Advertisement

Building Simulation

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 695–708 | Cite as

Potential of perforated exterior louvers to improve the comfort and energy performance of an office space in different climates

  • Daniel Uribe
  • Waldo Bustamante
  • Sergio Vera
Research Article Building Thermal, Lighting, and Acoustics Modeling
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

Fully glazed building façades often experience high solar heat gains and daylight transmission, resulting in high cooling energy consumption and visual discomfort. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of perforated exterior louvers for controlling solar heat gains through a fenestration system, providing visual comfort to the occupant and improving the energy performance of an office space in distinct climates (tropical, semiarid, humid subtropical, continental) based on integrated thermal and lighting simulations. The louvers evaluated have 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% perforations with 120 and 240 mm louver spacing. This study demonstrates the potential of perforated exterior louvers for controlling solar heat gains and daylight transmission to improve the visual comfort of the occupant and the building energy consumption. Since perforations can significantly influence office performance and occupant comfort, it is crucial for an evaluation of this type of louver to be completed in the early design stages with integrated thermal and lighting simulation tools that are able to address the complex thermal and optical properties of the louvers. Louvers with 120 mm spacing and 5%–20% perforations reduce office energy consumption by 15%–63% (depending on the city) compared with an unshaded window while meeting the visual comfort criteria (sDA300/50% between 96% and 100%, ASE4000/400h of 0% and DGPs perception class A). Additionally, the percentage of perforations and spacing of louvers significantly impact the evaluated performance criteria. CFSs fully cover the window but have evenly distributed perforations outperform shading devices with larger spacing between louvers and louvers without perforations.

Keywords

perforated exterior louvers visual comfort solar heat gains energy performance daylight integrated building simulations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by research grant FONDECYT 1141240 of the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research of Chile (CONICYT). The authors also gratefully acknowledge the research support provided by the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS) under the research grant CONICYT/FONDAP 15110020.

References

  1. Appelfeld D, McNeil A, Svendsen S (2012). An hourly based performance comparison of an integrated micro-structural perforated shading screen with standard shading systems. Energy and Buildings, 50: 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASHRAE (2013) ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.Google Scholar
  3. Bellia L, Marino C, Minichiello F, Pedace A (2014). An overview on solar shading systems for buildings. Energy Procedia, 62: 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco JM, Arriaga P, Rojí E, Cuadrado J (2014). Investigating the thermal behavior of double-skin perforated sheet façades: Part A: Model characterization and validation procedure. Building and Environment, 82: 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bueno B, Wienold J, Katsifaraki A, Kuhn TE (2015). Fener: A radiance-based modelling approach to assess the thermal and daylighting performance of complex fenestration systems in office spaces. Energy and Buildings, 94: 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bustamante W, Vera S, Prieto A, Vásquez C (2014). Solar and lighting transmission through complex fenestration systems of office buildings in a warm and dry climate of Chile. Sustainability, 6: 2786–2801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bustamante W, Uribe D, Vera S, Molina G (2017). An integrated thermal and lighting simulation tool to support the design process of complex fenestration systems for office buildings. Applied Energy, 198: 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CIBSE (2006). CIBSE Guide A: Environmental Design. London: The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.Google Scholar
  9. Correia da Silva P, Leal V, Andersen M (2013). Occupants interaction with electric lighting and shading systems in real single-occupied offices: Results from a monitoring campaign. Building and Environment, 64: 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan Y-C, Tzempelikos A (2013). Efficient venetian blind control strategies considering daylight utilization and glare protection. Solar Energy, 98: 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan Y-C, Tzempelikos A (2015). Daylighting and energy analysis of multi-sectional facades. Energy Procedia, 78: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heschong L, Van Den Wymelenberg K, Andersen M, Digert N, Fernandes L, et al. (2013). Approved methods: IES spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and annual sunlight exposure (ASE). Infoscience Standard, LM-83-12. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffmann S, Lee ES, McNeil A, Fernandes L, Vidanovic D, Thanachareonkit A (2016). Balancing daylight, glare, and energyefficiency goals: An evaluation of exterior coplanar shading systems using complex fenestration modeling tools. Energy and Buildings, 112: 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA (2012). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS): 2012 CBECS Survey Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at http://www.eia.gov. Accessed 30 Aug 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Kirimtat A, Koyunbaba BK, Chatzikonstantinou I, Sariyildiz S (2016). Review of simulation modeling for shading devices in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53: 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konis K (2013). Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco, California. Building and Environment, 59: 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhn TE (2006). Solar control: A general evaluation method for facades with venetian blinds or other solar control systems. Energy and Buildings, 38: 648–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laouadi A, Parekh A (2007). Optical models of complex fenestration systems. Lighting Research & Technology, 39: 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LBNL (2014). WINDOW 7.3. Berkeley, CA, USA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  20. Li DHW, Lam JC (2000). Solar heat gain factors and the implications to building designs in subtropical regions. Energy and Buildings, 32: 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu M, Wittchen KB, Heiselberg PK (2015). Control strategies for intelligent glazed façade and their influence on energy and comfort performance of office buildings in Denmark. Applied Energy, 145: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucon O, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Ahmed AZ, Akbari H, Bertoldi P, et al. (2014). Buildings. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mainini AG, Poli T, Zinzi M, Speroni A (2014). Spectral light transmission measure of metal screens for glass façades and assessment of their shading potential. Energy Procedia, 48: 1292–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNeil A (2013). The Three-Phase Method for Simulating Complex Fenestration with Radiance. Available at https://www.radianceonline.org//learning/tutorials/Tutorial-ThreePhaseMethod.pdf.Google Scholar
  25. McNeil A, Lee ES (2013). A validation of the Radiance three-phase simulation method for modelling annual daylight performance of optically complex fenestration systems. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 6: 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeil A, Jonsson CJ, Appelfeld D, Ward G, Lee ES (2013). A validation of a ray-tracing tool used to generate bi-directional scattering distribution functions for complex fenestration systems. Solar Energy, 98: 404–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNeil A (2015a). Daylight simulation of complex fenestration systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium Architecture and Engineering of Building Envelopes, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  28. McNeil A (2015b). genBSDF Tutorial. Available at https://www.radianceonline.org/learning/tutorials/Tutorial-genBSDF_v1.0.1.pdf. Accessed 3 10.03.2016.Google Scholar
  29. Molina G, Vera S, Bustamante W (2014). Groundhog—Lighting analysis within Sketchup. Available at http://igd-labs.github.io/Groundhog.Google Scholar
  30. Molina G, Bustamante W, Rao J, Fazio P, Vera S (2015). Evaluation of radiance’s genBSDF capability to assess solar bidirectional properties of complex fenestration systems. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 8: 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nielsen MV, Svendsen S, Jensen LB (2011). Quantifying the potential of automated dynamic solar shading in office buildings through integrated simulations of energy and daylight. Solar Energy, 85: 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (2013). Survey of commercial and institutional energy use: Buildings 2009: Summary Report. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.Google Scholar
  33. OECD/IEA (2013). Transition to sustainable buildings: Strategies and opportunities to 2050. Available at http://www.iea.org.Google Scholar
  34. Reilly S, Hawthorne W (1998). The impact of windows on residential energy use. ASHRAE Transactions, 104(2): 791–798.Google Scholar
  35. Shen H, Tzempelikos A (2012). Daylighting and energy analysis of private offices with automated interior roller shades. Solar Energy, 86: 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shen E, Hu J, Patel M (2014). Energy and visual comfort analysis of lighting and daylight control strategies. Building and Environment, 78: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stazi F, Marinelli S, Di Perna C, Munafò P (2014). Comparison on solar shadings: Monitoring of the thermo-physical behaviour, assessment of the energy saving, thermal comfort, natural lighting and environmental impact. Solar Energy, 105: 512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tzempelikos A, Bessoudo M, Athienitis AK, Zmeureanu R (2010). Indoor thermal environmental conditions near glazed facades with shading devices–Part II: Thermal comfort simulation and impact of glazing and shading properties. Building and Environment, 45: 2517–2525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tzempelikos A, Shen H (2013). Comparative control strategies for roller shades with respect to daylighting and energy performance. Building and Environment, 67: 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vera S, Bustamante W, Molina G, Uribe D (2016). A flexible and time-efficient schedule-based communication tool for integrated lighting and thermal simulations of spaces with controlled artificial lighting and complex fenestration systems. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 9: 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vera S, Uribe D, Bustamante W, Molina G (2017). Optimization of a fixed exterior complex fenestration system considering visual comfort and energy performance criteria. Building and Environment, 113: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Wienold J (2007). Dynamic simulation of blind controls strategies for visual comfort and energy balance analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  44. Wienold J (2009). Dynamic daylight glare evaluation. In: Proceeings of the 11th International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
  45. Yi H, Srinivasan RS, Braham WW (2015). An integrated energy–emergy approach to building form optimization: Use of EnergyPlus, emergy analysis and Taguchi-regression method. Building and Environment, 84: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Uribe
    • 1
    • 3
  • Waldo Bustamante
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sergio Vera
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Construction Engineering and ManagementSchool of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.School of ArchitecturePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Center for Sustainable Urban DevelopmentPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations