Experimental Validation of Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design 2009 and Daysim 3.0
Experimental Validation of Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design 2009 and Daysim 3.0
复制标题
DOI：
10.1582/leukos.2009.06.01001
复制
发表时间：
2009-07
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
C. Reinhart;Pierre-Felix Breton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Reinhart;Pierre-Felix Breton
摘要本文将使用Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design 2009（3ds Max Design）和Daysim 3.0（Daysim）两个模拟程序生成的日光模拟结果与侧光空间中的室内照度测量结果进行比较。侧窗空间在一个单一的位置，但配置了五个开窗和玻璃选项，并在各种天空条件下运行。这些测量形成了一组“日光照明测试案例”，这些案例是最近开发的，用于评估不同日光模拟程序的模拟能力和局限性。3ds Max Design和Daysim都将外部直射和漫反射辐照度作为模拟输入，程序根据这些输入预测向上工作平面传感器和向下天花板传感器网格上的室内照明。3ds Max Design基于Exposure™技术，该技术是一种照明分析模块，包括Perez天空模型的“着色器”，并使用mental ray®光线跟踪器进行全局照明计算。Daysim还使用Perez天空模型，并基于与日光系数方法相结合的Radiance后向光线跟踪器。两个程序与测量结果的比较表明，3ds Max Design模拟日光照明测试用例的室内照明，其可靠性与Daysim相当。大多数的平均偏差误差和均方根误差的范围内，在早期的验证研究报告：这两个程序都成功地再现测量的sidelit空间和没有一个lightshelf。虽然3ds Max Design始终低估了通过半透明面板的入射光通量，但Daysim结果低于内部百叶窗测试用例的测量值。结果表明，这两个程序的准确性是足够的典型的采光设计调查的空间与复杂性相媲美的五个采光测试案例。
Abstract This article compares daylight simulation results generated with two simulation programs, Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design 2009 (3ds Max Design) and Daysim 3.0 (Daysim), to indoor illuminance measurements in a sidelit space. The sidelit space was in a single location, but was configured with five fenestration and glazing options, and operated under a variety of sky conditions. The measurements form a set of ‘daylighting test cases’ that were recently developed to evaluate the simulation capabilities and limitations of different daylight simulation programs. Both 3ds Max Design and Daysim were given external direct and diffuse irradiances as simulation input, from which the programs predicted indoor illuminances on a grid of upward facing work plane sensors and downward facing ceiling sensors. 3ds Max Design is based on Exposure™ technology, a lighting analysis module that includes a ‘shader’ of the Perez sky model and that uses the mental ray® raytracer for the global illumination calculation. Daysim also uses the Perez sky model and is based on the Radiance backward raytracer combined with a daylight coefficient approach. The comparison of both programs with measurements demonstrated that 3ds Max Design simulated indoor illuminances for the daylighting test cases with reliability comparable to Daysim. Most mean bias errors and root mean square errors were in the range of those reported in earlier validation studies: both programs succeeded in reproducing measurements for a sidelit space with and without a lightshelf. While 3ds Max Design consistently underestimated the incoming light flux going through a translucent panel, Daysim results were lower than measurements for the internal venetian blind test case. The results suggest that the accuracy of both programs is sufficient for typical daylighting design investigations of spaces with complexity comparable to the five daylighting test cases.