Thus, this study suggests the review and fine-tuning of the ASE metric and simulation requirements for future LEED versions. The conclusions indicate that ASE over-predicts glare occurrence due to unconfirmed thresholds definitions and simulation requirement limitations. While point-in-time glare and DGP analysis presented results in line with the occupant responses, ASE provided discrepant numbers in relation to annual DGP results. We compared the results with windows modeled and not modeled, when windows are modeled the result is zero and with void the result was 38. The sample has not showed any windows modeled. We are trying to do an analysis of ASE for LEED. To study these challenges, three objectives were delimited for this thesis: 1) Determine if ASE is a good proxy for visual comfort and glare in a field study of an existing high performance office space 2) Categorize the daylighting performance and visual comfort in this same office space using a combination of occupant surveys and physical measurements and, 3) Identify through a compilation of interviews with daylighting practitioners the challenges and benefits faced when applying these new metrics.In summary, this thesis examined the ASE metric and simulation requirements adopted by LEED v4 with comparative analysis involving occupant surveys, field measurements and simulation methods. This is ASE (Annual Sunlight Exposure) for LEED. However, the introduction of these metrics is still very recent, and current literature indicates an impending need for further refinement. These new metrics address dynamic and temporal aspects of daylight not previously covered by other standards. The annual-climate-based daylighting metrics released by the Illuminating Engineering Society in 2012 and adopted by LEED in 2014 made a relevant advancement by introducing Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) to predict daylight sufficiency and probability of glare, respectively. Ultimately, this study recommends further validation of the IES LM-83-12 and LEED v4 simulation requirements to increase confidence on the use of the ASE metric. Results suggest that ASE does not adequately represent human experience and visual comfort through the illuminance plan view approach, and that future versions of this metric should use an integrated approach with luminance metrics for more accurate visual comfort and glare analysis. CONFIRM SURFACE ROUGHNESS DISTANCE AND THE INITIATION POINT OF EXPOSURE D: THE INITIATION POINT (Ip) OF EXPOSURE D OCCURS AT THE POINT ON LAND WHERE SURFACE ROUGHNESS D PREVAILS IN THE UPWIND DIRECTION FOR. Its goal is to evaluate to what extent the Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) metric reflects visual comfort, as assessed from both qualitative and quantitative data collected in a NZEB and LEED Platinum certified office building. We’ve created a few quick steps that will help any design professional understand how and when to apply an exposure D condition. This thesis researches visual comfort and glare conditions using a field study approach.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |