Enhanced Energy Savings in Indoor Environments with Effective Daylight Utilization and Area Segregation

• Main Authors: Mohammad Asif ul Haq, Aminul Islam, ASM Shihavuddin, Md Hasan Maruf, Ahmed Al Mansur, Mohammad Yusri Hassan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2020-08-01
• Series: Symmetry
• Subjects: energy efficiency; energy saving; daylight utilization; lighting control system; DIALux
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/8/1313

Daylight utilization is one of the key areas for energy savings in indoor environments. An important factor often not considered by the existing daylight utilization approaches is the segregation of the floor into task areas and non-task areas. It is also observed that the inherent asymmetry in the daylight penetration pattern in most indoor environments is not given consideration while designing artificial lighting arrangements. Moreover, daily and annual daylight availability is found to have a symmetrical variation pattern, which is a significant factor often overlooked in utilizing daylight. Thus, the energy assessment can be inaccurate, leading to an incorrect or impractical evaluation of energy savings. This research proposes a comprehensive new approach to assess the energy-saving potential of daylight utilization in indoor environments. This new method combines two approaches to overcome the aforementioned issues. (1) The considered area is segmented into task area and non-task areas (or surrounding area) and considers different levels of required illuminance for each separate area. (2) The variation of available daylight at the considered location is accounted for by dividing the daylight penetration into multiple levels. For the study, the method is first applied to a simulated office space considering real-life parameters, where the annual energy savings were estimated at 83.67%. For further validation, a comparison with a case from an existing method was also carried out, and the proposed method gave an energy saving estimation of 73.45%. This indicates a 10% higher energy saving estimation as compared to the original study, against which the proposed method was compared.