See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245310097

Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system

Article  in  Building Research and Information · April 2009

DOI: 10.1080/09613210902723738

CITATIONS READS

19 1,776

2 authors:

Svetlana Olbina Yvan Beliveau

University of Florida Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
42 PUBLICATIONS   918 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   934 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Residential Energy Efficiency View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Svetlana Olbina on 13 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Florida]
On: 27 February 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906461617]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694730

Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system

Svetlana Olbina a; Yvan Beliveau b
a
M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, US b Myers-Lawson
School of Construction, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, US

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2009

To cite this Article Olbina, Svetlana and Beliveau, Yvan(2009)'Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting
system',Building Research & Information,37:2,148 — 163
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09613210902723738
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210902723738

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2009) 37(2), 148 – 163

RESEARCH PAPER

Developing a transparent shading device

as a daylighting system

Svetlana Olbina1 and Yvan Beliveau2

1
M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, University of Florida, 322 Rinker Hall, PO Box 115703,
Gainesville, FL, 32611, US
E-mail: solbina@u£.edu
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009

2
Myers-Lawson School of Construction,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 250 South Main
Street, Suite 300 (0156), Blacksburg,VA, 24061, US
E-mail: yvan@vt.edu

A transparent shading device is developed as an alternative to opaque or translucent materials. The objectives are to
create a new design of transparent blinds with improved daylighting performance and to simulate its daylighting
performance. The application of a triangular cross-section for the slats and the use of clear plastic and a silver
reflective coating as the materials for the new blinds utilize the principles of optics in this design. A case study
analyses and compares the daylighting performance of the new transparent blinds, commercially available opaque
blinds, and the previously patented transparent blinds. Results from a limited simulation of the three systems indicate
the interior illuminance and daylighting performance are best for the new blinds.

Keywords: alternative technology; daylight autonomy; daylighting; facade design; illuminance; optics; shading device;
simulation; useful daylight illuminance

Un dispositif pare-soleil transparent a été mis au point comme alternative aux matériaux opaques ou translucides. Les
objectifs sont de créer des stores transparents de conception nouvelle présentant des performances améliorées en
éclairage naturel et de procéder à une simulation des performances de ce dispositif en éclairage naturel. Ce design fait
appel aux principes d’optique dans l’application d’une section transversale triangulaire aux lamelles et dans
l’utilisation d’un plastique transparent et d’un revêtement réfléchissant argenté comme matériaux de ces nouveaux
stores. Une étude de cas analyse et compare les performances en éclairage naturel de ces nouveaux stores
transparents, des stores opaques disponibles dans le commerce, et des stores transparents déjà brevetés. Les résultats
d’une simulation limitée des trois systèmes indiquent que les performances concernant l’éclairement intérieur et
l’éclairage naturel sont meilleures avec les nouveaux stores.

Mots clés: technologie alternative; autonomie en lumière du jour; éclairage naturel; conception de facades; éclairement;
optique; dispositif pare-soleil; simulation; éclairement naturel utile

Introduction provides protection from direct sun (Bilgen, 1994;

The shading device is an important component of any Klems and Warner, 1997; Galasiu et al., 2004) and
conventional facade system, as well as single- and overheating in summer, thus reducing the cooling
double-skin curtain wall systems. The shading device loads for the building (Inoue et al., 1988; Pfrommer
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2009 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.informaworld.com ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210902723738

et al., 1996; Sciuto, 1998; Selkowitz and Lee, 1998;
Kuhn et al., 2000; Breitenbach et al., 2001; Athienitis
and Tzempelikos, 2002). The shading device is also
used to provide privacy (Tzempelikos, 2008) and pro-
tection from glare (Klems and Warner, 1997; Kuhn
et al., 2000; Athienitis and Tzempelikos, 2002;
Galasiu et al., 2004; Selkowitz and Lee, 2004). The
venetian blind, as an optically complex shading
device, transmits, reflects, and scatters direct sun. It
also diffuses skylight and reflected light from the
ground (Lee et al., 1998; Sciuto 1998; Tzempelikos,
2008).
Proper application of the shading device is particularly
important for preventing the greenhouse effect and
overheating as well as for controlling the glare in
buildings with curtain walls used as facade systems
(Selkowitz and Lee, 2004). Large glass areas are
broadly used in contemporary architecture since glass
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
provides direct visual contact between the inside and
the outside (Inoue et al., 1988; Klems and Warner
1997; Selkowitz and Lee, 1998; Kuhn et al., 2000;
Tzempelikos, 2008), which has a significant psycho-
logical effect on building occupants (Inoue et al.,
1988; Athienitis and Tzempelikos, 2002; Selkowitz
and Lee, 2004). Glass also contributes to achieving a
transparent appearance of the building. Glass trans-
mits daylight which contributes to the well-being of
the building occupants and provides energy savings
for the building. However, the use of conventional
shading devices in windows can obstruct the view to
the outside and limit the amount of daylight that pene-
trates into the interior space (Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) 1999; Kuhn et al.,
2000; Kischkoweit-Lopin, 2002). A shading device
designed as a daylighting system that also provides a
view to the outside can mitigate this problem.
Daylighting systems redirect diffuse or direct
sunlight (Kischkoweit-Lopin, 2002), that is, they
provide dynamic control of transmitted luminous flux
to improve light distribution and reduce cooling
loads in the space (Selkowitz and Lee, 1998; Beck
et al., 1999; Kuhn et al., 2000; Breitenbach et al.,
2001). Therefore, if a shading device is designed and
utilized as the daylighting system, it can help in the
distribution of the daylight into room areas that
are far away from the windows and, therefore, do
not have a sufficient amount of daylight. In addition
to redirecting daylight deeper into a space and
controlling solar gain, a daylighting system can also
control glare, provide energy savings, and enhance
privacy (Ouderkirk et al., 1999; Kischkoweit-Lopin,
2002).
A transparent shading device is a shading system
made of a transparent material such as glass or
plastic. Along with providing transparency to the
wall, which is one of the design goals when using a
curtain wall system, a transparent shading device
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
needs to control solar gain. A transparent shading
device, as a window component, can help in the trans-
mission, reflection, and absorption of sunlight. As a
result, a transparent system can provide a sufficient
amount of daylight in the space and protect the
space from overheating.
Problem statement
Commercially available shading devices are usually
used for protection from overheating in summer, for
glare protection, and for providing privacy.
Commercially available conventional shading devices
are also occasionally used as part of a daylighting
system. For example, venetian blinds can perform
poorly with respect to daylight levels (Moeck, 1998).
However, the shading device may be designed to redir-
ect sunlight to spaces where daylight is needed, such as
those that are a great distance from the window.
Shading device slats are usually made of non-transpar-
ent materials. If these slats are in a closed or nearly
closed position, the direct view to the outside can be
partly obstructed (Vine et al., 1998; Kuhn et al.,
2000; Ruck et al., 2000), and consequently visual
transparency of the facade is more difficult to
achieve. Installed transparent shading devices are
usually custom designed and made for a particular
building. Mass-produced transparent systems are not
yet available on the market. Several transparent
shading devices are previously patented, but they are
not yet in production for the market.
There is also a problem associated with the control
systems used to adjust the blinds’ tilt angle. A
shading device is usually controlled manually by the
building occupants based on the occupants’ personal
preferences, which often do not meet requirements
for thermal and daylighting performance (Lee et al.,
1998; Selkowitz and Lee, 1998; Kuhn et al., 2000;
Ruck et al., 2000; Guillemin and Morel, 2001; Athie-
nitis and Tzempelikos, 2002). For example, problems
occur if the occupants are absent from the room
when the blinds need to be adjusted (Lee et al., 1998;
Selkowitz and Lee, 2004). Also, occupants very often
close the blinds completely to protect space from over-
heating and glare, but at the same time the amount of
daylight in the space is reduced and the use of electrical
lighting is increased (IESNA, 1999). As a result, the
cooling loads are also increased. A balance between a
sufficient amount of daylight and maximum overheat-
ing protection is difficult to achieve without the appli-
cation of automatically controlled systems (Inoue
et al., 1988; DiBartolomeo et al., 1996; Klems and
Warner, 1997; Lee et al., 1998; Selkowitz and Lee,
1998, 2004). However, some level of user adjustment
of the automated control is needed to avoid user rejec-
tion of the control (DiBartolomeo et al., 1996; Vine
et al., 1998).
149
 Olbina and Beliveau

Objectives
The purpose of this research is to study daylighting per-
formance of a transparent shading device as part of a
window system. Objectives of the research are as follows:

. design a new shading device system that would do

the following:

. function as a daylighting system

. be made of transparent material

. be feasible for mass production

. use an automatic control system

. analyse the daylighting performance of this new
transparent shading device
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
Figure 1 The Berlaymont Building in Brussels, Belgium, with
moveable glass louvers as the outside facade layer. Source:
Architects Pierre Lallemand & Steven Beckers/Berlaymont
2000.

Background
Existing transparent shading devices
Shading devices made of transparent materials, such as
glass or plastic, can have a useful application since they
provide an opportunity for creating transparency of
the windows and glass facades. A review is conducted
to understand the principles of their design and per-
formance. Knowledge about the installed transparent
shading devices and the previously patented transpar-
ent shading devices is the background for the develop-
ment of the new shading device system. Transparent
materials, such as glass and plastic, and their proper-
ties, are studied to investigate the possibility of their
use for the manufacture of blinds (Callister, 1985).
There is a viable potential for manufacturing transpar-
ent blinds based on the appropriate design of the
chemical and physical structure of the material and
the blinds’ manufacturing process. Figure 2 The Gartner Design O⁄ce building in Gulden¢ngen,
Germany, with moveable glass louvers. Source: Facade
Installed systems GARTNER, Josef Gartner GmbH.
Existing installed transparent shading systems tend to
be custom made, designed, and manufactured only . The new design office for the Gartner Cladding Co.
once for a specific building. The following building in Guldenfingen, Germany, has glass louvers
applications are a few examples that represent installed along the north and south elevations
installed, custom-made transparent shading devices: (Compagno, 2002; Wigginton and Harris, 2002;
Koster, 2004). These louvers are an example of
. The Berlaymont Building in Brussels, Belgium the custom-designed and custom-made transparent
(Figure 1), has moveable glass louvers that are shading device (Figure 2). The glass louvers are
installed as the outside layer of the double-skin used to redirect daylight onto the ceiling, protect
facade. The louvers’ position is adjusted based on space from direct sunlight, and provide visual
the sun’s position. The louvers control heat gain contact with the outside (Compagno 2002;
in summer and heat loss in winter, and act as the Wigginton and Harris, 2002). The louvers are
light shelves allowing daylight penetration into moveable and automatically controlled.
the building (European Commission (DG TREN),
2005; Roger-France, 2005; Deneyer et al., 2008). . Avax S.A. headquarters building in Athens, Greece,
The average daylight factor is around 6% and has the transparent blinds installed on the east-
uniform daylighting is provided in the back of the oriented facade (Tombazis and Preuss, 2001).
6 m-deep office. The louvers also provide views These blinds are another example of the custom-
to the outside (Roger-France 2005). designed and custom-made transparent shading

150

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
Figure 3 Avax S.A. headquarters in Athens, Greece, with
moveable glass panels/blinds as the outside facade layer.
Source: Avax S.A. headquarters; Architects: A. N. Tombazis and
Associates Architects, Athens. Image courtesy: Nikos Daniilidis.
device. Vertical shading devices consist of double
laminated glass panels with a silk screen printed
surface (Figure 3). These vertical blinds create an
outside layer of the double-skin facade and are auto-
matically controlled based on solar radiation.
Previously patented systems
Previously patented transparent shading devices are
investigated to obtain an understanding of their per-
formance. An understanding of the design principles,
such as the optics used and explained in the patented
solutions, help in the design of a new transparent
shading device, which is proposed by this research.
The analysed systems offer a sufficient amount of day-
light in the space and protection from glare and over-
heating (Seeger, 1969; Bartenbach, 1983; Murphy
and Campbell, 1988; Lorenz, 2001; Koster, 2002).
Some analysed systems do not essentially limit the
view to the outside (Murphy and Campbell, 1988;
Lorenz, 2001). Two basic types were analysed – move-
able (Seeger 1969; Bartenbach 1983; Murphy and
Campbell 1988; Moench 1991) and fixed (Boyd
1957; Wirth et al. 1998; Koster 2002) – to find out
whether or not fixed blinds can achieve a required
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
performance level. The following examples present a
few of the investigated systems:
. The shading device patented by US Patent
4,517,960 consists of a plurality of slats that are
made of a light, permeable material (Bartenbach,
1983). The slats have a flat, non-reflective base
surface on a side oriented to the sun and a prismatic
structure on the opposite side oriented away from
the sun (Figure 4). The prismatic rods are parallel
to the longitudinal axes and have two non-reflective
surfaces that work only by total internal reflection.
This shading device improves light transmittance
and provides effective protection from sunlight.
For the south orientation, this shading device does
not require adjustment of the slat inclination
during the day and requires little adjustment
throughout the year (Bartenbach, 1983).
. A prismatic transparent shading device patented by
US Patent 4,773,733 blocks direct sun rays enter-
ing the space, permits the passage of indirect sun
rays into the space, and permits a view through
the shading device from the interior to the
outdoor space (Murphy and Campbell, 1988).
The shading device has a form of venetian blind
comprised of prismatic, reflective, slatted panels
that are rotatable depending on the sun’s move-
ment (Figure 5). The prismatic slats are made
from a light transmissive material with an index
of refraction of approximately 1.5, such as glass,
acrylic, and polycarbonate. The slats have two
faces: the front flat face is oriented to the sun and
Figure 4 Previously patented transparent shading device (US
Patent 4,517,960; Bartenbach, 1983): cross-section through the
prismatic slat.
Figure 5 Previously patented transparent shading device (US
Patent 4,773,733; Murphy and Campbell, 1988): partial cross-
section through the three-faced prism.
151
 Olbina and Beliveau
the rear face oriented away from the sun. The rear
face has reflective prisms for total internal reflec-
tion of sunrays that strike the front face of the
slat at a 308 angle from a normal to the front
face (Murphy and Campbell, 1988).
. The transparent shading device patented by US
Patent 6,367,937 has reflective lamellae that do
not produce glare in the interior or exterior
spaces and avoid multiple reflections that lead to
overheating of the lamellae and, therefore, to
heating of the interior space (Koster, 2002). The
slats in this shading device are not moveable and
the blinds are not retractable. Each slat consists
of the following portions (Figure 6):
. one portion of teeth, close to the outside space,
reflects the sun’s radiation back to the outside
space by a single reflection for high sun incidence
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
angles, such as in the summer, and works in
favour of thermal comfort
. a second portion of teeth, close to the interior
space, illuminates the interior space for low sun
incidence angles, such as in the winter, and
works in favour of visual comfort by reflecting
light into the interior
Each individual tooth has two sides: one exposed to the
sun’s radiation, and a shaded side. Glare is avoided
Figure 6 Previously patented transparent shading device (US Patent 6,367,937; Koster, 2002): perspective section through three
sun-protection lamellae.
152
since the tooth side exposed to the sun has a deflection
function, while the shaded tooth side has a dimming
function (Koster, 2002). The shaded tooth side,
rather than the irradiated side, is seen from the interior
space, and the shaded side becomes darker since it is
not irradiated by the sun. No glare effect will occur
when looking at the lamellae (Koster, 2002).
Daylighting performance of shading devices
This research focuses only on the daylighting perform-
ance of the shading devices, specifically illuminance,
daylight autonomy (DA), and useful daylight illumi-
nance (UDI), obtained by the application of transpar-
ent shading devices. Daylight has an important effect
on the occupants of the buildings, particularly their
behaviour and well-being in the space (Ruck et al.,
2000; Galasiu and Veitch, 2006). As one of the sustain-
able strategies, daylight contributes to energy savings
by reducing the use of electric lighting, which decreases
the cooling loads in the building (Lee et al. 1998).
Daylighting also has a significant aesthetic effect on
the interior space. The appropriate use of shading
devices can improve the daylight level in the space
(Selkowitz and Lee, 1998; Kuhn et al., 2000;
Breitenbach et al., 2001; Kischkoweit-Lopin, 2002).
For these reasons, daylight performance parameters
(illuminance, DA, and UDI) are used for the evaluation
of the new transparent shading device proposed by this
research.

Illuminance is a measure of the quantity of light in a
space. Illuminance levels in a space decrease asympto-
tically as the distance from the window increases
toward the depth of the space. By definition, ‘illumi-
nance is the density of luminous power’ (Stein and
Reynolds, 2000, p. 1054) or ‘the luminous flux inci-
dent on a surface per unit area’ (Ruck et al., 2000,
p. 8– 4). The unit of measure used to quantify lumen
per square metre is lux (lx). The distribution of light
illuminance shows ‘how lighting varies from point to
point across a plane of surface’ (Ruck et al., 2000,
p. 3 –5). Illuminance is measured across a horizontal
work plane at a height of 0.8 m above the floor. The
illuminance distribution in a room resulting from the
application of the venetian blind is a complex function
of the solar conditions and the slat tile angle (Klems
and Warner, 1997; Lee et al., 1998).
To evaluate the daylighting performance of a shading
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
device, actual values of illuminance in the space
obtained by the application of the shading device on
a specific building need to be compared with values
recommended by the standards and the literature
(Nabil and Mardaljevic, 2006; Reinhart et al., 2006).
The International Standard ISO 8995, CIE S 008/E,
gives recommended maintained illuminances over the
task area on the reference surface, which can be hori-
zontal, vertical, or inclined. These values provide for
visual safety at work and needed visual performance
(Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE)
Central Bureau, 2001). The ANSI/IES RP-1-1982
standard for office lighting recommends illuminance
categories based on the area/activity, ranges of illumi-
nance categories and types of activity, minimum values
of illumination for safety, and weighting factors to be
considered in selecting specific illuminance (IESNA,
1982).
Reinhart et al. (2006) recommended the use of
dynamic daylighting performance metrics, such as
DA and UDI to evaluate the daylight performance of
shading devices. Both DA and UDI are based on
work plane illuminances (Reinhart et al., 2006). DA
is defined as the percentage of the occupied times of
the year when the minimum required illuminance
level at the sensor point is provided by daylight only
(Reinhart and Walkenhorst, 2001; Architectural
Energy Corporation, 2006). Nabil and Mardaljevic
(2006) defined UDI as a measure that determines
when illuminance levels are useful for the occupant,
that is, more than 100 lx (not too dark) and less than
2000 lx (not too bright). UDI is expressed as percen-
tages of the occupied times of the year when it is
achieved (100– 2000 lx), not sufficient (less than 100
lx), or exceeded (more than 2000 lx) (Reinhart et al.
2006). Mardaljevic (2006) suggested dividing achieved
UDI into autonomous UDI (500– 2000 lx) and sup-
plementary UDI (100– 500 lx). Supplementary electric
lighting may be needed for the daylight illuminance
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
values from 100 to 500 lx, while daylight alone is suf-
ficient for the illuminance levels from 500 to 2000 lx
(Mardaljevic, 2006).
Methods
In order to accomplish the research objectives, the fol-
lowing methodology is applied:
. in the process of designing a new shading device:
. principles of optics are used to control daylight
. the simplest possible geometry for the slats is
applied in order to achieve an economically
viable and uncomplicated manufacturing process
. transparent material and reflective coating are
used for the slats
. in the process of analysing the daylighting perform-
ance of the proposed transparent shading device:
. a case study is performed for the particular type
of building at the specific location
. daylight simulation is performed for the three
shading device systems installed at the proposed
building: a commercially available opaque system,
a previously patented transparent system, and a
new transparent system proposed by this research;
the software Autodesk VIZ 4 TM (Autodesk, Inc.,
2004) that calculates actual illuminance levels in
the space as a result of the application of the specific
types of the blinds in a proposed space is used
. the results of daylighting simulation for the three
types of blinds are compared to understand the
performance and advantages of a new transpar-
ent shading device
Case study
In order to analyse the daylighting performance of the
proposed new transparent shading device, a case study
is conducted. The proposed office building used in the
case study is located in Roanoke, Virginia, US (latitude
378, longitude 798), which has a moderate climate.
Figure 7 Perspective view of the o⁄ce building used in the case
study. Source: authors.
153
 Olbina and Beliveau

Figure 8 Perspective view of the interior space of the o⁄ce building used in the case study. The window and facade are located on the
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009

left-hand side. Source: authors.

A simple office space, 18.3 m wide, 12.2 m deep, and oriented facade at 12.00, 14.00, and 16.00 hours).
3.0 m high, is simulated for south and west facade Simulations were conducted for three different sky
orientations (Figure 7). The single-skin curtain wall conditions: clear, partly cloudy, and cloudy. The
has an area of 55.7 m2, with a transparent/window following shading device systems were tested:
area of 29.3 m2. The window assembly has two
parts: lower (1.41.5 m) and upper (1.40.5 m) . Commercially available opaque system: mini-
(Figure 7). The window sill height is 0.9 m. The venetian blinds comprising slats with a curved
office space is divided into separate work spaces by cross-section were tested. The slat width is
cubicles, that is, by interior partitions 1.5 m high. 25 mm and its thickness is 0.2 mm. The distance
Each cubicle contains an office desk, a chair, and a between the slats is 25 mm. The blinds are made
computer. Shelves and cabinets line the interior walls of grey vinyl with a reflectance of 40% (value
(Figure 8). The reflectance values of the interior sur- given by the manufacturer), and they are non-
faces and furniture are shown in Table 1. transparent for light. The blinds are in the horizon-
tal position relative to the window and are installed
Simulations are performed for one day each season (21 on the inside of the window (Figure 9). The blinds
March, 21 June, and 21 December) and three times per are controlled manually by the occupants. The
day at two different orientations (south-oriented blinds are retractable. However, only the slat tilt
facade at 11.00, 12.00, and 15.00 hours; and west- angle is modified in this research. The slats’ tilt
angle is adjusted based on sun and sky conditions
and the occupant’s need for privacy. Three basic
Table 1 Re£ectance values of the interior surfaces and slat tilt angles are tested: completely open (08 tilt
furniture used in the case study angle), nearly closed (458 tilt angle), and comple-
tely closed (908 tilt angle). A slat tilt angle is
Element Material Re£ectance defined as an angle from the horizontal plane
(%)
with the slats inclined downwards to provide a
view of the ground from the interior space.
Ceiling Light grey paint 84
Walls Light grey paint 2 55
Floor Green carpet 42 . Previously patented transparent system: the
Columns White wood 77 shading device patented by US Patent 6,367,937
Interior ¢nish of curtain wall White wood 77 (Koster, 2002) is simulated as an example of a
Curtain wall mullions and Metal ^ bronze 48
transoms, window frame
patented system (see the section titled ‘Previously
Interior doors Wood bass 99 patented transparent shading device systems’ and
Interior cubical partitions Beige fabric 82 Figure 6). The slats are made of clear plastic with
O⁄ce cabinets Wood burl oak 53 a transmittance of 100% and an index of refraction
O⁄ce desks Wood-oak 64 of 1.5. The blinds are simulated for a horizontal,
plywood
O⁄ce shelves Wood bass 99 fixed, and completely open position (08 tilt
O⁄ce chairs Beige fabric 82 angle), and are installed in the cavity between
two panes of glass.
154

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
Figure 9 Commercially available opaque shading device
system used in the case study which consists of vinyl light-grey
blinds. Source: authors.
Figure 10 New transparent shading device proposed by the
present research: three-dimensional view. The silver re£ective
coating is applied on the hypotenuse of the slat. Source: authors.
. New transparent system proposed by this research
and further discussed in the section titled
‘Description of the new shading device system’
(also Figures 10 and 11).
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
Simulation engine
The simulations were performed by using Autodesk
VIZ 4 software (Autodesk, Inc., 2004). VIZ 4 calcu-
lates the illuminance levels as a result of the application
of the specific type of shading device. It integrates two
lighting algorithms in order to model lighting in the
space: ray-tracing and radiosity. In VIZ 4, radiosity is
used to render diffuse-to-diffuse inter-reflections,
while ray-tracing is used for specular reflections. The
user’s input includes the following data:
. three-dimensional geometry of the space and
elements in the space
. materials for the interior and exterior finishes and
furniture
. sun position and sky conditions
The sun angles (azimuth and altitude) as well as sun
intensity depend on geographic location, date, and
time. Autodesk VIZ 4 calculates daylight that derives
from skylight that is scattered through the atmosphere.
In Autodesk VIZ 4 the sky is modelled as a dome of
infinite radius placed around the scene. Daylight com-
putes the illumination of a point in the scene with refer-
ence to all directions around the point where the sky is
visible. The sky’s brightness is not constant over the
sky dome, but rather it changes depending upon the
position of the sun (Autodesk, Inc., 2004).
The output of Autodesk VIZ 4 is a photorealistic three-
dimensional image of the space with illuminance levels
defined by the range of colours. Pseudo Color
Exposure Control as a lighting analysis tool maps illu-
minance values to pseudo-colours.
Testing process
The testing process for the three analysed blind systems
consists of the following tasks.
Task 1: Making an input for the simulation
Input for the simulation consists of independent,
dependent, and shading device variables. The follow-
ing independent variables are used in the simulation:
date, time of day, building location, sun angle, sky con-
ditions, building type, and site. Dependent variables
used in the simulation are building spaces geometry,
facade type, and window type. Shading device vari-
ables such as the slats’ geometry, width and thickness,
distance between the slats, applied materials and coat-
ings, and the slats’ tilt angle are also prepared as an
input for the simulation.
Task 2: Simulation of daylighting performance
Simulations of illuminance in the space are performed
by using Autodesk VIZ 4 software. Input parameters
155
 Olbina and Beliveau
prepared in the first step are used to test the daylighting
performance of the three shading devices. Testing is
repeated individually for each type of shading device
to find out how the application of these shading
devices in the building affects illuminance levels in
the space. For each type of shading device multiple
simulations are performed since the analysis is per-
formed for different dates and different times per
day, as well as for various sky conditions. If the
blinds are adjustable (for example, the commercially
available blinds and new blinds), then the shading
device is tested for various blind tilt angles from com-
pletely open (08 tilt angle), to nearly closed (458 tilt
angle), and finally to completely closed (908 tilt
angle). This testing is helpful in establishing a control
strategy for a shading device for different sun and sky
conditions to maintain the required illuminance levels
in the space. The following parameters are modified
in the simulation process:
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
. time parameters: date and time of the day
. climate parameters: sun angle and sky conditions
. shading device variables: blind type (geometry and
material) and slat tilt angle
The values of the remaining input variables are selected
only once and remain constant in the simulation process.
Task 3: Presentation of the output of the simulations
The output of the computer simulation is the actual
values of illuminance levels in the space as a result of
the application of the specific shading device. In the
third step of the testing process the output information
is gathered, organized, and prepared for analysis. The
output values of the illuminance are calculated for
different combinations/values of the input variables.
Since the output values are given in the format of the
three-dimensional images, illuminance level measure-
ments are read at the two sensor positions in the
space from these images and recorded in the format
of matrixes of the data. The two sensor positions are
as follows (Figure 8):
. sensor positions 1 in the front of the room: the top
of the office desk at a distance of 2.4 m from the
facade
. sensor positions 2 in the back of the room: the top
of the office desk at a distance of 8.7 m from the
facade
The height of the top of the desks’ surfaces is 76 cm.
The distance between the two sensor positions is 6.3 m.
The required values of illuminance in this office space
are determined based on the ANSI/IES and ISO
156
standards as well as the recommendations of Reinhart
et al. (2006) and Nabil and Mardaljevic (2006). The
required illuminance values range from a minimum
of 500 lx to a maximum of 2000 lx. The actual illumi-
nance values are then used to calculate the values of
DA and UDI for each shading device. DA and UDI
values are found for the two different facade orien-
tations (south and west) and two sensor positions. An
example of the calculated values of DA per year is
presented in Table 6. DAs per year and UDIs per
year for three types of blinds are compared to analyse
the blinds’ performance and to understand the advan-
tages of the proposed transparent shading device
(Tables 7– 10).
Limitations
This research was conducted only for a proposed office
building located in Roanoke, Virginia, US. Only one
type of shading device, that is, horizontal venetian
blinds, was tested for climate conditions only on three
days: 21 March, 21 June, and 21 December. The
blinds were tested only for three times of the day:
11.00, 12.00, and 15.00 hours for a south orientation;
and 12.00, 14.00, and 16.00 hours for a west orien-
tation. The blinds were analysed only for two orien-
tations: south and west. Only one view of the three-
dimensional space was drawn by using Autodesk VIZ
4, that is, only one fixed camera position at a task
level was used in the simulation process. Only illumi-
nance at the two sensor positions was measured by the
simulations. Only two daylight performance par-
ameters, DA and UDI, were calculated based on the illu-
minance values. The research does not analyse the
occurrence of glare in the space. In this research, only
theoretical testing of three blind systems, that is, compu-
ter simulation by Autodesk VIZ 4 software, was con-
ducted. The objective of future research is to conduct
experimental testing of the blinds to see how the exper-
imental testing of the blinds corroborates with theoreti-
cal validation, that is, with the computer simulation of
the blinds. The results and conclusions of this research
were made on the basis of a small data set.
Results
New shading device system
The result of accomplishing the first research objective
was a new transparent shading device system. The
main purpose of this system was to provide a sufficient
amount and quality of daylight for the interior space.
The principles of optics were used in the design of
the new blinds. Light reflection, refraction, and total
internal reflection in the glass prism were applied
in the design of these blinds. The physical, thermal,
and chemical properties of transparent materials,
such as light transmission, refractive index, U-value,

expansion coefficient, and maximum working temp-
erature, were analysed when selecting the appropriate
material for the blinds. The characteristics of the
manufacturing process were investigated in order
to produce the blinds simply and inexpensively. Trans-
parent blinds, with a silver reflective coating applied on
one surface of the blind, were designed and tested
(Figure 10). These silvered blinds were developed to
redirect incident light to the ceiling (Papamichael
et al., 1994, cited in Selkowitz and Lee, 1998). The
slat had a right triangular shape in cross-section. The
hypotenuse dimension was 25 mm, the triangle legs
were 18 mm, and the distance between the slats was
25 mm (Figure 11). The blinds were installed
between two panes of glass. The blinds were designed
for south orientation, thus, they were in a horizontal
position relative to the window. However, in this
research the blinds were also tested for a west orien-
tation to investigate the opportunity of the application
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
of blinds on west-oriented facades. The slats were
made of clear plastic with a transmittance of 100%
and an index of refraction of 1.5. A silver reflective
coating, with a thickness of 0.5 mm and an internal
reflectance (that is, the reflectivity for radiation
hitting the coating from the plastic prism) of 94%,
was applied on the hypotenuse outside surface.
Daylight rays that strike the slats are first refracted
through the plastic prism. Depending on the incident
angle of the sun and tilt angle of the blinds, the
refracted rays are additionally either reflected from
Figure 11 New transparent shading device proposed by the present research: cross-section. The silver re£ective coating is applied on
the hypotenuse of the slat. Light-re£ecting and -refracting situations are shown for three di¡erent slat tilt angles and for two sun angles of
incidence. Source: authors.
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
the silver coating to the upper part of the room – the
ceiling – and from the ceiling to the depth of the
room, or are reflected to the outside space (Figure
11). For example, in winter and at the 08 tilt angle,
the sun’s rays are first refracted through the prism,
then reflected from the silver coating and then refracted
again and redirected to the interior space (Figure 11).
Thus, the slats help improve daylight levels in the
space. If the tilt angle of the slats changes to 908 in
the winter, the sun’s rays are first refracted through
the prism and then reflected either by the silver
coating or by total internal reflection and redirected
to the outside space (Figure 11). Therefore, the slats
protect the interior from direct sun.
The blinds are controlled automatically. They are not
retractable and only the slat tilt angle can be modified.
The control system adjusts the slats’ tilt angle based
on the sun’s position, the solar irradiance on the
facade, outside temperature and outside illuminance,
the occupants’ presence in the room, and the occu-
pants’ wishes for the inside illuminance levels, inside
temperature, and a view to the outside. The blinds
are activated by sensors that evaluate changes in
ambient conditions and supply this information to
the controllers for decision-making purposes. For
example, the control system measures the actual illu-
minance level and computes the difference between
the actual and desired illuminance to form a control
action. Control action is initiated by the controllers
and performed by an actuator, such as a DC motor.
157
 Olbina and Beliveau

The DC motor adjusts the blinds’ position to drive the
actual illuminance level back toward the set point.
The user input for an automated control of the
blinds includes the following parameters: the
minimum and maximum work plane illuminance
levels, the movement/adjustment frequency rate,
and the degree to which the blinds can be opened
and closed (DiBartolomeo et al., 1996). If the
blinds are in the completely closed position, the
direct view to the outside can be obstructed by
the silver coating.
The blinds were simulated for three slat tilt angles
in this research (Figure 11):
. 08 tilt angle (completely open blinds): the hypote-
nuse is parallel to the horizontal and the triangle
legs are oriented upwards
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
. three types of blinds (commercially available, pre-
viously patented, new)
. one facade orientation (south)
. a particular time (12.00 hours)
. three sky conditions (clear, partly cloudy, cloudy)
. two sensor positions in the space (sensor position
1: front of the room; and sensor position 2: back
of the room)
. optimized blind tilt angles, that is, the tilt angles
that provide the best daylighting performance for
the blinds, that is, illuminance values within the
recommended range

Tables similar to Table 2 are created for the simulation

. 458 tilt angle (nearly closed blinds): the angle
between the hypotenuse and the horizontal is 458
and the triangle legs are oriented to the outside
space
. 908 tilt angle (completely closed blinds): the angle
between the hypotenuse and the horizontal is 908
and the triangle legs are oriented to the outside space
Simulation results
Table 2 presents one example of the matrix of data that
includes actual values of illuminance in the space
measured by simulations for the following:
results obtained for 11.00 and 15.00 hours for the
south orientation.
Table 3 presents the number of clear, partly cloudy,
and cloudy days for each month that is simulated.
These numbers are obtained from the weather statisti-
cal data for Roanoke, Virginia. The output results
recorded in the matrixes of data (Table 2) and values
from Table 3 are used to calculate daily, monthly,
and annual values of DA and UDI. It is assumed that
the user adjusts the tilt angles for the commercially
available blinds and the automated control adjusted
the tilt angle for the new blinds. Thus, the optimized
tilt angles of the blinds, that is, the angles that
provide the recommended illuminance levels at the

Table 2 Actual illuminances (lx) measured by simulations at 12.00 hours for the south orientation and optimized slat tilt angles

Date Sky conditions Sensor position Illuminance (lx)

Commercially Previously New blinds

available blinds patented blinds

21 December Clear 1 ^ Front 600 1600 1100

2 ^ Back 650 850 700
Partly cloudy 1 ^ Front 850 1100 950
2 ^ Back 700 850 700
Cloudy 1 ^ Front 450 400 600
2 ^ Back 400 450 500
21 March Clear 1 ^ Front 1000 1600 1300
2 ^ Back 900 900 900
Partly cloudy 1 ^ Front 1300 1600 1300
2 ^ Back 1000 1000 1100
Cloudy 1 ^ Front 500 550 700
2 ^ Back 600 500 550
21 June Clear 1 ^ Front 1300 1300 1100
2 ^ Back 1300 1300 1000
Partly cloudy 1 ^ Front 1300 1800 1500
2 ^ Back 1600 1700 1700
Cloudy 1 ^ Front 600 500 1000
2 ^ Back 550 550 650

158
 Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system

Table 3 Number of days per month for various sky conditions December, March, and June for the three types of
for Roanoke,VA, US the blinds and two sensor positions.

Month Sky conditions Number of days . The annual values for DA are calculated as the
average of the monthly values for DA. Table 6
June Clear 7 shows the annual values for DA for the three types
Partly cloudy 12
of the blinds, two sensor positions, and south orien-
Cloudy 11
December Clear 9 tation. The monthly values of DA from Table 5 are
Partly cloudy 8 used for the calculations of the annual DAs.
Cloudy 14
March Clear 8
Partly cloudy 9 The daily, monthly, and annual values for DA for the
Cloudy 14
west orientation are normalized in a same way as the
values for DA for the south orientation.

UDI is calculated by using the following method. Any

sensor positions, are used in the calculations of DA and hour that falls in one of the following categories: insuf-
UDI. The blind systems are compared for these opti- ficient (UDI,100 lx), achieved-supplementary (UDI
mized slat tilt angles rather than the identical angles. 100 –500 lx), achieved-autonomous (UDI 500– 2000
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009

lx), and exceeded (UDI . 2000 lx) accounts for

DAs are calculated by using the following method. Any 100% daylight for that particular category. For the
hour that exceeds the minimum required illuminance remaining three categories the hour accounts for 0%
(500 lx) counts as 100% daylight, while any hour daylight. For example, if the illuminance at the
that does not provide a minimum illuminance (500 sensor position for a specific hour is 650 lx, it falls in
lx) counts as 0%. The daily, monthly, and annual the category UDI 500 – 2000 lx and that hour accounts
values of DA for the south orientation are normalized for 100% daylight. For the categories UDI , 100, UDI
as follows: 100 – 500, and UDI . 2000 lx, this specific hour
counts for 0% daylight. The daily, monthly, and
annual values of UDI are normalized in a same way
as the DA values are normalized. These values of UDI
. The daily values for DA are calculated as the are presented in the format of tables (similar to
average of the hourly values for DA. For Tables 4– 6).
example, Table 4 presents the daily values for DA
for 21 December for the three different blinds,
three sky conditions, and two sensor positions. Table 5 Daylight autonomy per month (%)
Tables similar to Table 4 are also created for 21
March and 21 June. Blind type Sensor Daylight autonomy per
position month (%)
. The monthly values for DA are calculated as the
average of the daily values for DA, taking into con- December March June
sideration the number of clear, partly cloudy, and
cloudy days for the specific month. For example, Commercially 1 ^ Front 70.0 70.0 100.0
Table 5 shows the monthly values for DA for available 2 ^ Back 55.0 70.0 100.0
Previously 1 ^ Front 45.3 70.0 87.7
patented 2 ^ Back 55.0 70.0 100.0
New 1 ^ Front 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 4 Daylight autonomy per day (%) (an example for 21 2 ^ Back 70.0 100.0 100.0
December)

Blind type Sensor Daylight autonomy per day

position (%) on 21 December Table 6 Annual daylight autonomy (%)

Clear Partly Cloudy Blind type Sensor Annual daylight

sky cloudy position autonomy (%)

Commercially 1 ^ Front 100.0 100.0 33.3 Commercially available 1 ^ Front 80.0

available 2 ^ Back 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 ^ Back 75.0
Previously 1 ^ Front 66.7 100.0 0.0 Previously patented 1 ^ Front 67.7
patented 2 ^ Back 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 ^ Back 75.0
New 1 ^ Front 100.0 100.0 100.0 New 1 ^ Front 100.0
2 ^ Back 100.0 100.0 33.3 2 ^ Back 90.0

159
 Olbina and Beliveau
Discussion
The annual DA and annual UDI are compared for:
. the three types of blinds – to understand which
blind seems to have the best daylighting
performance
. the two sensor positions in the room (for a specific
blind type and facade orientation)
. the two orientations (for a specific blind type and
sensor position)
Values of the different daylighting performance
parameters for the south orientation are shown in
Table 7. The ratings of the three blind types for the
south orientation according to the different daylighting
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
performance parameters are shown in Table 8. The fol-
lowing criteria are used for the ratings. The higher the
values for DA and UDI500 – 2000, the higher the rating of
the blinds. The lower the values of UDI, 100, UDI100 –
500, and UDI. 2000, the higher the rating of the blinds.
If a performance parameter leads to different ratings
for the front and the back sensor position, the mean
results for both sensor positions are compared.
The results show that the new blinds (Figures 10 and
11) scored highest in all five daylighting performance
parameters for the south orientation. The commer-
cially available blinds (Figure 9) scored higher than
the previously patented blinds (Figure 6) in four per-
formance parameters. The new blinds provide suffi-
cient daylight levels (DA) in the front of the room
100% of the time, that is, 20% more time than com-
mercially available blinds and 32% more time than
the previously patented blinds. The new blinds also
provide the highest values of UDI500 – 2000 for 100%
of the time in the front of the room, 15% more time
than commercially available blinds, and 32% more
time than the previously patented blinds. There is
never too much daylight in the room as a result of
the new blinds’ daylight control (that is, the UDI
never exceeds 2000 lx). The new blinds do not
provide useful daylight levels for 10% of the time
(UDI100 – 500 ¼10%) during the year in the back of
the room.
A comparison of the daylighting performance par-
ameters for the two sensor positions in the room (1 –
front and 2 – back) with the south orientation shows
that the new blinds and commercially available
blinds have approximately 10% higher values for
both DA and UDI500 – 2000 (that is, they provide a suffi-
cient amount of daylight/useful daylight illuminance
for a 10% longer period of time) for the front than
for the back of the room. The previously patented
blinds have 8% lower values of DA and 12% lower
160
values of UDI500 – 2000 in the front than in the back of
the room.
Values for the different daylighting performance par-
ameters for the west orientation are shown in Table 9.
The ratings of the three blind types for the west
orientation according to the different daylighting
performance parameters are shown in Table 10. The
rating criteria used for the west orientation are
the same as the rating criteria used for the south
orientation.
The results show that the new blinds also scored
highest in all five performance parameters for the
west orientation. The previously patented blinds
scored higher than the commercially available blinds
in four performance parameters. The new blinds
provide sufficient daylight levels (DA) in the front of
the room for 95% of the time, that is, approximately
20% longer than commercially available blinds and
the previously patented blinds. The new blinds also
provided the highest values of UDI500 – 2000 for almost
90% of the time in the front of the room; that is,
approximately 15% more time than commercially
available blinds and 20% more time than the pre-
viously patented blinds. The new blinds do not
control daylight adequately for approximately 6– 7%
of the time of the year when there is too much light
in the room (the UDI is above 2000 lx levels). Also,
the new blinds do not provide useful daylight levels
13% of the time of the year in the back of the room
and 5% of the time in the front of the room.
Comparison of the daylighting performance par-
ameters for the two sensor positions in the room (1 –
front and 2 – back) with the west orientation shows
that the new blinds have approximately 10% higher
values of both the DA and UDI500 – 2000 (that is, they
provide a sufficient amount of daylight/useful daylight
illuminance for a 10% longer period of time) for the
front than for the back of the room. The commercially
available blinds have 5% higher values of DA at the
front of the room, while the value of their UDI500 –
2000 is 18% higher in the front than in the back of
the room. The previously patented blinds have 6%
lower values for DA and 2% lower values of
UDI500 – 2000 in the front than in the back of the room.
A comparison of the daylighting performance par-
ameters for the two facade orientations shows that
the new blinds and commercially available blinds
perform better at the south than with the west orien-
tation (considering the values for DA and UDI500 –
2000). For example, the new blinds have a 5% higher
value for DA and a 10% higher value for UDI500 –
2000 for the south orientation than for the west orien-
tation. This was expected because horizontal blinds
perform better with the south orientation, while verti-
cal blinds perform better with the west orientation.
 Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system

Table 7 Values of the annual daylight performance parameters (%) for the south orientation

Venetian blind type: Commercially available Previously patented New

Sensor position 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back

Daylight autonomy 80.0 75.0 67.7 75.0 100.0 90.0

UDI, 100 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
UDI100 ^ 500 10.0 20.0 24.1 15.0 0.0 10.0
UDI500 ^ 2000 85.0 75.0 67.7 80.0 100.0 90.0
UDI. 2000 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note: UDI, useful daylight illuminance.

Table 8 Ratings of the three blind types for the south orientation

Performance Rating
parameter
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009

First Second Third

Daylight autonomy New Commercially available Previously patented

UDI, 100 New Commercially available/previously Commercially available/previously
patented patented
UDI100 ^ 500 New Commercially available Previously patented
UDI500 ^ 2000 New Commercially available Previously patented
UDI. 2000 New/commercially New/commercially available Previously patented
available

Note: UDI, useful daylight illuminance.

Table 9 Values of the annual daylight performance parameters (%) for the west orientation

Venetian blind type: Commercially available Previously patented New

Sensor point 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back 1 ^ Front 2 ^ Back

Daylight autonomy 74.8 69.8 75.9 82.1 95.0 87.1

UDI, 100 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
UDI100 ^ 500 15.2 20.2 19.1 12.9 0.0 7.9
UDI500 ^ 2000 74.8 56.7 69.8 72.2 89.2 79.8
UDI. 2000 0.0 13.1 6.1 9.9 5.8 7.3

Note: UDI, useful daylight illuminance.

Table 10 Ratings of the three blind types for the west orientation

Performance parameter Rating

First Second Third

Daylight autonomy New Previously patented Commercially available

UDI, 100 New/previously patented New/previously patented Commercially available
UDI100 ^ 500 New Previously patented Commercially available
UDI500 ^ 2000 New Previously patented Commercially available
UDI. 2000 New/commercially available New/commercially available Previously patented

Note: UDI, useful daylight illuminance.

161
 Olbina and Beliveau
The previously patented blinds seem to work better for
the west orientation with the exception of the UDI500 –
2000 value at the back of the room, which is higher for
the south orientation.
Within the research limitations, and considering the five
daylighting performance parameters, the new blinds
seem to perform best when compared with commer-
cially available blinds and previously patented blinds.
Conclusions
The research described in this paper has two major
objectives: to design a new, transparent shading
device; and to analyse its daylighting performance.
The design of the new transparent shading device as
a daylighting system is the most significant result of
this research. The application of the triangular cross-
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
section for the slats and the use of clear plastic and a
silver reflective coating as the materials for the blinds
utilize the principles of optics in the design. The
blinds are adjustable and automatically controlled.
The simple geometry of the blinds provides the oppor-
tunity for the uncomplicated and economically viable
mass production of this shading device.
A case study was performed to analyse the daylighting
performance of a new, transparent shading device.
Three different blind systems were simulated: a com-
mercially available opaque (Figure 9), a transparent
previously patented (Figure 6), and a new transparent
(Figures 10 and 11). Their daylighting performance
was compared to understand the behaviour of the
new transparent blinds. Within the limitations of this
research, the new transparent blinds seem to indicate
a much better behaviour, that is, they provide higher
values of daylight autonomy (DA) per year and
achieved autonomous useful daylight illuminance
(UDI500 – 2000) per year than both the commercially
available blinds and the previously patented blinds.
The new blinds provide sufficient daylight levels
100% of the time in the front of the room and 90%
of the time in the back of the room simulated for a
south orientation. There is never too much daylight
in the room as a result of the application of the new
blinds with the south orientation. The new blinds
provide sufficient daylight for more time in the front
of the room than in the back of the room, as expected.
Also, the new blinds seem to have better daylighting
performance at the south facade when compared
with the west facade.
References
Architectural Energy Corporation (2006) Daylighting metric
development using daylight autonomy calculations in the
sensor placement optimization tool. Development Report
and Case Studies, (available at: http://www.archenergy.
162
com/SPOT/SPOT_Daylight%20Autonomy%20Report.pdf)
(accessed July 2008).
Athienitis, A.K. and Tzempelikos, A. (2002) A methodology for
simulation of daylight room illuminance distribution and
light dimming for a room with a controlled shading device.
Solar Energy, 72(4), 271–281.
Autodesk, Inc. (2004) Autodesk VIZ 4 User Reference, Autodesk
VIZ 4 Copyright 2004, Autodesk, Inc, San Rafael, CA, USA.
Bartenbach, C. (1983) Protection device against solar light, US
Patent 4,517,960.
Beck, A., Korner, W., Gross, O. and Fricke, J. (1999) Making
better use of natural light with a light-redirecting double-
glazing system. Solar Energy, 66(3), 215–221.
Bilgen, E. (1994) Experimental study of thermal performance of
automated venetian blind window systems. Solar Energy,
52(1), 3–7.
Boyd, R.A. (1957) Skylights, US Patent 2,812,691.
Breitenbach, J., Lart, S., Laèngle, I. and Rosenfeld, J.L.J. (2001)
Optical and thermal performance of glazing with integral
venetian blinds. Energy and Buildings, 33(5), 433–442.
Callister, W.D. (1985) Materials Science and Engineering: An
Introduction, Wiley, New York, NY.
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) Central Bureau
(2001) International Standard ISO 8995, CIE S 008/E:
Lighting of Indoor Work Places, CIE, Vienna.
Compagno, A. (2002) Intelligent Glass Facades: Material,
Practice, Design, Artemis, Zurich.
Deneyer, A. (2008) Facades – The Berlaymont Building: A
Louvers Façade, Belgian Building Research Institute
(BBRI), Brussels, (available at: http://www.cstc.be/home
page/download.cfm?dtype¼lab_daylight&doc¼Labo_LB_
C_04_E.pdf&lang¼en) (accessed July 2008).
DiBartolomeo, D.L., Lee, E.S., Rubinstein, F.M. and Selkowitz,
S.E. (1996) Developing a dynamic envelope/lighting
control system with field measurements, Paper presented
at the 1996 IESNA Annual Conference, Cleveland, Ohio,
4– 7 August 2006.
European Commission (DG TREN) (2005) Energy certification
of Berlaymont, in Summary Report on Project Results,
European Commission, Brussels, (available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/doc/2005_07_26_
report_energy_certification_berlaymont_en.pdf) (accessed
in July 2008).
Galasiu, A.D., Atif, M.R. and MacDonald, R.A. (2004) Impact of
window blinds on daylight-linked dimming and automatic
on/off lighting controls. Solar Energy, 76(5), 523–544.
Galasiu, A.D. and Veitch, J.A. (2006) Occupant preferences and
satisfaction with the luminous environment and control
systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy and
Buildings, 38(7), 728–742.
Guillemin, A. and Morel, N. (2001) An innovative lighting con-
troller integrated in a self-adaptive building control system.
Energy and Buildings, 33(5), 477–487.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
(1982) ANSI/IES RP-1-1982: Office Lighting, IESNA,
New York, NY.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
(1999) Recommended Practice of Daylighting – IESNA
Rp-5-99, IESNA, New York, NY.
Inoue, T., Kawase, T., Ibamoto, T., Takakusa, S. and Matsuo, Y.
(1988) The development of an optimal control system for
window shading devices based on investigations in office
buildings. ASHRAE Transactions, 104, 1034–1049.
Kischkoweit-Lopin, M. (2002) An overview of daylighting
systems. Solar Energy, 73(2), 77–82.
Klems, J.H. and Warner, J.L. (1997) Solar heat gain coefficient
of complex fenestrations with a venetian blind for
differing slat tilt angles. ASHRAE Transactions, 103(1),
1026–1034.
Koster, H. (2002) Sun protection installation comprising sun pro-
tection lamellae having a toothed upper side. US Patent
6,367,937.

Koster, H. (2004) Dynamic Daylighting Architecture: Basics,
Systems, Projects, Birkhauser, Basel.
Kuhn, T.E., Buhler, C. and Platzer, W.J. (2000) Evaluation of
overheating protection with sun-shading systems. Solar
Energy, 69(Suppl. 6), 59–74.
Lee, E.S., DiBartolomeo, D.L. and Selkowitz, S.E. (1998)
Thermal and daylighting performance of an automated vene-
tian blind and lighting system in a full-scale private office.
Energy and Buildings, 29(1), 47–63.
Lorenz, W. (2001) Pane for solar protection, daylighting and
energy conservation, US Patent 6,311,437.
Mardaljevic, J. (2006) Examples of climate-based daylight mod-
eling, Paper presented at the CIBSE National Conference
2006, ‘Engineering the Future’, 21– 22 March 2006, The
Oval Cricket Ground, London, UK.
Moeck, M. (1998) On daylight quality and quantity and its appli-
cation on advanced daylighting systems. Journal of Illumi-
nating Engineering Society, Winter, 3–21.
Moench, J. (1991) Device for protection from the sun, US Patent
4,993,469.
Murphy, J.A. and Campbell, D.K. (1988) Venetian blinds having
prismatic reflective slats, US Patent 4,773,733.
Nabil, A. and Mardaljevic, J. (2006) Useful daylight illuminances:
Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 20:41 27 February 2009
a replacement for daylight factors. Energy and Buildings,
38(7), 905–913.
Ouderkirk, A.J., Benson, Jr., O., Darvell, W.K., Dunn, D.S.,
Laine, T.M., Mcclure, D.J., Miles, L.M., Serbus, T.F.,
Windorski, D.C. and Hoyle, C.D. (1999) Composite sued
for light control of privacy, US Patent 5,993,940.
Pfrommer, P., Lomas, K.J. and Kupke, C. (1996) Solar radiation
transport through slat-type blinds: a new model and its appli-
cation for thermal simulation of buildings. Solar Energy,
57(2), 77–91.
Reinhart, C. and Walkenhorst, O. (2001) Dynamic RADIANCE-
based daylight simulations for a full-scale test office with
outer venetian blinds. Energy and Buildings, 33(7),
683–697.
Reinhart, C., Mardaljevic, J. and Rogers, Z. (2006) Dynamic day-
light performance metrics for sustainable building design.
Leukos, 3(1), 7–31.
Roger-France, J.F. (2005) The Berlaymont Building: The
European Commission Headquarter Designed to be a First
View publication stats
Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system
Example for the European New Energy Certificate?,
(available at: http://www.energieeffizienzagentur.de/e2a/
img/aktuell/200501/RogerFrance.pdf) (accessed July
2008).
Ruck, N., Aschehoug, Ø., Aydinli, S., Christoffersen, J., Courret,
G., Edmonds, I., Jakobiak, R., Kischkoweit-Lopin, M.,
Klinger, M., Lee, E., Michel, L., Scartezzini, J. and Selko-
witz, S. (2000) Daylight in Buildings: A Source Book on
Daylighting Systems and Components: A Report of IEA
SHC Task 21/ECBCS Annex 29, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkley, CA.
Sciuto, S. (1998) Solar control: an integrated approach to
solar control techniques. Renewable Energy, 15(1 – 4),
368–376.
Seeger, B.I. (1969) Optical control of sunlight at window and door
openings with controlled positioning of composite transparent
materials to eliminate glaring sunlight rays while providing
normal daylight illumination. US Patent 3,438,699.
Selkowitz, S. and Lee, E. (1998) Advanced fenestration systems
for improved daylight performance, in Daylighting ‘98 Con-
ference Proceedings, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, May, 11–
13, 1998.
Selkowitz, S. and Lee, E. (2004) Integrating automated shading
and smart glazings with daylight controls, in International
Symposium on Daylighting Buildings (IEA SHC TASK 31)
Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
Stein, B. and Reynolds, J. (2000) Mechanical and Electrical
Equipment for Buildings, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tombazis, A.N. and Preuss, S.A. (2001) Design of passive solar
buildings in urban areas. Solar Energy, 70(3), 311–318.
Tzempelikos, A. (2008) The impact of venetian blind geometry
and tilt angle on view, direct light transmission and interior
illuminance. Solar Energy, 82(12), 1172–1191.
Vine, E., Lee, E., DiBartolomeo, D. and Selkowitz, S. (1998)
Office worker response to an automated venetian blind and
electric lighting system: a pilot study. Energy and Buildings,
28(2), 205–218.
Wigginton, M. and Harris, J. (2002) Intelligent Skins, Architec-
tural Press, Oxford.
Wirth, H., Gombert, A., Wittwer, V. and Luther, J. (1998) Direc-
tionally selective dielectric structures for solar radiation
control. Solar Energy, 63(4), 269–275.
163