Glare and dynamic glare evaluation. Jan Wienold Fraunhofer-Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany

Transcription

1 Glare and dynamic glare evaluation Jan Wienold Fraunhofer-Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany

2 Use of shading devices in non residential buildings Control strategies could be complex Light distribution could be unusual

3 Questions What is the impact of different shadings and controls on perceived glare? Is it possible to optimise control strategies for shadings, that The users are satisfied (high visual comfort) and the energy demand (heating, cooling and lighting) is low? Problem Objective Impact of shading position on energy and comfort is large Evaluation of static daylight simulation not sufficient Provide a dynamic daylighting simulation method for evaluating the daylight glare

4 Content Methodology of user assessments Window luminance as glare measure Validation of the static DGP Methodology of dynamic glare evaluation Validation and exemplary results Conclusions

5 Methodology Two identical test rooms Test room Reference room Questionnaire Measurements : Luminance camera Illuminances User analysis Image processing correlations

6 Evalglare: main features: glare source detection task luminance threshold peak extraction, smoothing modified position index calculation of glare indexes smoothing peaks new feature if no fish-eye lens is available (measurements) the vertical illuminance can be used from an external sensor and put into evalglare -> Picture: Only for Glare source detection

7 Calculation of window luminance: masking masking evalglare Average L

8 Window luminance no correlation with user perception of glare Large scatter No dependency low correlation R 2 =0.12 Percentage of disturbed persons [%] 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total responses: 349 Number of responses per class: 29 R 2 = Window Luminance [cd/m²] Window luminance ± Standard deviation of Ev ± Stanard deviation of binomial distribution

9 Daylight glare probability DGP: high correlation 100% Strong correlation R²=0.94 Logistic regression: p= Model fit: F= with df = 1 and p= Probability of disturbed persons 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total responses: 349 Number of responses per DGP-class: 29 R 2 = Daylight Glare Probability DGP DGP ± Standard deviation of DGP ± Standard deviation of binomial distribution

10 New glare rating Daylight glare probability DGP DGP Combination of the vertical eye illuminance with modified glare index formula L = c ω 2 s, i s, i 1 Ev + c2 log(1 + ) + a 2 1 i Ev Pi E v : L s : vertical Eye illuminance [lux] Luminance of source [cd/m²] ω s : solid angle of source [-] P: Position index [-] c c c a c 3 = = = 0.16 =

11 Validation of the dgp -model 100% Logistic regression gives p= and an overall model fit F=14.822, p= > strong dependecy Percentage of disturbed persons [%] 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total responses: 85 Number of responses per DGP-class: Daylight Glare Probability DGP dgp

12 Conclusions static glare evaluation window luminance show no correlation with user perception for the performed assessments New DGP formula shows high correlations further work: Other aspects have to be taken into account: -view contact -age -low light levels

13 Simulation Approach Dynamic Daylight Simulation for shadings Daylight simulation of shading devices is time consuming Exact and instantaneous simulation actually impossible To evaluate control strategies, various shading positions must be investigated Approach: Pre-calculate all possible shading positions Dynamic simulation using daylight coefficient method: RADIANCE and Daysim

14 Model set up: Typical single office space with band and large glazed facade 3.61m 2.85m 4.61m 3.61m 3.61m 2.85m

15 Model set up: Shading devices Grey venetian blinds (ρ diff Refl. 52%, ρ spec 15%) completely lowered for validation: 15 slat angle position Roller blind (τ tot =0.04,τ dir =0.01,ρ=0.42) completely lowered

16 Methods Reference method: hour by hour calculation of a 180 fish-eye view picture evaluation of the picture by evalglare DGPs, based only on vertical eye illuminance Enhanced simplified calculation method

17 Simplified methods DGPs DGPs = E v Enhanced simplified DGP L ω = c s, i s, i 1 Ev + c2 log(1 + ) + c 2 4 i E P Term1 v i Term 2 c 3 DAYSIM hourly E v + evalglare DGP fast picture

18 Questions How fast can we calculate a picture? 1. How many ambient bounces (-ab parameter) are necessary to get reasonable results? 2. Size of the picture

19 fabric roller blind -ab 7 -ab 1 -ab 0 Venetian blinds

20 Validation results fabric roller blind DGPs DGP -ab 0 DGP -ab 1 Good correlation for enhanced methods Small difference for ab DGPs large error simplified DGP basis: hour-by-hour vertical illuminance hour-by-hour DGP

21 Validation results venetian blinds DGPs DGP -ab 0 DGP -ab 1 Good correlation for enhanced methods Small difference for ab underestimation by DGPs simplified DGP basis: hour-by-hour vertical illuminance hour-by-hour DGP

22 Summary error fabric roller blinds Venetian blinds (15 ) Input data method rmbe [%] rrmse [%] rmbe [ %] rrmse [%] hour-by-hour simplif. DGPs 1.4% 15.7% 1.8% 8.0% enh. simpl. DGP -ab 0-1.0% 2.8% 0.0% 4.9% enh. simpl. DGP -ab 1 1.0% 2.7% -1.8% 4.3% rrsme = 1 N N i = 1 DGPi DGP DGPi es, i 2 rmbe = 1 N N i = 1 DGP i DGP DGP i es, i

23 Setting right image resolution Find the difference! Same oct, same radiance version only different computers Big difference regarding glare evaluation: peak sampling! -> Image resolution must be large enough

24 Results Overall comparison of systems and controls Frequency distribution Fabric roller blind Venetian blinds cut-off Venetian blinds cut-off +10 Venetian blinds cut-off +20 Venetian blinds closed Quick comparison possible between variants DGP But how to rate? % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% relative hours of office times [%]

25 Results Overall comparison of systems and controls Idea for classification Restriction of Max 95% value and Mean 5% value? Limits from user assessments? Max DGP value Mean DGP value Variant in 95 % office time in 5% office time Fabric roller blind Venetian blinds cut-off Venetian blinds cut-off Venetian blinds cut-off Venetian blinds closed number of cases mean value root mean square deviation standard error 95%-confidence interval lower limit upper limit imperceptible perceptible disturbing intolerable total

26 Conclusions and outlook DGP is validated enhanced dynamic method is validated against reference -ab 0 for fast picture mostly sufficient take care of picture size! Outlook DGP extension for age, view contact (ongoing projects) set up of shading classification based on DGP (ongoing project) Integration of dynamic glare calculation into DAYSIM foreseen

27 Thank you for your attention!! p.s.: evalglare can be downloaded here: