Building Simulation

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 563–578 | Cite as

Modelling and simulation of virtual natural lighting solutions with complex views

  • Rizki A. Mangkuto
  • Myriam B. C. Aries
  • Evert J. van Loenen
  • Jan L. M. Hensen
Research Article Building Thermal, Lighting, and Acoustics Modeling

Abstract

In situations where daylight is insufficiently available, Virtual Natural Lighting Solutions (VNLS) can be promising to turn currently unused floor space into spaces with enough daylight qualities. This article introduces VNLS models with complex image scenes pasted on a transparent glass surface in front of arrays of small, directional white light sources. The objectives are twofold: the first one is to understand the effect of changing input variables, i.e. beam angle, total luminous flux of the “sky” elements, and image scene itself, on the lighting performance of a reference office space. The second objective is to compare two techniques of modelling the view, i.e. transmissive and emissive approaches, using Radiance. Sensitivity analysis of the simulation results show that under every image scene, the total luminous flux of the “sky” element is largely influential to the space availability, whereas the beam angle of the “sky” element is largely influential to the other output variables, including discomfort glare. The findings lead to a suggestion of preferred elements in the image scene, to ensure large space availability and uniformity. The transmissive approach generally generates smaller values of space availability, and largely depends on the view elements of the image scene. In turn, the average probability of discomfort glare using the transmissive approach is smaller than that using the emissive approach.

Keywords

virtual natural lighting solution view light transmissive approach emissive approach simulation 

List of symbols

%A

space availability (%)

%G

ground contribution on the ceiling (%)

%Gav

average ground contribution on the ceiling (%)

BA

beam angle of the “sky” element (°)

DGP

daylight glare probability

DGIn

normalised daylight glare index

DGI

daylight glare index

CGI

CIE glare index

CGIn

normalised CIE glare index

Eav

average illuminance (lx)

Emin

minimum illuminance (lx)

IA

interval of tilt angle of the “sky” element (°)

N

total number of points

n(E⩾ 500 lx)

number of points with illuminance ⩾ 500 lx (%)

PDGav

average probability of discomfort glare

U0

uniformity

UGR

unified glare rating

UGRn

normalised unified glare rating

β

regression coefficient

β

standard regression coefficient

ρ

weighted average spectral reflectance

ρR

spectral reflectance in red

ρG

spectral reflectance in green

ρB

spectral reflectance in blue

τ

weighted average spectral transmittance

τR

spectral transmittance in red

τG

spectral transmittance in green

τB

spectral transmittance in blue

Φ

total luminous flux of the “sky” element (lm)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aries MBC, Veitch JA, Newsham G (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30: 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyce PR, Hunter C, Howlett O (2003). The benefits of daylight through windows. Technical Report, Capturing the Daylight Dividend Program.Google Scholar
  3. CEN (2002). EN 12464-1: Light and Lighting—Lighting of Work Places, Part 1: Indoor Work Places. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  4. Chain C, Dumortier D, Fontoynont M (1999). A comprehensive model of luminance, colour temperature and spectral distribution of skylight: Comparison with experimental data. Solar Energy, 65: 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chain C, Dumortier D, Fontoynont M (2001). Consideration of daylight’s colour. Energy and Buildings, 33: 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang C-Y, Chen P-K (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience, 40: 1354–1359.Google Scholar
  7. Compagnon R (1997). Radiance Course on Daylighting. Available: http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/rc97tut.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Diepens JFL, Bakker F, Zonneveldt L (2000). Daylight Design Variations Book. TNO-TUE Centre for Building Research. Available: http://sts.bwk.tue.nl/daylight/varbook/index.htm. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Hellinga HY, de Bruijn-Hordijk GJ (2009). A new method for the analysis of daylight access and view out. In: Proceedings of Lux Europa 2009—the 11th European Lighting Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  10. Heschong L (2003). Window and Offices: A Study of Office Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment. California, USA: Heschong Mahone Group.Google Scholar
  11. Heschong L, Wright RL, Okura S (2002). Daylighting impacts on human performance in school. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 31: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IJsselsteijn WA, Oosting W, Vogels I, de Kort YAW, van Loenen EJ (2008). A room with a cue: The efficacy of movement parallax, occlusion, and blur in creating a virtual window. PRESENCE, 17: 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs A (2012a). Colour Picker for Radiance. Available: http://www.jaloxa.eu/resources/radiance/colour_picker.shtml. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs A (2012b). RADIANCE Cookbook. Available: http://www.jaloxa.eu/resources/radiance/documentation/docs/radiance_cookbook.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs A (2012c). RADIANCE Tutorial. Available: http://www.jaloxa.eu/resources/radiance/documentation/docs/radiance_tutorial.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF (2012). The ‘adaptive zone’—A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Research and Technology, 44: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kleindienst SA, Andersen M (2009). The adaptation of daylight glare probability to dynamic metrics in a computational setting. In: Proceedings of Lux Europa 2009—the 11th European Lighting Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  19. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) (2010). Virtual Lighting Simulator. Available: http://gaia.lbl.gov/vls/. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Lindsey JL (1997). Applied Illumination Engineering. Lilburn, GA, USA: The Fairmont Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mangkuto RA, Aries MBC, van Loenen EJ, Hensen JLM (2014). Simulation of virtual natural lighting solutions with a simplified view. Lighting Research and Technology, 46: 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin JY, Yun GY, Kim JT (2012). View types and luminance effects on discomfort glare assessment from windows. Energy and Buildings, 46: 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tennessen CM, Cimprich B (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15: 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tregenza PR (1989). Modification of the split-flux formulae for mean daylight factor and internal reflected component with large external obstructions. Lighting Research and Technology, 21: 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tregenza PR, Loe D (1998). The Design of Lighting. London: E&FN Spon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR (2005). Discomfort glare from interesting images. Lighting Research and Technology, 37: 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR (2007). View and discomfort glare from windows. Lighting Research and Technology, 39: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulrich RS (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224: 420–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11: 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Dijk D, Platzer WJ (2003). Reference office for thermal, solar and lighting calculations. Report no. swift-wp3-tno-dvd-030416.Google Scholar
  31. Ward G, Shakespeare RA (1998). Rendering with Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting Visualization. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Wienold J, Christoffersen J (2006). Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and Buildings, 38: 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rizki A. Mangkuto
    • 1
  • Myriam B. C. Aries
    • 1
  • Evert J. van Loenen
    • 1
  • Jan L. M. Hensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Building Physics and Services, Department of the Built EnvironmentEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations