Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Automated control strategies of inside slat-type blind considering visual comfort

and building energy performance
Myung Hwan Oh 1 , Kwang Ho Lee 1 , Jong Ho Yoon ∗
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanbat National University, Daejeon, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Windows are the only part in buildings that can directly penetrate the solar radiation into the space and
Received 20 August 2012 thus the shading devices are needed to control the solar penetration. Among different blind types in office
Accepted 20 September 2012 buildings, roll blinds are not operated efficiently and they are usually closed without any operations by
occupants. Therefore, optimized control strategies of slat-type blinds are suggested in this study through
Keywords: two stages. In the first stage, double-sided blind was suggested by applying different reflectance between
Window
front and back sides of the slat and by fully rotating the slat when the system mode was switched between
Slat-type blind
heating and cooling mode. When the double-sided was used along with the lighting dimming control,
Building energy
EnergyPlus
24.6% of the energy saving could be achieved compared to the baseline case and the glare could be avoided
Glare at the same time. In the second stage, the control strategies of slat angle and up/down control logic were
developed to fully remove the glare and improve the energy efficiency. As a result, 29.2% of energy saving
could be achieved and at the same time the chance of glare was only 0.1%.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One alternative to overcome those limitations of roll blinds is

Great amounts of effort have been made to reduce the build-
ing energy consumptions these days. Solar radiation control is one
of the essential factors to improve the building energy efficiency,
especially under the Korean climatic condition having four distinct
seasons with a hot and humid summer and a cold winter. Windows
are the only part in buildings that can directly penetrate the solar
radiation into the space and thus the shading devices are needed
to control the solar penetration [1].
Roll blind is one of the most commonly used blind types for the
solar radiation control in Korea. However, it has functional limi-
tations and thus more advanced blind type is needed. From the
energy saving point of view, roll blinds should be fully closed to
block the solar radiation in summer and should be fully opened to
introduce the solar radiation into the space in winter. However, at
the same time, the roll blind needs to be closed to block the strong
solar beam causing the glare in winter when the solar altitude is
high. In this case where the roll blind is closed to avoid the glare,
the day-lighting factor would be reduced and the heating energy
would increase.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 821 1126; fax: +82 42 821 1590.
E-mail addresses: bigomh@nate.com (M.H. Oh), kwhlee@hanbat.ac.kr (K.H. Lee),
jhyoon@hanbat.ac.kr (J.H. Yoon).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
to switch to slat-type blinds that have diverse and more advanced
control strategies. Slat-type blinds have up/down control to avoid
the glare and at the same time they have great flexibilities to adjust
the slat angle under each circumstance. In addition, the direct solar
radiation can be fully isolated and the high quality diffuse solar
radiation can be introduced into the space through the reflection
of solar radiation from each slat [2].
As mentioned earlier, an alternative to overcome the limitations
of roll blinds is to use slat-type blind. However, the manual control
of blinds by occupants is not an efficient way to reduce the building
energy and thus it should also be resolved. Occupants do not usu-
ally pay attention to the blinds and they are usually closed without
any operations by occupants. According to a survey by Paik et al.
[3], the manual control of blinds was realistically unfeasible due to
the high work load of occupants in office buildings despite the fact
that blinds should be controlled depending on the outdoor condi-
tion. Keeping the blind closed like this can block the solar radiation
which should be introduced to reduce the heating load in winter
and can increase the artificial lighting energy due to the blockage
of the day-lighting. Therefore, the automated control of blinds is
necessary to overcome the limitations of manual blind control.
A variety of research studies have been actively performed to
improve the slat-type blind performance [19]. In addition to the
studies on the slat blind itself such as those dealing with roller
blind and solar optical property [4] and those dealing with slat and
curved blinds [5–7], the blind integrated with the window systems
have been studied as well [8]. Furthermore, the automated control

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.09.019
 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737
Fig. 1. Plan view of the simulated building [28].
of blinds has also been actively studies thus far to overcome the
manual blind control. Reinhart suggested the artificial lighting con-
trol integrated with the blind control [9]. Occupancy profile and
workstation illuminance level have been plugged in as the input
condition in the control algorithm and improved energy efficiency
could be achieved compared to the manual blind control. However,
the study mainly focused on the lighting energy reduction and thus
the total building energy and the occupant visual comfort have not
been taken into account. Lee et al. suggested the lighting control
integrated with blind control to consider both cooling energy and
occupant comfort in full-scale office space [10]. Under different slat
angle conditions such as 90◦ , 45◦ , 15◦ and 0◦ optimum blind setting
was developed by considering workstation illuminance level, cool-
ing energy profile and extent to see the outside view. However,
the glare and heating energy were not taken into account in this
study.
In this study, the optimized automatic control strategies of slat-
type blinds were developed to efficiently adjust the solar radiation
through the window, which can improve both energy efficiency and
visual comfort by taking into account cooling, heating and lighting
energies as well as the glare phenomena.
2. Methods
In order to overcome the functional and control limitations of
roll blinds commonly used in office buildings, optimized control
strategies of slat-type blinds are suggested in this study.
Through two stages, the optimized control strategy was devel-
oped based on the total annual building energy consumption and
the Day-light Glare Index (DGI) adjacent to windows to be main-
tained below 22. In the first stage, double-sided blind was suggested
by applying different reflectance between front and back sides of
the slat and by fully rotating the slat when the system mode was
switched between heating and cooling mode. In the second stage,
the control strategies of hourly slat angle and hourly up/down
control logic were developed depending on the solar radiation con-
dition [28].
The performance of the developed automatic control strategies
of slat-type blinds integrated with the artificial lighting control was
quantitatively evaluated by taking into account cooling, heating
and lighting energy consumptions and DGI.
729
2.1. Simulation software
A robust building energy simulation program, EnergyPlus
version 6.0, was used for the simulations. EnergyPlus is a
whole-building energy simulation program developed by DOE
[14]. EnergyPlus was selected because it is a heat balance
based simulation program and the heat balance method is the
current industry standard method for calculating space loads
[12,15,16,18,20,21,22,25]. Furthermore, it has the capability to per-
form the detailed energy balance analysis of solar radiation, heat
transfer and air movement between window and blind [17].
Blind properties for direct radiation are sensitive to the profile
angle, which is the angle of incidence in a plane that is perpen-
dicular to the window plane and to the direction of the slats. The
blind optical model in EnergyPlus is based on Simmler’s model
[11,26]. In addition, the effect of inter-reflection of the interior
illuminance/luminance between interior reflecting surfaces is cal-
culated using a radiosity method derived from Superlite [11,24].
This method subdivides each reflecting surface in the zone into
nodal patches and uses view factors between all nodal patch pairs
in an iterative calculation of the total contribution of reflected light
within the zone [11]. For more information on the assumptions,
detailed algorithm and validation of EnergyPlus models related to
windows, blinds and day-lighting calculations, refer to [11].
2.2. Description of the simulated building
A three-story office building located in Daejeon City, South
Korea having a rectangular shape with the window-to-wall ratio
(WWR) of 65% was selected for this study. TMY weather data of
Daejeon City developed by the Korean Solar Energy Society was
used for the simulation. South Zone 2 in the middle floor illus-
trated in Fig. 1 was selected as the simulation model to develop
the automatic control strategy of slat-type blind [28].
Table 1 summarizes constructions and the thermal properties
of windows and walls, which comply with the Korean Standard
for Energy Saving Design in Buildings [23]. Double pane win-
dows (6 mm clear glass + 12 mm air + 6 mm clear glass) with the
SHGC, visible transmittance and U-value of 0.765, 0.812 and
2.72 W/m2 K, respectively were used. Window frames having the
width, inside and outside projection and U-value of 0.04 m, 0.01 m
and 3.97 W/m2 K, respectively, compose the aluminum curtain wall
730 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737

Table 1
Constructions and thermal properties of windows and walls.

Internal load type Thermal properties

Exterior wall 200 mm concrete U-value

70 mm insulation (0.034 W/m K) 0.438 W/m2 K
19 mm gypsum board

Raised floor 200 mm concrete U-value

70 mm insulation (0.034 W/m K) 0.441 W/m2 K
200 mm concrete

Concrete slab 70 mm insulation (0.034 W/m K) U-value

160 mm concrete 0.46 W/m2 K

Roof 100 mm concrete U-value

150 mm insulation (0.034 W/m K) 0.21 W/m2 K
16 mm acoustic tile

Window SHGC 0.765 SHGC 0.666

Visible transmittance 0.812 Visible trans. 0.678
U-value 2.724 W/m2 K U-value 2.977 W/m2 K
Frame Aluminum
U-value 3.97 W/m2 K

system. Therefore, the combined properties of double-pane win- Table 3

Internal load level.
dow with the frame have the SHGC, visible transmittance and
U-value of 0.666, 0.678 and 2.977 W/m2 K, respectively. Internal load type Maximum value
The physical properties of slat-type blind for the simulation Overhead lighting (W/m2 ) 10.8
analysis is summarized in Table 2. The inside blind with the ther- Peak occupancy (m2 /person) 17.0
mal conductivity of 0.9 W/m K, the infrared emissivity of 0.9 and Equipment (W/m2 ) 8.6
the fixed slat angle of 45◦ was chosen. The slat width, the slat to
slat distance and the slat to glass distance of 0.048 m, 0.048 m and
0.05 m were chosen, respectively [28]. 3. Results and discussions

2.3. Indoor set-points, ventilation rate, and HVAC system 3.1. Baseline case

From 6:00 till 19:00 during the weekdays the system controls The heating, cooling and lighting loads of the baseline case with-
the internal air temperature to heating and cooling temperature out blind installation are summarized and illustrated in Table 4 and
set-points of 22 ◦ C and 26 ◦ C, respectively. During the night-time Fig. 4, respectively. As summarized in Table 4, the annual cooling
the system was switched off without set-back control. The zone load accounts for 60.1%, followed by the lighting load of 25.7% and
air temperature was controlled and the thermal and lighting load the heating load of 14.2%, indicating that the simulated building
profiles were calculated using the EnergyPlus function “Zone- showed the cooling-dominant pattern.
HVAC:IdealLoadsAirSystem” [14] without modelling the heating The slat-type blind should be controlled differently between
and cooling systems. This object provides the required supply air heating the and cooling period, and for this purpose the specific
capacity to each zone at user specified temperature and humidity heating and cooling periods are determined based on the relative
ratio to calculate the heating and cooling loads. portion of heating and cooling load. In this study, the cooling con-
Infiltration was assumed equal to 0.5 ACH and the ventilation trol mode was operated from April through November when the
was set to be 1.0 ACH. The schedules of infiltration and ventilation cooling load was dominant, while the heating control mode was
are illustrated in Fig. 2. operated from December through March when the heating load
was dominant as shown in Fig. 4 [28].
2.4. Internal heat gains
3.2. Zone heat gain variation with regard to the slat reflectance
The peak internal load levels of the baseline case are summa-
rized in Table 3 and the hourly variations of the internal loads for Zone heat gain through the window can be broken down into
the simulated office building follow the schedules shown in Fig. 3. conductive, convective, infrared and transmitted solar heat gains
HVAC systems operate from 6:00 through 19:00 during the week- in Fig. 5. In case of the window without blind, solar transmittance
days and from 6:00 through 17:00 on Saturdays. turned out to account for the large portion of the zone heat gain,
while the solar transmittance was significantly reduced into the
similar values of infrared and convective heat gains in case where
Table 2
Slat blind properties [28].
the blind with the slat reflectance of 0.5 was installed as shown in
Fig. 5. Since the combined effects of solar transmittance, infrared
Field Unit Value and convective heat gains were interconnected to each other when
Blind position Inside blind
Slat width m 0.048
Slat to slat distance m 0.048 Table 4
Slat thickness m 0.002 Annual heating, cooling and lighting load of the baseline case [28].
Blind to glass distance m 0.050
Field Load (kWh) Portion
Slat solar and visible reflectance – 0.500
Slat infrared hemispherical emissivity – 0.900 Heating 1068.3 14.2%
Slat conductivity W/m K 0.900 Cooling 4528.9 60.1%
◦
Slat angle 45 Lighting 1938.9 25.7%
 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737 731

Fig. 2. Infiltration and ventilation schedules.

the blind was installed, the detailed heat gain patterns as a function
of the slat reflectance were analyzed in both typical summer day
(Aug. 30th) and winter day (Jan. 31st). The variations of the zone
heat gain break-down as a function of the slat reflectance with the
slat angle fixed at 45◦ are illustrated Figs. 6 and 7 for the typical
summer and winter days, respectively.
As shown in the figure, the total heat gains increased at the
lower slat reflectance in both summer (Aug. 30th) and winter (Jan.
31st) days. The main reason for the total heat gain increase was
the increase in infrared and convective heat gains despite the solar
transmittance reduction at the lower slat reflectance. The reason
for the increase in infrared and convective heat gains is consid-
ered to be due to the fact that the solar radiation was absorbed
into the blind, increasing the slat surface temperature and the sur-
rounding air temperature at the reduced slat reflectance. Therefore,
it can be considered that the slat with high reflectance should

Fig. 3. Lighting, equipment and occupancy schedules.

732 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737

Fig. 4. Monthly heating, cooling and lighting load of the baseline case [28].

Fig. 5. Zone heat gain variation with and without blind [28].
Fig. 7. Heat gain breakdown as a function of slat reflectance (January 31st) [28].

be used in the cooling period to reduce infrared and convective

3.3. 1st stage: control of the double-sided blind
heat gains, while the slat with low reflectance should be used in
the heating period to increase the infrared and convective heat
From Section 3.1, it was found that the different slat reflectance
gains [28].
should be applied in terms of the heat gain between the heating and
cooling period. Therefore, double-sided blind is suggested as the 1st
stage control strategy in this study, applying different reflectance
between front and back sides of the slat and fully rotating the slat as
shown in Fig. 8 when the system mode is switched between heating
and cooling mode. The double-sided blind has a high reflectance on
the front side so that it can reflect direct solar radiation and prevent
it from warming the room, while it has a low slat reflectance on
the back side so that it can prevent diffuse solar radiation from

Fig. 6. Heat gain breakdown as a function of slat reflectance (August 30th) [28]. Fig. 8. Schematic of the double-sided blind [28].
 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737 733

Fig. 9. Schematic of the simulated cases [28].

double-sided blind showed the reduced total building load by 5.9%

and 6.4%, respectively, compared to the baseline case. The conven-
tional single-sided blind with the slat reflectance of 0.9 reduced the
cooling load by 22.6%, but the heating load was increased by 53%.
The reason for the total load reduction despite the high increase
rate of the heating load was that the simulated building was cool-
ing load dominant and that the increased amount of the heating
load was lower than the reduced amount of the cooling load. In
case of the double-sided blind, the cooling load was reduced by
12.3%, while the heating load was increased by 4.4%, indicating that
the increase rate of the heating load was lower compared to the
case of the fixed slat reflectance of 0.9 despite the lower decrease
rate of the cooling load. Therefore, the double-sided blind could
minimize the total building load among simulated cases (decrease
rate of 6.4% compared to the baseline case) due to the cooling load
reduction and the minimization of the increase rate of the heating
load [28].
Fig. 10. Heating, cooling and lighting loads without lighting dimming control [28].

3.3.2. Building load evaluation with lighting dimming control

penetrating the room during the summer, and vice versa during
the winter.
The 1st stage double-sided blind control can save the energy
consumption and improve the visual comfort of occupants by
reducing the visible light reflection and the resultant the glare. To
quantitatively evaluate the energy saving potential and the visual
comfort performance of the double-sided blind, the energy and
visual comfort performance of the 1st stage double-sided blind
control were compared to those of three alternate cases with the
conventional single-sided blind having the slat reflectance of 0.9,
0.5 and 0.1, respectively as shown in Fig. 9 [28].
3.3.1. Building load evaluation without lighting dimming control
Fig. 10 and Table 5 show the load performance results of the
different simulated cases compared to the baseline case without
blind installation. It turned out that the cases with the fixed slat
reflectance of 0.1 and 0.5 increased the total load of the build-
ing compared to the baseline case. This is considered to be due
to the elevated infrared and convective heat gain caused by the
slat surface temperature increase at low slat reflectance condi-
tion, increasing the cooling load accounting for the large portion
of the total building load, despite the reduced heating load. On the
other hand, the case with the fixed slat reflectance of 0.9 and the
This study implemented the continuous lighting dimming con-
trol logic which reduced the lighting load linearly with the
increased day-lighting penetration. Two sensors for the dimming
control were installed at the distance of 2 m and 6 m away from the
window, respectively as illustrated in Fig. 11, at the height of 0.85 m.
Each of those two sensors equally handled half of the lighting load
of the room space. The sensors linearly reduced the lighting load
between the illuminance of 0 lux through 500 lux and if the illu-
minance became greater than 500 lux, 20% of the artificial lighting
was operated.
The simulated results indicated that the total building loads
were further reduced by implementing the lighting dimming con-
trol as shown in Fig. 12 and Table 6. Especially, the double-sided
blind showed the highest total load decrease rate of 24.6% due to
the deep introduction of the diffuse solar visible light into the space
integrated with the dimming control, while blocking the direct
solar beam at the same time. Therefore, the combination of the dim-
ming control and the slat blind control could significantly reduce
the building load [28].

Table 5
Heating, cooling and lighting loads without lighting dimming control.

Case Lighting Cooling Heating Total Relative

percentage
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Fixed slat reflectance of 0.1 1939 5825 953 8717 116%

Fixed slat reflectance of 0.5 1939 4715 1159 7814 104%
Fixed slat reflectance of 0.9 1939 3507 1643 7089 94%
Double-sided blind 1939 3970 1115 7024 93%
No blind 1939 4529 1068 7536 100%
Fig. 11. Location of the lighting dimming control sensor points [28].
734 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737

Table 7
Recommended maximum Glare Index in each building type [13].

Building type Glare Index

Art galleries 16
Hospital wards 18
Museums and school classrooms 20
Laboratories and offices 22

Fig. 12. Heating, cooling and lighting loads with lighting dimming control [28].

Table 6
Heating, cooling and lighting loads with lighting dimming control.

Case Lighting Cooling Heating Total Relative

percentage
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Fixed slat reflectance of 0.1 1361 5428 998 7787 103%

Fixed slat reflectance of 0.5 1153 4243 1282 6678 89%
Fixed slat reflectance of 0.9 1029 3030 1876 5935 79% Fig. 14. Percentage of the annual occupied hours exceeding recommended DGI of
Double-sided blind 1162 3342 1178 5683 75% 22 [28].
No blind 1939 4529 1068 7536 100%
occurrence percentage of 19.7%. In contrast, the double-sided blind
case significantly reduced the glare occurrence percentage into
3.3.3. Evaluation of the visual comfort by Daylight Glare Index
3.2%, though it did not completely remove the glare occurrence
Among the conventional single-sided blinds, the total building
like the case with the fixed slat reflectance of 0.1.
load was reduced at the higher slat reflectance as described in the
Here, the 1st stage control strategy of the slat-type blind is
previous sub-sections. However, the solar transmittance signifi-
defined as “the full rotation of the double-sided blind between
cantly increased at the higher slat reflectance despite the decreased
the heating and cooling mode integrated with the lighting dim-
infrared and convective heat gain as discussed in Section 3.1, which
ming control” in this study as summarized in Table 8. Based on the
can cause the reduced visual comfort due to the glare even if the
comprehensive assessment of the energy saving and DGI reduction
heating, cooling and lighting load was saved by the integrated con-
performance of the 1st stage blind control, it can be considered to
trol of the dimming and blind. In this circumstance, the concept of
be greatly satisfactory compared to other alternatives [28].
DGI (Daylight Glare Index) developed by Hopkinson [13], was used
in this study to evaluate the visual comfort of each simulated case.
3.4. 2nd stage: automated slat angle control considering the glare
The DGI sensor was located at the distance of 2 m from the win-
removal
dow as illustrated in Fig. 13 at the average human height of 165 cm
based on the measured dimension of the human body [27].
3.4.1. Development of the slat angle control strategy considering
Table 7 summarizes the recommended maximum Glare Index in
the glare removal
each building type, indicating that the office building of this study
The 1st stage blind control strategy significantly reduced the
should not exceed the DGI of 22 [13]. Fig. 14 presents the percentage
glare, but it still showed the glare occurrence of 3.2, indicating that
of the annual occupied hours exceeding recommended DGI of 22
it could not complete remove the glare. Therefore, the 2nd control
in each simulated case.
strategy of the slat-type blind is developed as well in this study for
In case without the blind installation, 35.5% of the occupied
complete removal of the glare and the energy saving.
hours exceeded the recommended DGI of 22, followed by the
In the development process of the 2nd control strategy of the slat
case with the fixed slat reflectance of 0.9 which showed the glare
blind, annual cooling, heating, lighting energy and DGI perform-
ances are evaluated for each slat angle in the first hand, and then
those comprehensive performances are categorized under different
window solar radiation regions with the increment of 100 W/m2 .
After deriving the optimum slat angle showing the lowest total
energy of cooling, heating and lighting in each solar radiation
region, the slat angle showing the DGI of greater than 22 is excluded.

Table 8
1st stage control strategy of the slat-type blind [28].

Field Description

Lighting control Continuous dimming control

Slat reflectance Front side 0.9, back side 0.1
Slat control Fully rotate the slat between heating and cooling mode
Fig. 13. Sensor location for Daylight Glare Index evaluation [28].
 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737 735

Table 9
Summary of the simulated cases.

Case Blind type Dimming Blind control

control

(1) No blind No No control

(2) Double-sided blind Yes 2nd control strategy
(3) Double-sided blind Yes 1st control strategy
(4) Single-sided with Yes No control
slat reflectance of
0.9
(5) Single-sided with Yes No control
slat reflectance of
0.5
(6) Single-sided with Yes No control
slat reflectance of
0.1

Fig. 15. Slat angle control algorithm in heating and cooling modes [28].
The 2nd control strategy of the blind slat angle is finally developed
by drawing the trend line after connecting optimum slat angle in
each solar radiation region as shown in Fig. 15.
The developed optimum slat angles minimizing the total energy
consumption and removing the glare in each solar radiation region
follow the regression Eqs. (1) and (2) in cooling and heating modes,
respectively.
f(X,cooling) = 5E − 07x3 − 0.000383 + 0.443x − 16.771
f(X,heating) = 4E − 07x3 − 0.000363 + 0.352x − 29.037
In addition, it is necessary to adjust the slat-type blind into
upward position under low solar radiation condition for the light-
ing energy reduction by maximizing the daylight introduction into
the space. However, the DGI should be quantitatively evaluated
even under the low solar radiation condition due to the possible
glare occurrence. Therefore, the additional analysis was performed
in this study to decide the solar radiation regions which do not
cause the glare in the upward blind position.
As a result of the analysis, the solar radiation region less than
50 W/m2 did not show the DGE exceeding 22 as shown in Fig. 16.
It could be derived from the analysis that there would be no glare
even in the upward position of the slat blind under the solar radia-
tion conditions less than 50 W/m2 . Therefore, the suggested control
strategy of the slat-type blind in this study is to adjust the slat angle
in the downward position under the solar radiation greater than
50 W/m2 , while placing the slat angle in the upward position under
the solar radiation less than 50 W/m2 .
Figs. 17 and 18 show the verification of whether or not the
slat angle is properly controlled based on the developed control
algorithm under each solar radiation in the typical summer and
winter days. As illustrated in the figures, the slat angle was prop-
erly adjusted with regard to the solar radiation variations based on
the developed 2nd stage control strategy [28].
3.4.2. Energy performance evaluation of the 2nd stage slat-type
blind control strategy
After implementing the developed 2nd control strategy of the
(1)
slat blind into the building, the energy performance was quanti-
(2) tatively evaluated under different conditions of lighting dimming
control, blind type, and blind control strategies, given the complete
removal of the glare. The summary of the different simulated cases
is provided in Table 9.
Heating, cooling and lighting loads of the 6 simulated cases are
summarized and illustrated in Table 10 and Fig. 19, respectively.
The case with the 2nd stage control strategy of the slat blind showed
the total load reduction of 29.2% compared to the baseline case
without blind installation and dimming control, which was even
4.6% lower than the 1st control strategy described in Section 3.3
[28].
3.4.3. Visual comfort evaluation of the 2nd stage slat-type blind
control strategy
The main limitation of the 1st control strategy of slat-type blind
characterized by the full rotation of the double-sided blind between
the heating and cooling mode was that the glare occurrence was
still 3.2%, indicating that it could not completely remove visual
discomfort caused by the glare. In this sub-section, the visual com-
fort performance of the suggested 2nd control strategy aimed at
the complete removal of the glare was evaluated for the develop-
ment of the optimum slat angle control logic. The same method
was used as the 1st control strategy as described in the Section
3.3.3 and the results are presented in Fig. 20. As shown in Fig. 20,
the glare occurrence of the suggested 2nd stage control strategy
was only 0.1%, indicating that it could completely remove the
glare.

Table 10
Heating, cooling and lighting loads of the simulated cases.

Case Lighting Cooling Heating Total Relative

percentage
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

(1) 1939 4529 1068 7536 100%

(2) 1076 2986 1271 5332 71%
(3) 1162 3342 1178 5683 75%
(4) 1029 3030 1876 5935 79%
(5) 1153 4243 1282 6678 89%
(6) 1361 5428 998 7,787 103%
Fig. 16. DGI analysis in each vertical solar radiation without blind operation [28].
736 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737

Fig. 17. Slat angle variation in the typical summer days (August 29th–30th) [28].

Fig. 18. Slat angle variation in the typical winter days (January 30th–31st) [28].

The 2nd stage control strategy of the slat-type blind is defined in Table 11. As shown in the simulated results thus far, the
as “slat angle and up/down control of the double-sided blind developed control logic of the slat-type blind in this study
depending on the solar radiation condition integrated with the showed greatly improved performance in terms of the total load
linear lighting dimming control” in this study as summarized and visual comfort, indicating that it can significantly enhance

Fig. 20. Percentage of the annual occupied hours exceeding recommended DGI of
Fig. 19. Load profiles of the simulated cases [28]. 22 [28].
 M.H. Oh et al. / Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 728–737
Table 11
2nd stage control strategy of the slat-type blind.
Field Description
Slat angle control Optimum slat angle control completely
removing the glare and minimizing the
total building load
Up/down control Greater than 50 W/m2 : downward
position
Less than 50 W/m2 : upward position
(The maximum solar radiation
penetration causing no glare is
50 W/m2 )
the energy efficiency of buildings and the visual comfort of
occupants [28].
4. Conclusions
Although high performance window systems with the enhanced
insulation are widely used recently, the traditional shading con-
trol passively operated by occupants using the roll blind is still
prevalent. This traditional shading control should be improved and
the development of the advanced control strategy of the shading
devices is needed for the zero-energy building target in this circum-
stance. In this study, the automated control strategy of the slat-type
blind aimed at the building energy saving and the improved visual
comfort is developed.
In the 1st stage, the control algorithm of fully rotating the
double-sided slat blind between the heating and cooling modes
integrated with the lighting dimming control is suggested. It
turned out that the double-sided blind without dimming con-
trol can reduce the total building load by 6.4% compared to the
baseline case without blind installation and dimming control and
that the double-sided blind integrated with the dimming con-
trol can reduce the total building load by 24.6% compared to the
baseline case. In addition, the glare occurrence ratio was signif-
icantly reduced into 3.2%, which was 33.3% smaller than that of
the baseline case without blind showing the glare occurrence ratio
of 35.5%.
In the 2nd stage, the optimum slat angle control strategy was
suggested which can achieve both the energy saving and the com-
plete removal of the glare. It turned out that the 2nd control
logic can reduce the total building load by 29.2% compared to the
baseline case and that the glare occurrence ratio was only 0.1%,
indicating that it can completely remove the glare when properly
designed and operated.
In conclusion, the advanced control strategy suggested in this
study showed greatly improved performance in terms of the total
load and visual comfort, indicating that it can significantly enhance
the energy efficiency of buildings and the visual comfort of occu-
pants in practice.
Limitations
The main limitation of this study is related to the selection of the
cases to be simulated. The energy and visual comfort performance
of the newly suggested blind control strategies was investigated for
only one particular climate (Daejeon City) and one particular build-
ing type (office building). Additional climates and building types
should be addressed as well for the findings from this study to be
generalized.
737
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Research Foun-
dation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea Government
(MEST)(2011-0027338).
References
[1] D. Gouri, Effect of fixed horizontal louver shading devices on thermal per-
formance of building by TRANSYS simulation, Renewable Energy 23 (2001)
497–507.
[2] J. Breitenbach, S. Lart, I. Längle, J.L.J. Rosenfeld, Optical and thermal perfor-
mance of glazing with integral Venetian blinds, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001)
433–442.
[3] J.Y. Paik, J.H. Kim, M.S. Yeo, K.W. Kim, A study on the occupants use of the
blinds in office building, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea 22 (2006)
311–318.
[4] N.A. Kotey, J.L. Wright, M.R. Collins, Determining off-normal solar optical prop-
erties of roller blinds, ASHRAE Transactions 115 (2009), pp. 1–145.
[5] M. Andersen, M. Rubin, R. Powles, J.L. Scartezzini, Bi-directional transmission
properties of Venetian blinds: experimental assessment compared to ray-
tracing calculations, Solar Energy 78 (2005) 187–198.
[6] H. Shahid, D. Naylor, Energy Performance Assessment of a Window with a
Horizontal Venetian Blind, Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 836–843.
[7] S. Chaiyapinunt, S. Worasinchai, Development of a model for calculating the
long-wave optical properties and surface temperature of a curved Venetian
blind, Solar Energy 83 (2009) 817–831.
[8] M.K. Urbikain, J.M. Sala, Heat transfer through a double-glazed unit with an
internal louvered blind: determination of the thermal transmittance using a
biquadratic equation, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012)
1226–1235.
[9] C.F. Reinhart, Lightswith-2002: a model for manual and automated control of
electric lighting and blinds, Solar Energy 77 (2004) 15–28.
[10] E.S. Lee, D.L. Di Bartolomeo, S.E. Selkowitz, Thermal and day-lighting perfor-
mance of an automated Venetian blind and lighting system in a full-scale
private office, Energy and Buildings 29 (1998) 47–63.
[11] EnergyPlus, EnergyPlus engineering reference. The reference to EnergyPlus cal-
culations. <http://www.energyplus.gov>, 2010.
[12] F. Winkelmann, Modeling windows in EnergyPlus, building simulation 2001,
in: 7th International IBPSA Conference, 2001 September, 2001.
[13] R.G. Hopkinson, Glare from daylighting in buildings, Applied Ergonomics 3
(1972) 206–215.
[14] EnergyPlus. EnergyPlus input output reference. The encyclopedic reference to
EnergyPlus input and output. <http://www.energyplus.gov>, 2010.
[15] D.K. Arasteh, M.S. Reilly, M.D. Rubin, A versatile procedure for calculating heat
transfer through windows, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE Transactions 95 (1989), pp. 755–765.
[16] E.U. Finlayson, D.K. Arasteh, C. Huizenga, M.D. Rubin, M.S. Reilly, WINDOW 4.0:
documentation of calculation procedures, Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-
tory Report no. LBL-33943, 1993.
[17] ISO 15099, Thermal Performance of Windows, Doors, and Shading
Devices—Detailed Calculations, International Organization for Standardization,
2003.
[18] D.K. Arasteh, J.C. Kohler, B.T. Griffith, Draft, modeling windows in EnergyPlus
with only U, SHGC, and optionally VT, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Report, 2009.
[19] J. Hu, S. Olbina, Illuminance-based slat angle selection model for automated
control of split blinds, Building and Environment 46 (2011) 786–796.
[20] F. Winkelmann, S. Shelkowitz, Day-lighting simulation in DOE-2: theory, vali-
dation and applications, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report, 1985.
[21] B.A. Lomanowski, Modeling fenestration with shading devices in building
energy simulation: a practical approach, building simulation 2009, in: 11th
International IBPSA Conference, July 2009, 2009.
[22] C. Chantrasrisalai, D.E. Fisher, Comparative analysis of one-dimensional slat-
type blind models, in: SimBuild 2004 Conference, Boulder, USA, 2004.
[23] The Korean Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Standard for
Energy Saving Design in Buildings, 2010.
[24] M. Modest, A general model for the calculation of day-lighting in interior spaces,
Energy and Buildings 5 (1982) 66–79.
[25] ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, 2009.
[26] H. Simmler, U. Fischer, F. Winkelmann, Solar–thermal window blind model
for DOE-2. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Simulation Research Group
Internal Report, 1996.
[27] The Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, 2nd year-end report,
The Human Body Dimension Establishment of Korea, 2004.
[28] M.H. Oh, J.H. Yoon, W.C. Shin, Optimum Automated Control Strategies of Inside
Slat-type Blind Considering Visual Comfort and Building Energy Performance,
in: Proceedings of Autumn Conference of The Korean Solar Energy Society, vol.
31, 2011, pp. 187–195.