2011
DOI: 10.3390/en4071010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards an Analysis of Daylighting Simulation Software

Abstract: Abstract:The aim of this article was to assess some of the main lighting software programs habitually used in architecture, subjecting them to a series of trials and analyzing the light distribution obtained in situations with different orientations, dates and geometry. The analysis examines Lightscape 3.2, Desktop Radiance 2.0, Lumen Micro 7.5, Ecotect 5.5 and Dialux 4.4.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We recognize however, that as this study only used one site for each urban form, further evaluation is needed to understand possible variations as influenced by specific geometries of the sites. In addition, while Ecotect has been used in numerous studies for a range of environmental simulations, recent studies also suggest that simulation results differ between Ecotect and other software (Acosta et al 2011) and that Ecotect, like other software, may not accurately predict building energy consumption (Reeves et al 2012). We have however, not come across studies that report on the accuracy of using Ecotect for PAR simulation, which is a more direct process compared to simulation of interior daylight and energy consumption of buildings, and as such could be less prone to differences in simulation results due to different simulation engines used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…We recognize however, that as this study only used one site for each urban form, further evaluation is needed to understand possible variations as influenced by specific geometries of the sites. In addition, while Ecotect has been used in numerous studies for a range of environmental simulations, recent studies also suggest that simulation results differ between Ecotect and other software (Acosta et al 2011) and that Ecotect, like other software, may not accurately predict building energy consumption (Reeves et al 2012). We have however, not come across studies that report on the accuracy of using Ecotect for PAR simulation, which is a more direct process compared to simulation of interior daylight and energy consumption of buildings, and as such could be less prone to differences in simulation results due to different simulation engines used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…When using simulation for generating new evidence or to test the validity of evidence, it is also important to consider the validity of the simulation results (i.e., simulation engine, the input to the model, and the output results). Several studies (e.g., [55][56][57][58][59][60][61]) already considered the evaluation of simulation tools.…”
Section: Integration Of Simulation and Ebd Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This significant difference occurs in the area away from the openings. A Research by Acosta (2011) show that the DF value of the artificial sky calculation is relatively higher than obtained by other methods (he compared with various computer simulation programs). As is observed, this condition may be caused by imprecise model making from the difference between color selected for a room SHS Web of Conferences 41, 06001 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184106001 eduARCHsia 2017 model in artificial sky and others method.…”
Section: Fig 7 Df Calculation Pattern (ᵨ = 4%)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Daylighting calculation is becoming the valuable need for the designer to optimize its potential in architectural design. Hopkinson (1966) cited by Acosta (2011) in his book Daylighting reveals the complexity of the calculation procedure in daylighting. Currently, a designer has many options in using the daylighting calculation methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%