Dear Pedro,
Thanks for the tip about reporting the inside temperature
of the outer skin to get the shading temperature!
Regarding the wind data, my usual approach is to not iuse
wind data to size a naturally ventilated space and first
rely on stack effect to determine opening size
requirement. I do that because then I size based on the
minimum available pressure difference which ensures that
the space will have this or greater pressure difference if
there is wind provided that opening are sized and located
so that wind cannot be a counter pressure. The second
reason is what you pointed pout about wind data.
Personnally I don't really have a reliable database about
it and it is quite costly to get it either from a
dedicated database or a CFD specific application. That has
been so far my design approach but I am opened to critic!
Now about your comment on the blind slat width that will
impact the separation parameter if one wants to keep a
constant number of slats, what you say is right but in my
case, since I wanted to try the combined effect of the
slat as a solar shading AND as a light shelve, I put it
horizontal. If it is horizontal, how does the program
handle the number of slat as a function of their
separation? I believe it matters not because a horizontal
slat has no projection on the glazing area therefore it
occupies the same space and only the separation is
involved in the calculation...What do you think?
As for the daylighting, I still have to dig. I am
currently comparing dynamic results from Eplus with a
daylight software to evaluate my approach...
Thanks!
Aymeric
--- In EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Pedro Peixeiro <ppeixeiro@...> wrote:
>
> Aymeric,
>
> If you mount a shading device in your DSF and you
dont ventilate it, it
> will heat up considerably. this is a problem that can
occur even during
> the winter if the climate is predominantly hot. I
would point out
> initially for a ventilated façade, even if its just
to prevent it from
> heating up too much and cause an adittional heating
load into the main
> zone. Run some tests and check surface temperatures
(note: if you report
> the surface inside temperature for the outer pane of
the DSF, you'll get
> the shading temperature) and overall heating loads.
It will all depend
> mostly on climate, and make sure you use reliable
data on wind speed and
> direction, it will influence a lot DSF natural
ventilation (i'm assuming
> you'll use Airflow Network).
>
> As for the blind simulation: if you want to check the
difference with
> slat width, don't forget to change the slat
separation accordingly. if
> you don't, E+ will proportionaly increase the number
of slats according
> to the change you make in the slat width, in order to
occupy the entire
> glazing area.
>
> As for light shelves is concerned: unfortunately i'm
not a daylight
> expert, can't give you any special advice on how to
model them other
> than to follow instructions on the I/O reference. but
i would guess
> that, depending on the blinds, you could benefit from
the shelves since
> daylighting would normally be reduced when the
shading is on. I would
> also suggest using DElight objects, they seem to be
able to handle
> inter-reflections better (Eng. Reference, pag 183).
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
>
> On 02-03-2011 3:36, aymericnovel wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > From what I read at p.444, E+ can handle
daylight through the DSF but
> > won't manage all inter reflexions, especially
those going out on the
> > other side of the zone. But that can be surely
considered as a small
> > fraction.
> >
> > As for the DSF, it is a summer dominated climate
so the main use if
> > ventilated cavity. However, the whole simulation
study is broader and
> > aims at determining if the DSF should be tightly
closed and vented in
> > summer to allow a double use and act as a buffer
in winter of if we
> > should just let it not tight and therefore
design it like a giant
> > external shading only used for summer
protection. Given the low degree
> > days in this location I believe we are likely to
go for option 2. It
> > is also of course a question of cost and fire
safety considerations.
> >
> > For the blinds I was trying to understand what
the model was actually
> > doing so I have been varying the slat width,
separations and visible
> > reflectance. Separation and reflectance
variations showed logical
> > results and sensitivity but slat width
variation, as I said before,
> > when getting close to 0, should give results
closer and closer to the
> > "unshaded" simulation. But it is not, and far
from that. So I assume
> > the whole blind model for daylight works only in
a typical range of
> > blind geometrical properties because I don't
observe continuity of
> > results.
> >
> > I don't think it is very useful to be used as a
light shelve anyway
> > because it is so glazed, but lighting
requirements are high too and
> > take a major part of the bill so it deserves a
triple check to know if
> > I can or cannot bring more light deeper in the
space.
> >
> > but if you have another idea to model a light
shelve in the DSF cavity
> > and correctly determine its solar shading and
light shelve combined
> > effect, I'll take any advise because this is
typically a case where it
> > is difficult to know where the program is
reliable or not...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aymeric
> >
> > --- In EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
<mailto:EnergyPlus_Support%40yahoogroups.com>, Pedro
Peixeiro
> > <ppeixeiro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Aymeric.
> > >
> > > The calculation method for daylight takes
into consideration the
> > > presence of a DSF when one exists (I/O
reference, pag. 444). As for the
> > > construction being fully glazed, its an
interesting case scenario.
> > Can't
> > > provide you with an answer, but i'm also
curious as to know if E+ can
> > > handle all the transmissions/reflections
that occurs in such a zone.
> > >
> > > Some questions: do you have some kind of
ventilation on your DSF or is
> > > it acting like a buffer? And what parameter
or parameters of the blind
> > > are you actually using to reduse its size?
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01-03-2011 9:56, aymericnovel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I am facing a quite challenging design
right now and I a m not
> > sure if
> > > > the current Eplus can do it. the
software isn't bugging but I am
> > > > worrying about the validity of the
model.
> > > >
> > > > Rough description is:
> > > > Fully glazed double skin open space
for sport activity
> > > > 10m floor to height ceiling and 64m
side lenght (it's a square)
> > > > Double skin design (double pane for
internal skin and simple pane for
> > > > external skin)
> > > >
> > > > So far I have not even tempted to read
results obtained from the real
> > > > architecture that includes some
details that makes it not exactly a
> > > > square geometry. I want to validate
the simple square model.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure of:
> > > > 1) Is the geometry not compatible with
energy plus daylighting
> > > > calculation capabilities (flux split
method is said to be limited to
> > > > cases where room depth is less than 3
times floor to height ceiling):
> > > > Here it is not the case but the space
is fully glazed.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Is the daylighting model capable of
properly handling the daylight
> > > > distribution in the sport area with a
double skin zone between it and
> > > > outside?
> > > >
> > > > 3) If 2) is possible, what happens if
I put a blind in the double
> > skin
> > > > zone? I have tried many simulations
and I believe this is not working
> > > > well. When one tries to reduce the
blind dimensions to almost nothing
> > > > to get close to the case where there
is no blind, results don't
> > get close.
> > > >
> > > > It is a very tricky design and the
architect counts on these
> > > > simulations to be sure of his facade
design. Of course it is a hot
> > and
> > > > sunny climate so the guy came and said
"hey, can you help me doing an
> > > > energy efficient glass cube under the
sun?".
> > > >
> > > > Any help on the above questions and/or
about a proper methodology to
> > > > assess such a case would be immensely
appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot!
> > > > Aymeric
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>