Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design
Findings from a survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.012
复制
发表时间：
2006-07
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
C. Reinhart;Annegret Fitz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Reinhart;Annegret Fitz
本文介绍了一个基于网络的调查结果，目前使用的日光模拟在建筑设计。调查于2003年12月2日至2004年1月19日进行。来自27个国家的185人完成了调查。大多数受访者在加拿大（20%）、美国（20%）和德国（12%）工作。大多数参与者是通过建立模拟邮件列表招募的。他们自我报告的职业范围从能源顾问和工程师（38%）到建筑师和照明设计师（31%）以及研究人员（23%）。他们主要在大型和小型办公室和学校工作。91%的受访者在他们的建筑设计中包括采光方面。那些不考虑采光的人指责缺乏信息和客户不愿意为这种额外的服务付费。在考虑采光的参与者中，79%使用了计算机模拟。这种对计算机模拟的强烈样本偏见反映了许多参与者是通过建立模拟邮件列表招募的。与会者将工具的复杂性和程序文档不足列为现有程序的弱点。日光模拟器，最常见的训练方式就是自我训练。设计开发期间的工具使用率明显高于原理图设计期间。大多数调查参与者使用采光软件进行参数研究，并将结果作为设计决策的基础提交给客户。虽然日光系数和内部照度是最常计算的模拟输出，但遮阳类型和控制是受日光分析影响的最常见设计方面。与1994年的调查相比，比例模型测量的使用迅速下降，而对采光工具可靠性的信任度却有所上升。虽然参与者共列出了他们经常使用的42种不同的日光模拟程序，但超过50%的程序选择是使用RADIANCE模拟引擎的工具，揭示了该程序在日光模拟社区中的优势。
This paper presents findings from a web-based survey on the current use of daylight simulations in building design. The survey was administered from December 2nd 2003 to January 19th 2004. One hundred and eighty five individuals from 27 countries completed the survey. The majority of respondents worked in Canada (20%), the United States (20%), and Germany (12%). Most participants were recruited through building simulation mailing lists. Their self-reported professions ranged from energy consultants and engineers (38%) to architects and lighting designers (31%) as well as researchers (23%). They worked predominantly on large and small offices and schools. Ninety one percent of respondents included daylighting aspects in their building design. Those who did not consider daylighting blamed lack of information and unwillingness of clients to pay for this extra service. Among those participants who were considering daylighting 79% used computer simulations. This strong sample bias towards computer simulations reflects that many participants had been recruited through building simulation mailing lists. Participants named tools’ complexity and insufficient program documentation as weaknesses of existing programs. Self-training was the most common training method for daylight simulation tools. Tool usage was significantly higher during design development than during schematic design. Most survey participants used daylighting software for parameter studies and presented the results to their clients as a basis for design decisions. While daylight factor and interior illuminances were the most commonly calculated simulation outputs, shading type and control were the most common design aspects influenced by a daylighting analysis. The use of scale model measurements had rapidly fallen compared to a 1994 survey, whereas, trust in the reliability of daylighting tools has risen. While participants named a total of 42 different daylight simulation programs that they routinely used, over 50% of program selections were for tools that use the RADIANCE simulation engine, revealing the program's predominance within the daylight simulation community.