius (°C), as is common today, a large amount of energy is required to heat such a traditional house. Because of the rapid rise in electricity, gas and particularly oil prices, the cost of heating older houses is increasingly a concern.” The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) listed the standard operating temperatures in different types of buildings and different seasons. Below are the preferred temperatures for public space in summer and winter seasons in UK climate.

Temperature / Humidity Ranges for Comfort Conditions Relative

Humidity Acceptable Operating

Temperatures °C °F

Summer (light clothing)

If 30%, then If 60%, then

24.5 - 28 23 - 25.5

76 - 82 74 - 78

Winter (warm clothing)

If 30%, then If 60%, then

20.5 - 25.5 20 - 24

69 - 78 68 - 75

Source: Adapted from ASHRAE 55-2010.

On the other hand, the National Museum Directors' Conference (NMDC) has set a standard for exhibition area with a stable relative humidity (RH) in the range of 40 - 60% and a stable temperature in the range 16 - 25°C. Therefore, the aim of preferred temperatures for this exhibit area is in the range 16 - 25°C.


Daylight Daylight or daylighting is another valuable natural resources and should be manipulated as possible. The aims of daylighting analysis are try to get the best shading devices composition on the facade. By doing that the daylighting can create a stunning visual environment as well as to save electrical energy. The factors that influence the entry of sunlight into the building are the surface area of glass windows and the types of glass used either double glazed or triple glazed. As a rule, double-glazing lets approximately 80% and triple glazing lets 70% of the light. According to Museums and Galleries NSW, Australia, the best lux for general exhibit area is 200 lux and the minimum is 50 lux. However, it is also depending on the materials exhibited in the gallery. Below is the table for categories of sensitivity adapted from Museums & Galleries NSW website. Level of Sensitivity Types of Material Maximum lux level Very light Sensitive

• Paper (prints, drawing, manuscripts) • Watercolours, gouache and pastels • Photographs and films • Vegetable dyed material • Parchment and vellum • Textiles • Plastics and rubbers • Natural history specimens • Dyed leather

50 lux

Moderate Sensitivity

• Oil, tempera and acrylic paintings • Timber • Bone, ivory and horn, • Un-dyed leather • Archaeological materials • Oriental lacquer (Urushi) • Painted or lacquered metals

200 lux

Insensitive • Metals • Stone • Ceramics • Glass

Although light levels are not an issue, it is suggested that an upper level of 1000 lux is used indoors.

Back to the exhibition space in the proposed building, the space will showcase educational materials related to regional wildlife. The exhibited materials are likely posters and real life plants such as shrub and herbs as well as a few species of insects. The design of the exhibition space is like a greenhouse, which has a large glazing area on its south façade. The space has two different densities, first, double volume exhibit area along the south glass wall and a fully covered single volume on its north wall.


In this case, the preferred range for lighting in the exhibit area is about 50 to 200 lux. Meanwhile, the amount of energy used for artificial lighting is not more than <50W/m2. However, in order to grow grass and shrub inside the building, daylight that equivalent to quarter of outdoor average (10000 lux) luminance might be required, which is around 200 to 2500 lux.

Figure 4: Space separation

“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 once buildings where daylight-originated glare on visual display devices is a common problem.”

Source: Dr. John Mardaljevic Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development

De Montfort University

It can be concluded that the minimum lux for double volume space (red) is around 2000 to 4000, while the inner space (yellow) requires around 200 to 2000 lux. In this exercise, the red area will be known as zone A, while the yellow area is zone B. “Reduce daylight- Apart from the damage caused by the high UV component of sunlight, it creates difficulty in controlling light levels as the intensity will fluctuate continuously depending on the time of day, time of year and whether it is overcast. Daylight can be controlled using heavy curtains, diffusing blinds, exterior shutters, UV filtering material applied to windows or attaching boards to the windows.”

Source: Museums and Galleries, NSW.


Figure 5: Components of shading devices The usage of sunlight to reduce the reliance on electrical power is essential, however, if there is no restriction, it may contribute to other problems such as heat and glare. Knowing the factors that contribute to the amount of daylight entering the building is essential because those factors have a relationship within each other. “Daylight factor (DF) is a simple parameter to give an indication and measurement of the adequacy of daylight within a space. It can be determined by an equation as below:

Where:

DF : Average daylight factor W : Window area A : Area of all room surfaces T : Transmittance of glass ϑ : Visible sky angle R : Area weighted average reflectance of all room surfaces”

Source: Lighting & Architecture Note, Heriot-Watt University

Therefore, the amount of daylight entering a space is dependent on a few factors such as total window area, percentage of glass transmittance, sky condition and reflectance from the inside and outside the space.


The IES Limitations In the simulations using IES software, there are some constraints in obtaining accurate results. Among the problems faced is the time for an analysis, which is quite long. Therefore in this study, the space had to be reviewed in ridicule or restricted. Consequently the results obtained are 90 percent accurate. In addition, other problem occurred is the availability of sustainable building materials such as green roofs, green walls and the material made from reusable materials. Those materials are mostly not available and the calculated outcome may not accurate. This building is using timber construction and timber furnishing. The building also uses several reusable materials such as discarded clothes for insulation, red brick crushed wall (gabion) for ground walls and shipping pallets for shading devices and louvers. There are also a continuous green roofs and green walls that using eco-trays as a base for planting. These materials can affect the reading of the simulation but cannot be found in the IES. PART 4: Daylight Analysis There are three models for this analysis. The first model is using default settings. This means that there are no influential elements applied such as shading device and glaze type. The second model uses horizontal shading devices and double-glazed glass that allows 80% of sunlight. While, the third model uses both horizontal and vertical shading devices as well as 70% translucency glass or triple-glazed glass. The methodology is as follows the first model will provide the actual reading of the amount of lighting in the room. Reliable measurement obtained is equivalent to lighting outside the building; so that the next model will prove a vertical shading device can reduce the entry of sunlight and the third model with a combination of horizontal and vertical shading devices can effectively control the amount of sunlight. The selected seasons are winter and summer, which January will present winter and July, represents summer. The selection of the months is because of the coolest and warmest temperature could be happen during these seasons every year.


Model 1: Benchmarking (Winter)

Figure 6: Model 1 with no shading device

Model 1 above has no shading device. It uses standard glass with 90-100% translucency. The external glazing area is 560.0 m2. Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 560.0 Type of Glass: Single-Glazed (100% visible transmittance)

Surface Quantity Values Uniformity

(Min./Ave.) Diversity

(Min./Max.) Min. Ave. Max. Working plane 1 Reflectance=0% Transmittance=100% Grid size=0.61 m Area=580.000m² Margin=0.00 m

Daylight factor 1.7 % 39.5 % 63.0 % 0.04 0.03

Daylight illuminance

87.47 lux

2087.17 lux

3332.48 lux 0.04 0.03

Table 1: Daylight Illuminance (Lux) and Factor for January


The table 1 shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for January. The minimum daylight factor is 1.7%, and the maximum is 63%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values for the same month is 87.47 lux (min.) and 3332.48 lux (max.). Normally, in winter season, the sun projection is 100 to 450. Therefore, the distribution of the light is almost equal inside the building. The mean/median value is 2087.17 lux.

Figure 7: Model 1 IES 3D Simulation Model 1: Summer Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 560.0 Type of Glass: Single-Glazed (90-100% visible transmittance)




Daylight factor 1.3 % 32.0 % 67.6 % 0.04 0.02


132.94 lux

3367.24 lux

7103.91 lux 0.04 0.02

Table 2: Daylight Illuminance (Lux) and Factor for July


The table 2 shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for July. The minimum daylight factor is 1.3%, and the maximum is 67.7%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values for the same month is 132.94 lux (min.) and 7103.91 lux (max.). Normally, in summer season, the sun projection is 450 to 600. Therefore, the distribution of the light is not equal inside the building. More light is concentrated at Zone A with 7000-lux compare to Zone B with 3000-lux. The mean/median value is 3367.24 lux. Suggestions for Improvement There are 4 suggestions to reduce the amount of penetration light into the building, among them are:

1. Decrease amount of glazing (assess trade-off with energy consumption).

2. Evaluate size and shape of glass (glass above 2.3m (7'6") has greater impact).

3. Select a glass type with a different visible transmittance (Tvis). 4. Evaluate other daylighting metrics such as glare.

Model 2: Testing (Winter)

Figure 10: Model 2 with vertical shading devices Model 2 above has some modifications. The modifications are the implementation of vertical shading devices, use of double-glazed with 70-80% visible transmittance and reduction of glazing wall area from 560.0 m2 to 354.0 m2. Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 354.0


Type of Glass: Double-Glazed (70-80% visible transmittance)




Daylight factor 4.1 % 27.9 % 51.5 % 0.15 0.08


216.66 lux

1473.66 lux

2720.74 lux 0.15 0.08


The table 3 above shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for January (winter). The minimum daylight factor is 4.1%, and the maximum is 51.5%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values are 216.66 lux (min.) and 2720.74 lux (max.). The mean/median value is 1473.66 lux.

Figure 12: Model 2 IES 3D Simulation


Model 2: Summer Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 354.0 Type of Glass: Double-Glazed (70-80% visible transmittance)




Daylight factor 2.2 % 23.9 % 60.4 % 0.09 0.04


234.11 lux

2517.20 lux

6355.20 lux 0.09 0.04

Table 4: Daylight Illuminance (Lux) and Factor for July

The table 4 above shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for July (summer). The minimum daylight factor is 2.2%, and the maximum is 60.4%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values for summer are 234.11 lux (min.) and 6355.20 lux (max.). Therefore, the distribution of the light is not even inside the building. More light at Zone A with 3500-lux to 6000-lux compare to Zone B around 1000-lux to 3000-lux. The mean/median value is 2517.20 lux.



However, the mean/median values have changed significantly between model 1 and 2. The mean/median value during winter for model 1 is 2087-lux compare to 1473-lux for model 2. It is decreasingly about 30%. During the summer, the lux values are 3367.0 for model 1 and 2517.0 for model 2 that means the reduction of 25% sunlight during the summer when vertical-shading devices introduced.

Model 3: Re-fining (Winter) Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 210.0 Type of Glass: Double-Glazed (50-60% visible transmittance)




Daylight factor 1.9 % 14.9 % 43.9 % 0.13 0.04


98.79 lux

789.85 lux

2318.69 lux 0.13 0.04


The table above shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for January (winter). The minimum daylight factor is 1.9%, and the maximum is 43.9%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values are 98.79 lux (min.) and 2318.69 lux (max.). The mean/median value is 789.85 lux.



Model 3: Summer Volume (m3): 2381.0 Floor Area (m2): 580.0 External Wall Area (m2): 684.0 External Opening Area (m2): 210.0 Type of Glass: Double-Glazed (50-60% visible transmittance)




Daylight factor 0.8 % 7.9 % 43.3 % 0.10 0.02


86.85 lux

833.52 lux

4551.92 lux 0.10 0.02

Table 6: Daylight Illuminance (Lux) and Factor for July The table above shows the values of daylight factor and daylight illuminance for July (summer). The minimum daylight factor is 0.8%, and the maximum is 43.3%. Daylight illuminance (lux) values for summer are 86.85 lux (min.) and 4551.92 lux (max.).


Therefore, the distribution of the light is mostly equal in zone B. A bit more light at Zone A with 1200-lux to 3000-lux compare to Zone B around 200-lux to 1000-lux. The mean/median value is 833.52 lux.


However, the mean/median values have changed significantly between model 2 and 3. The mean/median value during winter for model 2 is 1473-lux compare to 789-lux for model 3. It is decreasingly about 46%. During the summer, the lux values are 2517.0 for model 2 and 833.0 for model 3 that means the reduction of 67% sunlight during the summer when vertical and horizontal shading devices introduced. In addition to this result are the reduction of the glazing area from 354.0 m2 to 210.0 m2 and use of 50-60% translucency glass.


Conclusion As a conclusion, all three models analyses are different on each other. The amount of light entering the exhibition area becomes lesser and lesser. The different readings are the results of several modifications made on the south facade. Three key elements for reducing the light in are use of vertical and horizontal-shading devices, changes on glass visible transmittance and the amount of glazing area.

Model Types Average

Lux (Winter)

Average Lux

(Summer)

Visible Trans-

mittance

Glazing Area (m2)

Shading Device

1

Model 1

2087

3367

90-100%

560.0

No

2

Model 2

1473

2517

70-80%

354.0

Vertical Only

3

Model 3

789

833

50-60%

210.0

Vertical and

Horizontal Table 7: Comparison for all models

Comparison 1 Model 1 Model 2 Reduction (Lux)

Per cent %

Winter (Lux) Summer (Lux)

2087 3367

1473 2517

614 850

30.0 25.0

Table 8: Comparison for model 1 against model 2 Comparison 2 Model 2 Model 3 Reduction

(Lux) Per cent

% Winter (Lux) Summer (Lux)

1473 2517

789 833

684 1684

46.0 67.0

Table 9: Comparison for model 2 against model 3 Comparison 3 Model 1 Model 3 Reduction

(Lux) Per cent

% Winter (Lux) Summer (Lux)

2087 3367

789 833

1298 2534

62.0 75.0

Table 10: Comparison for model 1 against model 3

Clearly, the reduction of daylight illuminance from model 1 and model 3 during the winter season is 62% (1298 lux). The range of the illuminance for zone A is 1000-lux to 2300-lux and zone B illuminance range is 100-lux to 900-lux. The model 3 analysis has given the preferred light illuminance and meet the target of appropriate lux readings between 200-lux to 2500-lux. In summer, the total daylight reduction achieved from model 1 and model 3 is 75% (2534 lux). The result shows an equal distribution of daylight inside the


exhibition area. The uses of 50-60% visible transmittance glass can reflect the heat and keep the building in a balance thermal condition. However, glare problems might be still occur which in this case the use of movable blinds are preferable. PART 5: Thermal Comfort Analysis In this study, the analyses run on two models with the first model retains the existing settings to obtain the thermal readings for the use of common building materials and tools commonly available in the market. While the second model will use building materials in accordance with ASHRAE standards and emphasizing quality and performance of sustainable materials. The analyses contain a few readings such as internal temperature measurement, comfort index of user satisfaction and total loads of heating and cooling system. This study aims to prove that the materials used can contribute to the internal comfort of a building. There is no selected season for this analysis. Simulation runs for the whole year, and readings such as maximum, minimum and mean/median for every month will be used. Model 1: Testing Below is a list of the building materials used for the model 1. There are two parts, which first for opaque materials and second is for glazed materials. The table 11 below explains it all.

OPAQUE Components Materials U-Value (W/m2)

1 Roof Flat Roof (2002 regs) 0.2497 2 Ceiling 100mm Reinforced-Concrete

Ceiling -

3 External Wall Standard Wall Construction (2002 regs)

0.3495

4 Internal Partition 13mm Pll 105mm Bri 13mm Pll 1.6896 5 Ground Floor Standard Floor Construction (2002

regs) 0.2499

6 Door Wooden Door 2.1944 GLAZED

Components Materials U-Value (W/m2) 1 Roof light Low-E Double Glazing (6mm +

6mm) (2002 regs) 1.9773

2 External Glazing Low-E Double Glazing (6mm + 6mm) (2002 regs)

1.9773

3 Internal Glazing 4mm Pilkington Single Glazing 3.6886 Table 11: List of materials for model 1


“The U value is the measurement of heat transmission through a material or assembly of materials. The U value of a material is a gauge on how well heat passes through the material and the lower the U value, the greater the resistance to heat and therefore has a better insulating value.”

Source: http://www.uvalue.co.uk/

The materials listed in the table 11 show the U values for each of the construction materials. These values are so influential as the key factors on influencing the thermal result.

Graph 1: A year temperature distribution According to graph 1 above, the maximum temperature is 53.28 0C with the minimum is 28.41 0C. The mean/median for this graph is 38.40 0C. The readings given are considering too high and not acceptable for normal thermal comfort. Hence, people dissatisfied in this exhibition area are extremely high with nearly 100% for almost of the months.

Graph 2: People dissatisfied percentage

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

Date: Wed 01/Jan to Wed 31/Dec

Air temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Dry resultant temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Mean radiant temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)


25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percentage (%)


Dry-bulb temperature: DundeeEWY.fwt (DundeeEWY.fwt) People dissatisfied: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)


The cooling loads for this area is also high because of its maximum set point temperature. For this analysis, the simulation cooling set point is 21.1 0C. This is the recommended temperature for an exhibition area. In this case, the maximum temperature 53.28 0C is too high to meet the set point temperature, which required a lot of energy to do it. Model 2: Refining The refining analysis is using materials with appropriate values of U-value. This building has a continuous green roof and green walls, discarded clothing as insulation and some parts are using shipping pallet for ventilation and shading devices. However, these materials are not available in IES materials library. For that reason, the strategy is by using materials that have closest values as replacement.

OPAQUE Components Materials

U-Value (W/m2)

1 Roof Super-Insulated Flat Roof

0.1769

2 Ceiling Ceiling 10mm Timber Flooring 200mm Air-25mm Batt

-

3 External Wall Super-Insulated External Wall

0.2204

4 Internal Partition Frame Partition with 4 In. Wood

0.9094

5 Ground Floor Super-Insulated Floor

0.2756

6 Door Wooden Door

2.1944

GLAZED Components Materials

U-Value (W/m2)

1 Roof light NCM 2010 National Roof Light

1.8000

2 External Glazing Low-E Triple Glazing SC=0.2

1.4554

3 Internal Glazing Small Double-Glazed Windows – Low-E Coating

1.8927

Table 12: List of materials for model 2


Below is the temperature distribution graph for model 2. The results are better than model 1. Clearly, a right selection of materials can create a convincing thermal result within the space. For this simulation, the maximum temperature is 33.15 0C and the minimum is 18.0 0C while the mean/median is 25.88 0C.

Graph 3: Model 2 temperature distribution

Graph 4: People dissatisfied percentage The percentage of dissatisfied people significantly decreased, due to reduction of the internal temperature. However, there are still high percentages of dissatisfied people in July to September because of warm condition inside the building. On this occasion, the aim of preferred temperatures of 16 - 25°C that has been set before is nearly achieved.


34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

Tem

pera

ture

(°C)


Air temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Dry resultant temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Mean radiant temperature: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Perc

enta

ge (%

)


People dissatisfied: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)


Graph 5: Heating and Cooling Loads In August and September, the heating load is at the lowest level compare to the other months. This is because of those months are in the summer season and demand for heating system is not appropriate. PART 6: Conclusion As a conclusion, the results obtained from the analysis, design a room or building can be reinforced further by the use of IES software. This software can help designers meet the basic criteria in determining the comfort level of a building. Examples of what can be seen in the simulation of lighting is, how to determine the appropriate amount of window openings and the composition of shade that can effectively manage excessive light. Whereas, in the simulation of thermal comfort proves that the building materials play a crucial role in determining the thermal comfort in buildings. Another factor to get a good result is by choosing the right system and the right temperature of cooling set point. Both analyses carried out with a close relationship with each other. The amount of light and heat entering the room could affect the internal temperature of the room. Similarly, the materials used are able to control the amount of irradiation and heat penetration into the building. Therefore, designers should be required to understand the factors involved in both processes to achieve the optimal design of thermal comfort and its purpose.


16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

Load

(kW

)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Gain (kW

)


Heating plant sensible load: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Cooling plant sensible load: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)

Air system input sensible: Exhibition Area (ies model 2.aps)


References

1. Max Fordham, 2012. Galleries, Museums and Archives Sustainability Matrix. Max Fordham. Available at: http://www.maxfordham.com/ [Accessed May 5, 2012].

2. Humphreys, M., Nicol, F. & Roaf, S., 2011. Historic Scotland Technical paper 14. In Keeping Warm In A Cooler House. Historic Scotland Technical Paper. Edinburgh: Online Publication, pp. 1-28.

3. National Museum Directors' Conference (NMDC), 2012. Guiding Principles Reducing Carbon Footprint, Available at: http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/ [Accessed May 6, 2012].

4. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 2012. ANSI/ASHRAE 55-2010: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, Available at: www.ashrae.org [Accessed May 6, 2012].

5. Museums and Galleries NSW (Australia), Lighting for Exhibition. Available at: http://mgnsw.org.au/ [Accessed May 5, 2012].

6. Thomas, R., 2006. Environmetal Design: An Introduction for Architects and Engineers Third., New York: Taylor & Francis Inc.

7. Lighting & Architecture lecture note, 2012. Heriot-Watt University 8. Anon, 2012. U-Value. uvalue.co.uk. Available at:

http://www.uvalue.co.uk/ [Accessed May 6, 2012].

Date post:	24-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	firrdhaus-sahabuddin
View:	150 times
Download:	0 times

IES Daylight and Thermal Comfort Analysis (Firrdhaus)

Documents