000029913 001__ 29913
000029913 005__ 20190316233105.0
000029913 037__ $$aCONF
000029913 245__ $$aComparing daylighting performances assessment of building within scale models and test modules
000029913 269__ $$a2003
000029913 260__ $$c2003
000029913 336__ $$aConference Papers
000029913 500__ $$aoral
000029913 520__ $$aPhysical models are commonly used to assess daylighting performance of buildings using sky simulators for purpose of research as well as practice. Recent studies have pointed out the general tendency of scale model assessments to overestimate the performance, usually expressed through work plane illuminance and daylight factor profiles, when compared to the real buildings. The cause of the discrepancy between buildings and scale models is due to several sources of experimental errors, such as modelling of building details, mocking-up of surface reflectances and glazing transmittance, as well as photometer features. To analyse the main sources of errors, a comparison of a full scale test module designed for experimentation of daylighting systems and its 1:10 scale model, placed within identical outdoor daylighting conditions, was undertaken. Several physical parameters were studied in order to determine their impact on the daylighting performance assessment. These include the accurate mocking-up of surface reflectances, the scale model location, as well as the photometric sensor properties. The experimental study shows that large discrepancies can occur between the performance figures. They lead, on average, to a relative divergence of + 60 % to + 105 % in favor of the scale model for different points located in the side lit room. Some of these discrepancies were caused by slight differences in surface reflectances and photometer cosine responses. These discrepancies were reduced to a + 30 % to + 35 % relative divergence, by putting in the effort to carefully mock up the geometrical and photometrical features of the test module. This included a sound calibration of photometric sensors, whose cosine-response appeared at the end to be responsible for the remaining relative divergence observed between the daylighting performance figures.
000029913 700__ $$aThanachareonkit, A.
000029913 700__ $$0241777$$g103938$$aAndersen, Marilyne
000029913 700__ $$aScartezzini, J.-L.$$g106368$$0240706
000029913 7112_ $$dOct 8-9, 2003$$cEPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland$$aCISBAT 2003: Innovation in building envelopes and environmental systems
000029913 773__ $$tProceedings of CISBAT 2003: Innovation in building envelopes and environmental systems$$q289-294
000029913 8564_ $$uhttps://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/29913/files/06_2003_CISBAT%20ScaleModelAT.png$$zn/a$$s9170$$yn/a
000029913 8564_ $$uhttps://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/29913/files/Comparing%20daylighting%20performance%20assessment%20of%20buildings.pdf$$s1647010
000029913 909C0 $$xU12325$$0252313$$pLIPID
000029913 909C0 $$pLESO-PB$$xU10262$$0252072
000029913 909CO $$qGLOBAL_SET$$pconf$$pENAC$$ooai:infoscience.tind.io:29913
000029913 917Z8 $$x106554
000029913 917Z8 $$x106554
000029913 917Z8 $$x106554
000029913 917Z8 $$x244101
000029913 917Z8 $$x244101
000029913 917Z8 $$x244101
000029913 937__ $$aLESO-PB-CONF-2003-009
000029913 970__ $$a15650/LESO-PB
000029913 973__ $$rNON-REVIEWED$$sPUBLISHED$$aEPFL
000029913 980__ $$aCONF
000029913 990__ $$zskipped date u'October'