Daylight Analysis

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019

Architecture 732-001 Daylighting | Fall 2019 Madonna Nisha Miranda, Suryakiran Prabhakaran

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Site

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Spatial Program and Distribution

GALLERIES - 800 sq.m.

OFFICE, LABS WALKWAYS WATER BODIES COURTYARD AUDITORIUM FOYER

FOR THE ANALYSIS, GALLERY’S A, B AND C HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Spatial Program

GALLERY B

PLANETARIU M

GALLERY C

GALLERY A

OFFICE AND CONFERENCE ROOMS

ENTRANCE

COURTYARDS AND WATERBODIES

AUDITORIUM NORT H

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019

Site Location

Spatial Program

Features

GALLERIES

ENTRANCE

●

●

N

Vijayapura is an ancient city in Karnataka, India well known for its historical monuments of Architectural importance.

Originally established by the Chalukyas, the city later came under Muslim Maratha Influence, and has a legendary history.

ENTRANCE

●

●

N

The Science Center has three main thematic galleries used to exhibit innovations/ technologies that are being developed and also display scientific historic developments.

Additionally, the center houses an auditorium, laboratory, digital lab, offices, store rooms, and meeting rooms.

ENTRANCE

● ● ●

N

The skeleton of the building is built on varied sizes of arches flowing along the boundaries of each space.

Courtyards, being an important feature of mughal architecture is flanked by arches and surrounds all the spaces.

Water bodies are introduced in possible open pockets in between courtyards for cooling down the galleries by allowing air to flow through it and into the spaces.

FOR THE ANALYSIS, GALLERY’S A, B AND C HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019

Integration of Water Bodies

Fenestrations

GALLERIES

B

Features

GALLERIES

GALLERIES

C

A

●

The floor plan was developed on a matrix rearranged by pushing in and out the spaces to allow the creation of pockets for air to pass through water bodies.

N

N

N ● ●

The fenestrations comprised mostly of lattice screens, windows and large operable doors.

Brick walls were used on the facades facing west to prevent heat gain.

●

A sloping roof with interventions of domes and arches were used to add a historical character to the building.

FOR THE ANALYSIS, GALLERY’S A, B AND C HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Sunlight and Radiation Analysis

GALLERIES

ANALYSIS ● ● ●

The Galleries face the North. Considering the site is in the northern hemisphere the sun tilts towards the South.

To compensate for the orientation, the walls were originally designed to be completely glazed upto 5m high. The dome on the roof of the program is also glazed.

To provide some amount of shading, the fenestrations have a metal trellis.

FOR THE ANALYSIS, GALLERY’S A, B AND C HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Dome Interventions

12 noon

9 am

Point in time Illuminance - May 01

3 pm

3pm

Concrete Dome

Double Pane Glass Dome

Clear Low-E Coated Pane Dome

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the changes in the illumination indoors with various changes in the material properties of the dome. The goal is to understand the consequences in choosing different types of domes, thereby, choosing the best intervention that is suited to the design. The interventions must not change the cultural relevance of the design.

A C

B

N

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Material Properties

Baseline Properties used in Initial Design Interior Wall Reflectance

50%

Exterior Facade Reflectance

30%

Ceiling Reflectance

70%

Ground Reflectance

70%

Glazing

76%

Baseline Properties used in Modified Design Interior Wall Reflectance

50%

Exterior Facade Reflectance

30%

Ceiling Reflectance

70%

Ground Reflectance

70%

Glazing

65%

Shading Device Reflectance

50%

Dome which was desired to be as a skylight changed to an opaque material - concrete Gallery A Reflectance of Windows on the southern side reduced by 65% to mitigate glare and some overlit surfaces Gallery B Gallery C

Vertical louvres of 0.25m (d) x 3.0m (h) also used to diffuse the harsh 9am sun.

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Point in Time Illuminance INTRODUCTION

This a comparison of analysis of the Galleries with the original material and spatial configurations with the modified material types and properties.

METHODOLOGY

Point in Time Illuminance was run in Diva for two months - May and September. This provides insight into how the illuminance varies throughout the year. For the modified design, the dome was changed to concrete, the glazed surfaces were replaced by double pane windows with Low-E coating and some of the glazed surfaces were substituted with brick. Louvres were added to shade the glazed surfaces as well.

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

9:00 am, 1st May

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

ANALYSIS RESULT

In the original design, Gallery A has issues regarding the clear double paned dome. It is a source of glare. Gallery C receives most of its uncomfortable illuminance from the East due to the glazed wall assembly. The is a reduction and elimination in the high illuminance in the modified design.

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 16478Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 7638Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 5747Lux

12:00 pm, 1st May

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

CONCLUSION

There is a reduction in all three cases throughout the day. The minimal illumination levels that are high are a consequence of natural light for the space. This can be controlled with the assistance of the operable louvers provided.

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

Original Design

3:00 pm, 1st May

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

With Interventions

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Point in Time Illuminance INTRODUCTION

This a comparison of analysis of the Galleries with the original material and spatial configurations with the modified material types and properties.

METHODOLOGY

Point in Time Illuminance was run in Diva for two months - May and September. This provides insight into how the illuminance varies throughout the year. For the modified design, the dome was changed to concrete, the glazed surfaces were replaced by double pane windows with Low-E coating and some of the glazed surfaces were substituted with brick. Louvres were added to shade the glazed surfaces as well.

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11081Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6953Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 17351Lux

9:00 am, 1st September

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

ANALYSIS RESULT

In the original design, Gallery A has issues regarding the clear double paned dome. It is a source of glare. Gallery C receives most of its uncomfortable illuminance from the East due to the glazed wall assembly. The is a reduction and elimination in the high illuminance in the modified design.

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 14384Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 8742Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 4120Lux

12:00 pm, 1st September

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 14011Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 11589Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 4207Lux

3:00 pm, 1st September

Mean Illuminance Gallery A: 11921Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery B: 6608Lux Mean Illuminance Gallery C: 16639Lux

CONCLUSION

There is a reduction in all three cases throughout the day. The minimal illumination levels that are high are a consequence of natural light for the space. This can be controlled with the assistance of the operable louvers provided.

Original Design

With Interventions

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Daylight Autonomy INTRODUCTION

This a comparison of daylight autonomy of the Galleries with the original material and spatial configurations with the modified material types and properties.It is represented as a percentage of annual daytime hours that a given point in a space is above a specified illumination level. For this analysis, the illumination level is 3000 ux.

METHODOLOGY

Daylight Autonomy provides insight into the percentage of the space in which illuminance values exceed the baseline throughout the year. For the modified design, the dome was changed to concrete, the glazed surfaces were replaced by double pane windows with Low-E coating and some of the glazed surfaces were substituted with brick. Louvres were added to shade the glazed surfaces as well.

ANALYSIS RESULT

In the original design, all the galleries exceeded the minimum illumination levels throughout the year. The modifications reduced the illumination levels significantly.

Primarily, it can infer that the dome accounted for over heating and lighting. The east facade of Gallery C is still a source of concern. However, it must be noted that the same facade has operable louvers that can control the daylight entering the space.

This was a premeditated design intervention.

Mean Daylight Autonomy Gallery A: 81.95% of time occupied Gallery B: 91.64% of time occupied Gallery C: 88.86% of time occupied Mean daylight autonomy is 87% for active occupant behaviour.

The percentage of space with a daylight autonomy larger than 50% is 98% for active occupant behaviour

Original Design

CONCLUSION

There is a reduction throughout the year. The minimal illumination levels that are high are a consequence of natural light for the space. This can be controlled with the assistance of the operable louvers provided. This is a design intervention.

Considering the program of the space, natural daylight must be provided and not completely eliminated..

NEXT STEP

Additionally, analysis for the corresponding interior walls for the space can be run.

This is to ensure that the work being displayed can be observed with natural daylight and the amount of mechanical lighting required.

Mean Daylight Autonomy Gallery A: 25% Gallery B: 65% Gallery C: 51%

With Interventions

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Useful Daylight Index INTRODUCTION

This a comparison of useful daylight index of the Galleries with the original material and spatial configurations with the modified material types and properties.It is represented as the daylight availability metric that corresponds to the percentage of the occupied time when a target range of illuminance, 300-3000 lux, at a point in a space is met by daylight.

METHODOLOGY

Useful Daylight Index provides insight for what percentage of the spaces the illuminance values meet the required range throughout the year. For the modified design, the dome was changed to concrete, the glazed surfaces were replaced by double pane windows with Low-E coating and some of the glazed surfaces were substituted with brick. Louvres were added to shade the glazed surfaces as well.

ANALYSIS RESULT

Useful Daylight Index (300-3000Lux) Gallery A: 17.87% of time occupied Gallery B: 8.36% of time occupied Gallery C: 10.97% of time occupied

Original Design

In the original design, most of the space within the galleries do not meet the range for comfortable illumination levels throughout the year. The modifications increased the useful illumination levels significantly. The east facade of Gallery C is still a source of concern. However, it must be noted that the same facade has operable louvers that can control the daylight entering the space. This was a premeditated design intervention.

CONCLUSION

There is a increase in useful daylit levels for most of the space throughout the year.

This can be attributed to the modifications made in the design that accounted for the control of daylight entering the galleries.

NEXT STEP

Additionally, modifications in the design can be made to the north corner of Gallery A and B to increase the amount of useful daylight entering the space.

Useful Daylight Index (300-3000Lux) Gallery A: 73.47% of time occupied Gallery B: 33.84% of time occupied Gallery C: 47.91% of time occupied

With Interventions

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Daylight Factor INTRODUCTION

This a comparison of daylight factor of the Galleries with the original material and spatial configurations with the modified material types and properties.It is represented as the ratio of the light level inside a structure to the light level outside the structure.

METHODOLOGY

Daylight Factor provides insight into the amount of light entering the structure by comparing the illuminance values inside and outside the structure throughout the year. For the modified design, the dome was changed to concrete, the glazed surfaces were replaced by double pane windows with Low-E coating and some of the glazed surfaces were substituted with brick. Louvres were added to shade the glazed surfaces as well.

ANALYSIS RESULT

Mean Daylight Factor Gallery A: 20.3% Gallery B: 21.65% Gallery C: 18.65%

Original Design

In the original design, all the galleries allowed around 20% of light to enter annually.

The modifications reduced the interior illumination levels significantly. Primarily, it can infer that the dome accounted for over heating and lighting. The addition of operable louvers and changing the material properties for some of the glazed surfaces to increase insulation and decrease the natural non-refracted, diffused light from entering can be credited for this change.

CONCLUSION

There is a reduction throughout the year. There is a decrease of nearly 10% in Gallery B and C. It can be observed that Gallery A has the most significant change in daylight factor due to change made in the material of the dome. The amount of diffused or refracted light entering can be controlled by the operable louvers.

NEXT STEP

Additionally, analysis for the space should be run with all the operable louvers aligned to allow the maximum amount of light indoors. This should be done to help us understand the limitations of the louvers.

Mean Daylight Factor Gallery A: 8% Gallery B: 13% Gallery C: 12.2%

With Interventions

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Glare Analysis INTRODUCTION This is a glare analysis of the original design of Gallery B and the modified design.

The metric used here is candela per square meter.

One of the issues of the original Gallery design is the harsh light from the exterior penetrating inside.

Contrast Ratio 3.7:1 3:00 pm, 1st March Original Design

Contrast Ratio 2.2:1 Gallery B North

METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS RESULT

Modifications such as reducing the ceiling reflectivity, addition of operable louvers and replacing the single pane glass to double pane glass with argon gas were made. The reflectivity of the windows was hence altered.

The modifications improved visual comfort to the exterior by reducing the contrast ratio from nearly 4:1 to nearly 2:1.

3:00 pm, 1st March With Interventions

A C

B

N

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Glare Analysis INTRODUCTION This is a glare analysis of the original design of Gallery B, southern view, and the modified design. The metric used here is candela per square meter.

The analysis of the Original Gallery is taken with the original material and spatial configurations it was designed to have.

One of the issues of the original Gallery design is the harsh southern light from the exterior penetrating inside.

Contrast Ratio 5:1 12:00 pm, 1st January

Contrast Ratio 3.7:1 Gallery B South

Original Design

METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS RESULT

Modifications such as reducing the ceiling reflectivity, addition of operable louvers and replacing the single pane glass to double pane glass with argon gas were made. The reflectivity of the windows was hence altered. Some of the glazed surfaces were replaced with brick.

The modifications improved visual comfort to the exterior by reducing the contrast ratio from nearly 5:1 to nearly 4:1.

12:00 pm, 1st January With Interventions

A C

B

N

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Glare Analysis INTRODUCTION This is a glare analysis of the original design of Gallery B and C,western view, and the modified design. The metric used here is candela per square meter.

The analysis of the Original Gallery is taken with the original material and spatial configurations it was designed to have.

One of the issues of the original Gallery design is that the space is too underlit especially on northern gallery wall space

Contrast Ratio 14:1 12:00 pm, 1st May

Contrast Ratio 6:1 Gallery B & C West

Original Design

METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS RESULT

Modifications such as reducing the ceiling reflectivity, addition of operable louvers and replacing the single pane glass to double pane glass with argon gas were made. The reflectivity of the windows was hence altered. Some portions of the brick wall were replaced with glazing to allow more light to pass indoors.

The modifications improved visual comfort to the exterior by reducing the contrast ratio from 14:1 to nearly 6:1.

12:00 pm, 1st May With Interventions

A C

B

N

Science Center at Vijayapura, A Daylight Analysis, December 10th, 2019 Glare Analysis INTRODUCTION This is a glare analysis of the original design of Gallery A and the modified design. The metric used here is candela per square meter.

The analysis of the Original Gallery is taken with the original material and spatial configurations it was designed to have.

One of the issues of the original Gallery design is the transparent skylight dome causing overlit spaces in the gallery.

Contrast Ratio 6:1

Contrast Ratio 6:1 3:00 pm, 2nd February

3:00 pm, 2nd February

With Interventions

With Interventions

METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS RESULT

Modifications such as reducing the ceiling reflectivity, addition of operable louvers and replacing the single pane glass to double pane glass with argon gas were made. The reflectivity of the windows was hence altered. The glass dome in Gallery A was replaced with concrete.

The modifications improved visual comfort to the exterior by reducing the contrast ratio from nearly 4:1 to nearly 2:1.

A C

Gallery A East

B

N