Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Optimization of useful daylight illuminance vs.

drag force for vertical shading fins/panels

Marcin Brzezicki & Paweł Regucki

To cite this article: Marcin Brzezicki & Paweł Regucki (2020): Optimization of useful daylight
illuminance vs. drag force for vertical shading fins/panels, Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2020.1858679

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2020.1858679

Accepted author version posted online: 07

Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Optimization of useful daylight illuminance vs. drag force for
vertical shading fins/panels
Brzezicki Marcin1, Regucki Paweł2,*
1
Faculty of Architecture, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego
27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
2
Faculty of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Wrocław University of Science and Technology,
Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
*
Correspondence details: pawel.regucki@pwr.edu.pl

t
This paper concentrates on the issues of daylight optimization in an office building using external shading fins/panels.

ip
Vertical shading elements are seen as an important tool of daylight management in buildings, especially when the façade
is fully glazed. This enables guiding daylight deep into the room, simultaneously reducing the impact of direct solar
radiation.

cr
The presented analysis illustrates the impact of the different spacing of vertical fins on the user’s visual comfort. The

us
analyzed case studies feature different numbers of panels on a south-facing façade located on the 51 deg. latitude in
Wrocław, Poland. The daylight calculations were done using De Luminæ software (the DL-Light platform) with
SketchUp. The analysis of the useful daylight illuminance (UDI) is combined with a caflculation of the maximum drag
force acting on the panels installed outside. The research has been conducted taking into account various wind directions.
an
The results show that it is possible to indicate the optimal number of installed vertical fins in order to help increase visual
comfort and minimize drag force.

Keywords: vertical shading fins, useful daylight illuminance, drag force

M

1. Introduction
ed

In light of increasing CO2 emissions and climate change, it is essential to protect buildings from
excess sunlight, which is a side effect of the use of all-glass façades. But the exposure of the facades
to excessive sunlight also results in decreased visual comfort in the office rooms, arising mainly
pt

from glare at the workplaces located in the proximity of the façade. Most frequent engineering
solutions include the application of shading elements that improve visual comfort but are
ce

simultaneously the subject of the drag force induced by the wind. Presented research concentrates on
the optimization of the shading scenario considering both these parameters.
Ac

1.1 Problem identification

1.1.1 All glass facade
The use of all-glass façades is already a well-established practice in architecture. The
widespread use of glass began at the beginning of the 20th century as an act of protest against
underexposed and insufficiently ventilated 19th-century tenement houses with low hygiene standards.
In the 1950s, inventions in the field of material engineering – like the float glass production process
– allowed for widespread use of large glass panes, such as those spanning the entire storey. As a
result of a movement referred to as the “international style”, glass dominated architecture, especially
how high-rise buildings were designed. The previous study on architectural forms by the author
(Brzezicki 2020) proved a fully glazed façade is frequently selected by architects and their clients
regardless of the potential thermal energy and visual comfort consequences, due to their symbolic or
aesthetic value. Therefore, a fully glazed façade was selected for the herein presented research.

However, the use of all-glass façades comes with certain consequences. From the perspective of
presented research the most important is the overexposure and glare, which is defined as a “condition
of vision in which there is discomfort or a reduction in the ability to see details or objects, caused by
an unsuitable distribution or range of luminance” (CIBSE Lighting Guide LG7, 2015). Daylight
glare probability (DGP, expressed in %) was defined for the first time by Jan Wienold at the
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (Wienold & Christoffersen 2006). DGP is higher
when the illuminance increases, with some influence of the direction of the view. According to
Wienold & Christoffersen with the DGP above 35% (<2000 lux) the glare is rated as “Perceptible”
while with DGP above 45% (>6000 lux/>4500 lux) the glare is “Intolerable”. Following Suk’s
review (Suk 2018) different authors give different glare discomfort thresholds: Sutter et al. >3200
lux (Sutter et al. 2006), Linney >2740 lux (Linney 2008), Inanici >4000 lux (Wymelenberg &
Inanici 2016). Mardaljevic et al. link 3000 lux threshold (Mardaljevic et al. 2012) to an indicator of
discomfort glare: i.e., when the illuminance exceeds 3000 lux, this increases the likelihood of glare
as calculated by the daylight glare probability (DGP). A difference in the level of daylight in

t
ip
neighboring rooms is also observed as a problematic in the context of visual comfort as presented by
Konstantzos and Tzempelikos (2017).

cr
One of the most effective methods of improving the visual comfort in the building is by the blockage
of the excessive sunlight. A shading element is placed outside in front of the façade and blocks the

us
radiation before it is transmitted through the glass and enters the room. This type of shading is also
commonly regarded as one of the most effective in the improvement of visual comfort. Use “of solar
shading to control solar radiation through the glazed openings is usually essential in office buildings
an
in order to obtain visual comfort, thermal comfort as well as decreased energy use for cooling” as
described by Karlsen et al. (2016). Daylight optimization – as Safa et al. states in (2013) – allows to
“achieve a comfortable interior environment while minimizing energy use and reliance on artificial
M

lighting systems”.

1.1.2 Climate change

ed

The emission of carbon dioxide and other ozone harming substances into the atmosphere due
to human activity increased global surface air temperature and disrupted the weather patterns on the
globe. Wrocław – the city in the South-Western part of Poland – is not an exception here. The city is
pt

located in a climate zone that is generally classified as a humid continental climate according to the
Köppen–Geiger climate classification system (Peel et al. 2007). Despite the classification, Wrocław
ce

– like many other cities in Europe – is currently suffering from evident climate change, that is
characterized by extreme weather phenomena as heat waves (up to 38.8 C) and windy
thunderstorms in summer with wind velocities over 24 m/s (Bryś et al. 2007, Wibig 2018).
Ac

Buildings that were erected in Wrocław have to be adopted for the winter and the summer weather
conditions, and all the transitional periods. Therefore permanent shading systems have to provide
sufficient daylight level with the evenly overcast sky (e.g. for winter conditions), sufficient shading
for the summer, and simultaneously be resistant for the high wind velocities optimizing the material
use, workload and structural issues with maintenance of external shading elements. Those issues
were previously discussed in the regard of shading elements e.g. by Lu. Y et. al (Lu. Y et. al. 2019)
or Fu and Johnson (Fu & Johnson 2011). External fins/panels selected for the analysis are positioned
perpendicularly to the surface of the façade. This results in the occurrence of drag forces affecting
the panels, especially during windy thunderstorms. The drag force conditions the structure of the
panels and their fastening. Therefore the authors of the paper present the optimization scenario,
taking into account two factors: the quality of daylight in the office room measured by UDI (Useful
Daylight Illuminance – to be explained in detail below) and the drag force that exerts on the
permanent shading elements installed outside the building.

1.1.3. Choice of shading elements

Various types of blinds and shutters are used, with different angles and orientations. Alzoubi and Al-
Zoubi (2010) have analyzed the vertical and horizontal shading devices for southern exposure
facades in the dry climate. A numerical simulation strategy was undertaken to correlate the
illuminance level in spaces with room geometry and architectural shading elements. The authors
have used the Holophane model to estimate the average illuminance level on the workplane and
correlate it with the expected saving energy in buildings. As a result Alzoubi and Al-Zoubi
determined, that horizontal fixed louvers – are more effective in achieving illumination uniformity,
but they make visual contact much more limited, especially in tall buildings, and concluded that
vertical shading devices “can simultaneously provide good daylighting and minimum heat gain in
spaces”. Therefore presented paper concentrates on the optimization of fixed vertical shading
fins/panels located perpendicularly to the surface of the façade. This type of fin/panel was chosen as

t
they pose specific advantages from a strictly utilitarian perspective: (i) snow and dirt are not

ip
accumulated on the vertical fins (snow is still an issue in Wrocław under the winter conditions) and
(ii) vertical fins do not break the visual contact between the building and its surroundings and allow

cr
for viewing outside of the building and into it.

1.1.4. Previous research

us
The issue of the optimization of shading elements has been analyzed in numerous articles by
various researchers (Atzeri A.M et al. 2018, Zheng et al. 2020, Kaasalainen et al. 2020). The
an
prevailing attitude is towards solar gain minimization (lowest gain), internal temperature build-up
(lower rise) in order to reduce the energy expense for cooling, and the reduction of the drag force so
as to optimize material use and human labor.
M

1.1.5 Daylight level

ed

In the most recent research, authors Palmero-Marrero and Oliveira (2010) studied the effects
of louver shading devices on building energy requirements, while the team consisting of Gratia and
De Herde (2007) and Manzan (2014) studied the most efficient position of shading devices from the
pt

building energy perspective. Azmi et al. (2017) reported on the daylight optimization for green office
buildings calculated for the East façade in the tropical climate. Acosta et al. (2016) analyzed window
geometry and position to quantify energy saving. The attitude closest to the one represented by the
ce

authors of this article was presented by Alzoubi et al. (2010), however, the authors analyzed a south-
oriented façade with a window, not a fully glazed façade as in the herein presented research. The
initial methodology of daylight analysis was defined by Brzezicki (2020) in the paper entitled
Ac

Serrated and finned glazed façades’ impact on the user’s visual comfort, which analyses the
influence of the serrated geometry on the level of daylight in an office room.

1.1.6 Drag force

In the literature, various aspects related to drag force are considered. Peng et al. (2018)
considers the drag force generated in the case of airflow with the Reynolds number reaching up to
500,000 in rectangular ducts used in the ventilation systems. The analysis of the airflow and
generated drag force with such a high Reynolds number is used to improve the ventilation duct
design through the removal of dust particles and reduction of turbulence, which influence pipe
cleaning and decrease energy consumption. Yan et al. (2016) numerically investigates the effect of
the Reynolds number on the friction drag force of the various rectangular cross-sections for the three
mean wind speeds of 6, 18, and 24 m/s. The variations of the drag force coefficient and the
contribution ratio of the friction drag force versus the Reynolds number were analyzed. For the
verification of numerical results, the drag force coefficients cD of the three cross-sections under
different wind attack angles were compared with the experimental results from the literature
obtaining good data agreement.

Another concept of a numerical approach to drag force for a rigid object of a general shape is
presented by Souza et al. (2017). The drag force is calculated based on the dynamic Navier–Stokes
equation, which determines the wind velocity field around the object. This method is successfully
verified by experiments done in a wind tunnel with a long cylinder perpendicular to the airflow.

Buccolieri et al. (2019) analyzes the total drag force which appears during airflow interaction with a
set of cubes that imitates the array of buildings. The drag force is estimated by measuring the
pressure difference between the windward and leeward façades of particular cubes in a wind tunnel.
The results show that the drag force is nearly uniformly distributed for cubes located far away from
one another, but it sharply decreases if the cubes form a more compact structure. In the case of a
dense arrangement, the drag force mostly affects the first row of cubes.

t
ip
Thus, the drag force, in its various aspects, is of interest to researchers, and presented studies are a
part of the mainstream interest in civil engineering and architecture. The authors confirm that the

cr
total drag force generated by a set of fins along the façade strongly depends not only on the direction
of the airflow but also on the mutual distance between the fins. The drag force acting on the fins has

us
a smaller contribution to the total force/torque which acts on the building as a whole but its
significance is important in particularly unfavorable weather conditions and therefore has an
important impact on the maintenance of buildings’ facades.
an
1.1.7 Optimization of shading
M

Shading elements can be optimized as a result of many variables and factors. In this paper,
the focus is on optimization due to two strictly utilitarian factors: the daylight (UDI) and the drag
force (FD), which results from the wind's influence on fins/panels.
ed

1.1.8 Daylight
pt

The biggest challenge in the studies on daylight is a metric that is used to evaluate the
presented results. The daylight factor (DF) describes the light level in a test room as a percentage of
the illumination level outside the structure in conditions characterized by an overcast sky. The DF is
ce

used in architecture and building design to assess internal natural lighting levels, also as guidance
given by CIBSE (2015). It has to be stressed here, that daylight factor (DF) is the oldest daylight
metric that is used, proposed in 1941. Authors are aware that DF is an outdated metric and – even if
Ac

calculated – would not significantly contribute to the very objective of the paper.

Following the results of the analysis by Boubekri and Lee (2017) the authors focus their
attention on the metric that is named Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI). The UDI measure was
originally suggested in the paper titled “Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing
daylight in buildings” by Nabil and Mardaljevic (Nabil and Mardaljevic 2005). The UDI takes into
account real weather data and solar illumination specific for particular geographical location –
illuminance levels within a room under any sky conditions including sunny ones. The UDI provides
the percentage of the time, given a time frame (e.g. Sunrise to Sunset, 7 days a week) that the interior
daylight illuminance in a room falls within a user-defined range (here between 300 and 3,000 lux),
therefore UDI represents the annual occurrence of daylight illuminances falling within the given
range, see Fig 1. Mardaljevic et al. (2012) reported the daylight illuminance in the “range 300 to
around 3,000 lux is often perceived either as desirable or at least tolerable”.

According to EN 17037 (2018) standard “a space is considered to provide adequate daylight if a

target illuminance level is achieved across a fraction of the reference plane within a space for at least
half of the daylight hours” (EN 17037, 2018). The standard also states, that the fraction of space for
the target level (spatial scale) should be at least 50% of the floor area. Those values were adopted
and used in the presented paper.

1.1.9 Drag force (FD)

All façade components installed outside the building, besides their aesthetic and utility
advantages, are subjected to mechanical forces. Awareness of the presence of these forces is
reflected not only during the step of choosing the technique applied for its montage but also in more
advanced static and dynamic calculations done for the building as a whole. One of the most
important forces, which affect the building and façade components during its utilization, is the drag

t
force. This force appears as a result of the interaction between a flowing fluid (e.g. air) and an

ip
obstacle like a building or façade components (e.g. fins, solar collectors, PV panels). In the case of
urban architecture, drag force appears naturally when the wind is blowing around the building. The

cr
magnitude of this force strongly depends on the velocity and direction of the wind, as well as on the
exposed surface of the particular building. Generally, drag force FD is defined by White (2016) as:

(1)
us
where: uo – refers to mean wind velocity,  – to air density, cD – to the drag force coefficient and A –
an
to the surface of the two-dimensional projection of the building on the plane perpendicular to the
flow direction.
M

2 Method
This paper aims to analyze the influence of the different spacing of shading elements on
ed

visual comfort and drag force in a room in the worst-case scenario of a fully glazed façade facing
directly South. The analyzed room is 12.0×6.0 m with a height/clearance of 4.0 m (72 sq. m. area).
“Floor to ceiling” glazing is placed on the longer side of the room. The glass façade is protected by
pt

vertical opaque fins placed in a perpendicular position in relation to the surface of the façade with
different spacing. The optimization procedure focuses on defining the optimum fin-to-fin spacing
ce

taking into account two variables: useful daylight illuminance (UDI) and the drag force, which
should be the smallest calculated value per single fin/panel.
Ac

The UDI300-3000 range used in the paper is 300-3,000 lux according to the paper by Mardaljevic et al.
(2012). An office-like occupant schedule is adopted, which is 9:00 am-5:00 pm, Monday to Friday
with the real climate data for Wroclaw (51° North) according to Climate Design Data 2009
ASHRAE Handbook derived from *.epw file delivered by IMGW (Institute of Meteorology and
Water Management, National Research Institute). The radiance materials and the relative parameter
values of surfaces, glazing, and solar shading screens are shown in Table 1. The glazing chosen is
standard IGU (Insulating Glass Unit) glazing (here: Pilkington Optifloat™ Clear) with the daylight
transmittance of t = 0.82, as given by Pilkington Glass Handbook (2014).

As mentioned above, according to the regulations included in EN 17037 (2018) standard, the
optimization is performed towards the temporal target of 50% of daylight hours (temporal target –
fraction of daylight hours), for 50% of space (spatial target). It became evident during the
calculations, that daylight level in the room would exceed the threshold of 3,000 lux for the majority
of time, proving that the test room is over-illuminated. Therefore, the optimization scenario was
taken towards the highest area (fraction of space for the target level) that is met for 50% of daylight
hours. The results given of UDI300-3000 describe the percentage of the floor area that meet the range of
300-3,000 lux for 50% of daylight hours.

All the data presented in the paper were imported to spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel 2013)
and subsequently studied and compared. The data were also visualized in the form of images
representing UDI300-3000 in false color. The scale is accordingly provided in the presented figures and
diagrams.

2.1 Daylight analysis assumptions for calculations

The UDI300-3000 calculations have been carried out for Wrocław, located in Poland in Central
Europe on the 51 degrees North latitude using real weather data files. All the calculations were done
using De Luminæ software (DL-Light platform) with SketchUp used as 3D-modeling software. De
Luminæ software uses the well-known and widely recognized Radiance engine for all calculations.

t
The UDI300-3000 was calculated in the grid of 0.5×0.5 m in the office room. The simulation setup is

ip
presented in Fig 2.

cr
2.2 Drag force assumptions for calculations

us
The arrangement of the fins does not only influence UDI300-3000 factors but also the value of
the total drag force FD affecting the installed fins/panels. The scheme of the vertical fins on the
façade is shown in Fig. 3.
an
The fin dimensions are: D – height, H – length, and L – width. The space distance between the fins is
defined by d. The wind velocity is defined by its magnitude uo and angle . For a single fin, the total
drag force depends on angle , as in the following:
M

(2)
ed

Expression is the so-called active surface and denoted by A. The active surface is a
projection of the total surface on the plane perpendicular to the wind direction. It is done
. It is clear that, for a single fin, the maximum value of drag force is obtained when 
pt

by term
= 0 what means that wind is blowing directly on the fin. On the other hand, for  = 90 the wind is
blowing along the fin perpendicularly to the façade, see Fig. 3.
ce

For a set of several fins, the total drag force is not simply the sum of partial drag forces acting on
individual fins. This is due to the partial shading of subsequent fins by the previous ones. If the wind
Ac

is blowing on the set of several fins only the first fin is fully interacting with the wind. Next fins are
partially shaded by the previous ones and in this way protected against the gust of wind. In this way
the active surface A used to calculate the resultant, total drag force FD, is simulated according to the
geometrical relationship between the angle  and the spacing d.

3 Results

Calculations were carried out for vertical fins in different spacing d. The calculations began with two
fins running the length of the entire façade (with a spacing of 12 m) and ended with 13 fins spanning
the length of the entire façade (with a spacing of 1 m).

3.1 Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI)

 The results of the UDI300-3000 [%] analysis are presented in Fig. 4.

The results of daylight analysis are presented as numerical values and on the false-color scale
diagrams. The colors show the percentage of time, that the interior daylight illuminance in a room
falls within an authors-defined range, here 300-3,000 lux and for the shown fraction of the floor
space. As it was addressed above the optimization scenario takes into account that UDI300-3000 should
fall with the desired range for 50% of occupancy hours in office blocks, at the 50% of fraction of
space for target level.

Table 2 shows the percentage of the floor area, that UDI300-3000 falls with the desired range for 50%
of the time.

UDI300-3000 has an interesting tendency. The increase in the number of fins up to 8 causes the floor
area for 50% UDI300-3000 to increase up to the 15.28%. It results from the fact, that the more fins, the
less daylight is admitted to the test room and the visual comfort is improved as the illumination falls
below 3,000 lux. However, further addition of fins results in the worse penetration of daylight, and
the area affected by 50% UDI300-3000 is reduced down to 9.72%. Concluding the results from Table 2,

t
ip
the optimal number of panels N should be in the range of 7-9.

3.2 Drag force calculation

cr
In Fig. 5, an example of an active surface A is presented, calculated for two panels located at

us
a distance of 12 m from each other. The dimensions of a single fin are:

D = 4 m, H = 1 m and L = 0.05 m.
an
The plot clearly shows that in the case of the distant location of two fins (d = 12 m) the maximum
active surface A tends towards the sum of the individual surfaces of single panels equals 8 m2 for a
M

small value of the wind angle   5. This is because the term for two distant panels
in formula (2) is close to for  = 5. The further increase of the wind angle 
causes the active surface to decrease as in the cosines function. It means that for  = 90 the wind is
ed

blowing perpendicularly to the façade (parallel to the fins) and practically does not interact with
panels.
pt

A completely different situation occurs when the distance between the fins is much smaller. In Fig.
6, a plot of active surface A is presented, calculated for seven panels located at a distance d = 2 m.
Analyzing the plot, it is clearly observable that the total active surface A never receives the sum of
ce

seven fin surfaces equaling 28 m2. The maximum value of A is approximately 25 m2 for   25.
This is due to the partial shading of the subsequent fins by the previous ones.
Ac

The results of these observations are summarized in Fig. 7., which presents the maximum active
surfaces A for different numbers of installed panels.

It can clearly be observed that the maximum active surface A does not depend linearly on the number
of installed fins but rather tends towards a certain asymptotic value when the number of fins tends
towards infinity (which means that the space distance d between them tends towards 0). This is a
very important conclusion which will be crucial for the further analysis of the total drag force acting
on a set of vertical fins.

The total drag force FD acting on a set of fins was calculated from formula (2) with the restrictions
posed on the active surface A discussed in subsection 2.2. The dimensions of a single fin amounted
to: D = 4 m, H = 1 m and L = 0.05 m. The following assumptions were made for the calculations:
wind velocity uo = 1, 3 and 20 m/s; dry air density

ρ = 1.225 kg/m³ (under standard conditions: ta = 15°C and pa = 101,325.25 Pa) and the drag force
coefficient cD = 1.98 (for a narrow strip, face-on). The values of the maximum total drag force FD for
different numbers of fins are presented in Fig. 8 (for uo = 1 m/s) and listed in Table 3.

Analysing the above results, it is clearly seen that the maximum drag force FD dramatically increases
with wind velocity u0. It is worth highlighting at this place that, in case of current climate changes,
Wrocław, and Poland in general, is subjected to strong winds. The storm winds in autumn season
regularly exceed 20 m/s, while in some extreme cases the wind reaches 25 m/s and more. The proper
design of the daylight management system is therefore crucial for its safe functioning. The optimal
number of fins could not only reduce material used and human labour but also decrease the total drag
force acting on these panels and prolong their fastening lifetime in this way. Of course, the drag
force acting on the fins has a smaller contribution to the total force/torque which acts on the building
as a whole but its significance is important in particularly unfavourable weather conditions and
therefore has an important impact on the maintenance of buildings’ facades.

t
ip
In the paper, we started our consideration from u0 = 1 m/s which is met in the city during fine
weather (light air-light breeze in Beaufort wind force scale). The average annual wind velocity for

cr
Lower Silesia region is approximately u0 = 3 m/s which corresponds to the upper limit of light breeze
or lower limit of a gentle breeze on the above mentioned scale. However, during the storms in

us
autumn, the wind velocity could reach even u0 = 20 m/s what means gale - strong gale on the
Beaufort wind force scale.
an
Analyzing the values of total drag force for a fixed number of panels it is clearly seen that the
maximum drag force dramatically increases with wind velocity u0. Starting from u0 = 1 m/s through
3 m/s and 20 m/s one can see that the drag force changes from several dozen up to over ten thousand
M

newtons. This is the reason why the optimal selection of the number of panels is in our area of
interest.
ed

An important observation is that u0 plays only a scaling role in the total drag force formula. A square
of u0 has a constant value through the whole presented analysis and the most important parameter for
optimization is active surface A which changes with the number of panels. The drag force curve (e.g.
presented in Fig. 8) preserves its shape for any value of u0, which is the most important for the
pt

further analysis described in subsection 3.3.

ce

3.3 Possible optimization scenarios

The analysis of the UDI300-3000 metric and drag force creates opportunities to optimize the
Ac

distribution of the vertical fins/panels using the two above-analyzed physical parameters. In light of
Fig. 9, it is clearly observable that along with the increase in the number of fins N, the maximum
drag force FD (calculated for u0 = 1 m/s) increases (blue dashed curve), while the UDI300-3000 metric
has local maximum (red curve).

The optimization scenario includes research into the convolution of functions (UDI300-3000 x FD). The
main idea behind the concept of convolution of these two functions (UDI300-3000 x FD) bases on two
remarks. Firstly, this is possible because both of these functions (besides the other parameters which
are fixed) depend only on the spatial distance between fins, d. Obviously, the space distance d has a
direct relation to the number of panels N. Secondly function UDI300-3000 initially increases with the
increase of the number of panels (d is decreasing) next reaches local maximum and decreases with a
larger number of panels. Generally speaking, both of these functions behave in the opposite way
when the parameter d is changed. Therefore we are looking for the best value of d observing the
convolution of these functions what is the typical approach in optimization techniques (Mathews &
Fink 2004). The curvature of the resultant function (UDI300-3000 x FD) gives and information if we
could expect the extreme (maximum/minimum) of this function or the function is reaching plato so
the further change of d does not lead to interesting results. In Fig. 10, the convolution of functions
(UDI300-3000 x FD), for uo = 1 m/s, have been presented.

Analyzing the set of markers (red stars), it is clearly observable that they tend towards certain
asymptotic values for a large number of fins. The plato is reaching for N equals 8 – 10 panels and for
larger values of N no significant changes in the values of function f(N) occur, which indicates that N
= 8 – 9 could be taken as the optimal one for the considered case study.

4. Conclusion

It may be concluded that it is possible to optimize the distribution of the vertical fins
perpendicular to the surface of the façade taking into account both the daylight (UDI metric) and the

t
drag force. With the assumptions presented for consideration, it seems that the optimal spacing is

ip
about 1.71 m (8 panels), although it should be noted that – as a result of the pre-set analysis –
vertical fins cause the relatively large portion of the room to be excessively illuminated (UDI300-3000 –

cr
ratio of hours of occupation respecting the thresholds of 300 - 3000 lux in relation to the total hours
of occupation – is below 60%). The simulation shows, that the fins located ideally on the North-
South axis have very limited influence on the amount of direct sunlight that falls directly into the

us
room. The considered fins are also relatively unfavorably positioned in relation to the prevailing
wind direction in the examined location (the prevailing wind comes from the West). Potential future
research should consider a different position of the fin in the relation to the surface of the façade, and
an
the rotation around Z axis should be examined (15, 30, 45, 60 deg.).

Acknowledgments
M

Shading analysis included in this paper was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland
grant entitled: “New trends in architecture of transparent facades – formal experiments,
ed

technological innovations”, ref. no. 2014/15/B/ST8/00191.

References
pt

Acosta I., Campano M. A. and J. F. Molina. 2016. Window design in architecture: Analysis of energy savings for
lighting and visual comfort in residential spaces, Applied Energy, 168: 493-506, ISSN 0306-2619,
ce

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.005.
Alzoubi H. H. and A. H. Al-Zoubi. 2010. Assessment of building façade performance in terms of daylighting and the
associated energy consumption in architectural spaces: Vertical and horizontal shading devices for southern
Ac

exposure facades. Energy Conversion and Management 51(8): 1592–1599. doi:

10.1016/j.enconman.2009.08.039
Atzeri A.M., Gasparella A., Cappelletti F. and A. Tzempelikos. 2018. Comfort and energy performance analysis of
different glazing systems coupled with three shading control strategies, Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, 24:5, 545-558, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2018.1449517
Azmi Nabeeha, Kandar Mohd and Toe Doris. 2017. Daylight Optimization for Green Office Building: A Study of West
Facing Window Design and Configuration. Advanced Science Letters, 23: 9177-9182. 10.1166/asl.2017.10050.
Boubekri M. and J. Lee. 2017. A Comparison Of Four Daylighting Metrics In Assessing The Daylighting Performance
Of Three Shading Systems, Journal of Green Building, 12(3): 39–53
Bryś K. and T. Bryś. 2010. Reconstruction of the 217-year (1791-2007) Wrocław air temperature and precipitation
series, Bulletin of Geography No 3/2010: 121-171
Brzezicki M. 2020. Serrated and finned glazed facades’ impact on the user’s visual comfort. In Advances in Human
Factors in Architecture, Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure: Proceedings of the AHFE 2019
International Conference on Human Factors in Architecture, Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure,
ed. J. Charytonowicz and Ch. Falcão, 179–87. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20151-7
BS EN 15251:2007 Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of
buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics
Buccolieri R., Sandberg M., Wigö H. and S. Di Sabatino. 2019. The drag force distribution within regular arrays of cubes
and its relation to cross ventilation – theoretical and experimental analyses. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 189: 91–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2019.03.022
CIBSE Lighting Guide 10. 1999. Daylighting and window design, CIBSE, ISBN 0-900953-98-5.
CIBSE Lighting Guide/SLL 2015. LG7 CIBSE. Lighting Guide 7: Office lighting. Chartered Institution of Building
Services Engineers, London, ISBN 9781906846589.
Fu T.S and E.A. Johnson. 2011. Distributed Mass Damper System for Integrating Structural and Environmental Controls
in Buildings, Journal of Engineering Mechanics-ASCE, 137, 3, 205-213, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-
7889.000021
Gratia E. and A. De Herde. 2007. The most efficient position of shading devices in a double-skin façade. Energy and

t
Buildings 39(3): 364–73. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.09.001

ip
Kaasalainen T., Mäkinen A., Lehtinen T., Moisio M. and J. Vinha. 2020. Architectural window design and energy
efficiency: Impacts on heating, cooling and lighting needs in Finnish climates, Journal of Building Engineering,

cr
27, 100996
Karlsen L., Heiselberg P., Bryn I., and H. Johra. 2016. Solar shading control strategy for office buildings in cold climate,

us
Energy and Buildings 118: 316–28. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.014
Konstantzos I. and A. Tzempelikos. 2017. Daylight glare evaluation with the sun in the field of view through window
shades. Building and Environment 113: 65–77. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.009
an
Linney A. 2008. Maximum Luminances and Luminance Ratios and Their Impact on Users' Discomfort Glare Perception
and Productivity in Daylight Offices, Master thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
Lu Y., Lin. H.K., Liu, S.W. and Xiao Y.Q. 2019. Nonuniform Woven Solar Shading Screens: Shading, Mechanical, and
M

Daylighting Performance, Sustainability, 11, 5652, doi: 10.3390/su11205652

Manzan M. 2014. Genetic optimization of external fixed shading devices, Energy and Buildings 72: 431–440. doi:
10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.007
ed

Mardaljevic J., Andersen M., Roy N. and J. Christoffersen. 2012. Daylighting Metrics: Is There A Relation Between
Useful Daylight Illuminance And Daylight Glare Probability?, First Building Simulation and Optimization
Conference Loughborough, UK 10-11 September 2012
pt

Mavromatidis L.E., Marsault X. and H. Lequay. 2013. Daylight factor estimation at an early design stage to reduce
buildings' energy consumption due to artificial lighting: A numerical approach based on Doehlert and Box-
Behnken designs, Energy 65: 488-502, DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.028
ce

Mathews J.H. and K.D. Fink. 2004. Numerical Methods using Matlab. 4th ed. London: Pearson; ISBN-13: 978-
0130652485
Ac

Nabil A. and J. Mardaljevic. 2005. Useful daylight illuminance: A new paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings.
Lighting Res Technol. 37: 41-59. doi: 10.1191/1365782805li128oa
LG7 CIBSE/SLL 2005. Lighting Guide 7: Office lighting. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
Palmero-Marrero A.I. and A.C. Oliveira. 2010. Effect of louver shading devices on building energy requirements,
Applied Energy 87(6): 2040–2049. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.11.020
Peng W., Zhuangbo F. and C. Shi-Jie. 2018. Fast and accurate prediction of airflow and drag force for duct ventilation
using wall-modeled large-eddy simulation, Building and Environment 141: 226–235. doi:
10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.064
Peel M.C., Finlayson B.L. and T.A. Mcmahon. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, European Geosciences Union, 4(2): 439-473. ⟨hal-
00298818⟩
Pilkington Glass Handbook. 2014. Accessed September 15, 2019. https://www.pilkington.com/-/media/pilkington/site-
content/poland/trade/downloads/handbook_2014_eng.pdf)
Roberts G.C.K. 2013. Encyclopedia of biophysics, Springer. New York.
Safa D., Yacine S.M., Zemmouri N. and S. Khaled. 2013. A study of optimization of the light shelf system in hot and arid
zones By: Envisioning architecture: design, evaluation, communication, Edited by:Morello, E; Piga, BEA
Souza P.V.S., Girardi D. and P.M.C. de Oliveira. 2017. Drag force in wind tunnels: A new method, Physica A, 467: 120–
128. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.09.049
Suk J. Y. 2019. Luminance and vertical eye illuminance thresholds for occupants’ visual comfort in daylight office
environments, Building and Environment, 148: 107-115.
Sutter Y., Dumortier D. and M. Fontoynont. 2006. The use of shading systems in VDU task offices: a pilot study, Energy
and Buildings, 38 (7): 780-789.
White F. 2016. Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed. New York. McGraw-Hill.
Wibig J. 2018. Heat waves in Poland in the period 1951–2015: trends, patterns and driving factors. Meteorol Hydrol
Water Management, 6: 37–45, doi:10.26491/mhwm/78420
Wienold J. and J. Christoffersen. 2006. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for

t
daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and Buildings, 38(7):743-757.

ip
Wymelenberg K.V. and M. Inanici. 2016. Evaluating a new suite of luminance-based design metrics for predicting
human visual comfort in offices with daylight, Leukos, 12:113-138.

cr
Yan H., Hao Ch., Cai C.S., Guoji X., Lian S. and P. Hu. 2016. Numerical analysis on the difference of drag force
coefficients of bridge deck sections between the global force and pressure distribution methods, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 159: 65–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2016.10.004

us
Zheng J.W., Tao Q.H. and L. Li. 2020. Wind Pressure Coefficient on a Multi-Storey Building with External Shading
Louvers, Applied Sciences-Basel, 10:3, Article Number: 1128
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
Fig. 1. Authors-defined illuminance thresholds for the UDI_300-3000 given a 24-hour
cycle. The range for UDI300-3000 is 300-3000 lux, with the occupant schedule from 9:00 am to 5:00
pm, Monday to Friday.
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
Fig. 2. The daylight simulation setup.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M

Fig. 3. Scheme of vertical fins installed on the façade: a) top view; b) front view.
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 4. Graphic results of UDI300-3000 [%] analysis. The scale is provided accordingly.
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 5. Active surface A calculated for two fins located 12 m from each other (D = 4 m, H = 1 m and
L = 0.05 m).
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 6. Active surface A calculated for seven fins located 2 m from each other (D = 4 m, H = 1 m and
L = 0.05 m).
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 7. Maximum active surfaces A for different numbers of installed panels (fins).
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 8. The values of maximum drag force FD for different numbers of fins, uo = 1 m/s.
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 9. The values of the maximum total drag force FD, calculated for uo = 1 m/s, (blue dashed curve)
and UDI300-3000 metric (red curve) for different numbers of vertical fins.
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
Fig. 10. The convolution of functions (UDI300-3000 x FD) (red star markers connected by straight
lines); parameter uo = 1 m/s.

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
Table 1. Materials and radiance parameters of the room surfaces and shading fins.

vertical upper horizontal window shading fin

surfaces of the surface of the test
test room room
material grey concrete grey concrete double white metal
glazing
reflectance 0.42 0.42 - 0.28
transmittance 0 0 0.82 0

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
Table 2. The values of UDI300-3000 metrics for the analyzed number of fins, N.

floor space for UDI300-3000 for

Number of fins, N
50% of occupation time, [%]
0 (unshaded) 5.38
2 6.42
3 7.47
4 7.81
5 8.68
6 11.63
7 13.89
8 15.28
9 14.24
10 13.28
11 12.33
12 11.28

t
13 9.72

ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
Table 3. The maximum values of FD for various numbers of fins/panels and wind velocities.

Number
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
of fins
Maximum
drag force
FD, [N], 9.66 14.3 18.8 22.9 26.8 30.2 33.3 36.3 38.6 40.9 42.8 44.2

u0 = 1 m/s
Maximum
drag force
FD, [N], 86.9 129 169 206 241 272 300 327 347 368 385 398

u0 = 3 m/s
Maximum
drag force
FD, [N], 3864 5720 7520 9160 10720 12080 13320 14520 15440 16360 17120 17680

t
u0 =20 m/s

ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac