Lighting Res. Technol. 34,2 (2002) pp.

149–169

A design guide for performance assessment of

solar light-pipes
X Zhang BEng, T Muneer BEng MSc PhD DSc CEng MIMechE FCIBSE Millennium Fellow and J Kubie
BSc PhD DSc(Eng) CEng FIMechE
School of Engineering, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Received 22 October 2001; revised 29 November 2001; accepted 6 December 2001

Due to an increasing demand for an improvement in environmental conditions

for living and a need for energy saving, development of daylight exploitation pro-
ducts has accelerated. The invention of light-pipes which bring natural light
indoors where sunlight cannot reach without generating excessive heat is one
such example. Mathematical modelling activities aimed at predicting the day-
lighting performance achievable by light-pipes with various conŽ gurations under
all weather conditions in the UK are being undertaken. Two models, one for
straight light-pipes and the other for elbowed light-pipes are described. The mod-
els enable estimation of daylight provision of the light-pipes with a high degree
of accuracy i.e., R2 values of 0.95 and 0.97 for regression between predicted and
measured illuminance were respectively obtained for the above models. The
maximum Mean Bias Error (MBE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) were –2
lux and 27 lux. A design guide for light-pipe assessment is presented that will
obviate the need for use of mathematical models.

List of symbols Emeasured Measured internal illuminance, lux

fD The diffuser factor
a0±a10 Coef®cients used in Equations 2, 3, flen The equivalent-length factor
4, 5, 6 and 7 floss The energy-loss factor
Ap Light-pipe aspect ratio for straight Fv(x,y,z) The view factor between light-pipe
light-pipes (5 light-pipe length / dia- diffuser and a plane element at P(x,y,z)
meter) H Height of the diffuser over the work-
Ape Light-pipe aspect ratio for elbowed ing plane
light-pipes (Section 7.2) kt Sky clearness index
d The distance between the projection L Length of the straight light-pipe, m
of the diffuser centre on the working Lb Length of the light-pipe bend, m
plane and the point of interest (Tables m Coef®cient used in Equations 3, 4, 5,
4±9), m 6 and 7
D Distance from light-pipe diffuser to a N Number of bends
given position P(x, y, z), m P(x,y,z) A given location at which illumin-
DPF(x,y,z) The light-pipe Daylight Penetration ance is to be estimated
Factor for position P(x,y,z) R Diameter of light-pipe, m
Eestimated Estimated internal illuminance, lux a s Solar altitude, degree
r Surface re¯ectance of mirrored
light-pipe
Address for correspondence: T. Muneer, School of Engineering,
Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK. f Light-pipe diameter (Tables 4±9),
E-mail: t.muneerKnapier.ac.uk mm
Ó The Chartered Institution of Building
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Services Engineers 2002 10.1191/1365782802li041oa
150 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
1. Introduction
Daylight and its provision are increasingly
becoming the chief concern for architects and
building service engineers. With regard to the
provision of a good visual environment, daylight
enables the sensation of sight that is vital for
human beings to appreciate their surrounding
environment. The use of daylight in buildings
can enhance the appearance of an interior and
its contents by admitting areas of light and shade
that give shape and detail for objects. The
inclusion of daylight in the workplace provides
workers with social and physiological bene®ts.
In recent years, with an increasing awareness of
sustainable development, daylight has been seen
as an effective means of saving energy and
reducing the environmental impact.
Traditionally, windows have been used as a
major means of admitting daylight within build-
ings. However in some situations, the utilization
of daylight through the application of windows
can be troublesome. For example, occupants
may feel discomfort from glare or solar
overheating due to the use of excessive glazed
areas in an attempt to introduce more daylight.
Furthermore, window installation may be inap-
plicable in some instances. Interior rooms within
large buildings for example, cannot use windows
as daylight providers. Therefore, to utilize day-
light without suffering its side effects and to
introduce daylight where windows cannot func-
tion well, various innovative methods of day-
lighting have been developed. One such device
is a solar light-pipe. In recent years, solar light-
pipes have ®rmly set their foot within the British
market place. Light-pipes have been used in
Australia, America, and Canada. Within Britain
alone there are now a number of companies that
are pro®tably trading these products and with an
enviable growth rate. With the increasing use of
light-pipes, more attention is therefore being
paid to their performance.
The ef®ciency of light-pipes as natural day-
lighting device has been reported in a number
of studies. An experimental study carried out by
Shao1 and Yohannes,2 reported the performance
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
of light-pipes of various designs under changing
weather conditions: sunny, overcast, heavily
overcast, and overcast with rain. Abundant illu-
minance of up to 450 lux was reported in test
rooms, and internal/external illuminance ratio
variance from 0.1% to 1% was reported. Oak-
ley’s study3 on 330 mm diameter light-pipes of
differing lengths shows that the illuminance
could be as high as 1538 lux. An average illum-
inance of 366 lux and a mean internal-to-external
ratio of 0.48% were obtainable. Zhang and
Muneer’s study4 of a 330 mm straight light-pipe
showed that the maximum and average values
of internal illuminance were noted as 512 lux
and 138 lux, respectively; and the average
internal/ external global illuminance ratio was
found to be 0.25%. To date, however, no math-
ematical method that includes the effect of
straight-run and bends within light-pipes has
been made available.
The dif®culties in identifying all decisive
factors that affect the performance (and in
quantitatively weighing the contributions of
these decisive factors) have been the main bar-
riers to appraising the ef®ciency of light-pipes.
Zhang and Muneer4 concluded that, beside the
geometrical con®gurations of the light-pipe
itself, solar altitude and the sky-clearness have
a signi®cant effect on the delivery performance
of the light-pipe system. Studies undertaken at
the University of Technology, Sydney5 have also
shown that the outputs of light-pipes depend
strongly on sun position and diffuser design.
Presently, research work aimed at predicting
light-pipe performance under all weather con-
ditions is being carried out. Decisive factors that
affect the performance of light-pipes have been
identi®ed, and subsequently mathematical mod-
elling has been used as the main approach in this
respect. Validated models can hence be used to
produce simpler design guidelines for light-
pipe assessment.
2. The light-pipe system
Two types of commercially available light-pipe
systems, one straight and the other with bends,

are schematically shown in Figure 1. A light-
pipe system has mainly three parts, namely a
clear dome, one or several connected tubes,
possibly incorporating bends and a diffuser. The
clear dome, usually mounted on the outside of
the roof gathers sky light and sunlight. Produced
from clear polycarbonate material, the dome is
designed to remove undesirable ultra violet (UV)
light and can seal the light-pipe against the
ingress of dust, rain and snow. The dome meets
®re resistance requirements and due to its shape
is self-cleaning.
The second part of light-pipe system consists
of one or several connected light-re¯ecting
tubes. The internal surface of the light-re¯ecting
tube is coated with a highly re¯ective mirror ®n-
ish material (typically with a re¯ectance in
excess of 0.95) that helps to achieve a high trans-
mittance. The light-re¯ecting tube is adaptable to
incorporate any bends around structural building
components as shown in Figure 1(b). Daylight
gathered by the dome at roof level is then trans-
mitted downwards via the mirrored tubes and
reaches the third part of light-pipe system, the
diffuser.
The diffuser takes the form of a white poly-
carbonate ¯at or opal dome installed on the ceil-
ing in the room to be illuminated. The convex
shape of the dome allows the light to be evenly
diffused into the space below. Recently, new
types of diffuser have been made available
including a crystal effect surface ®nish with
either ¯at or recessed ends. These newly
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of light-pipe systems. (a) A
straight light-pipe. (b) A light-pipe with bends
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 151
designed diffusers are used to improve the day-
light performance of light-pipes even further.
3. The design of a light-pipe system
A precise design of a light-pipe system is only
possible via a thorough understanding of the illu-
minance transmittance of the system. Light-pipes
are designed to collect light from both the sky
and the sun. The two components of daylight
illuminance are collected by the hemisphere
shaped dome, followed by multiple re¯ection of
sunlight and skylight through the re¯ecting tube.
Daylight then reaches the inner surface of the
light-pipe diffuser wherein a refraction followed
by a light-scattering takes place before it is intro-
duced within buildings.
Since the external environmental factors such
as sky clarity, sky-diffuse radiance distribution
and sun’s position change dynamically, the light-
pipe’s overall ef®ciency of illuminance trans-
mission also changes continuously.
The determination of light-pipe system con-
®guration aimed at achieving a given internal
illuminance under given sky conditions would
be the task of a light-pipe designer. It may be
logical to assume that a light-pipe system’s illu-
minance performance would depend on: (a) geo-
metrical factors such as its length, diameter,
number of bends, angle of bend and the diffuser
type, and (b) the above mentioned external
environmental factors. Thus, a mathematical
model that encompasses the above factors would
be desirable.
4. The Daylight Penetration Factor
(DPF) model
The concept of light-pipe Daylight Penetration
Factor (DPF) has been introduced by Zhang and
Muneer4 to relate the internal illuminance to the
total external illuminance. DPF is de®ned as the
ratio of a given point’s internal illuminance to
the total external illuminance,4
Einternal (x,y,z) 5 DPF(x,y,z) 3 Eexternal (1)
where Einternal (x,y,z) is the internal illuminance at
152 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
the given point P(x,y,z), Eexternal is the total external
illuminance and DPF(x,y,z) is the light-pipe Day-
light Penetration Factor for the given point.
Light-pipes are daylighting devices that utilize
both sunlight and skylight. It has been reported
that the sun’s position has an effect on the light-
pipe’s performance.5 When the sky is clear, the
solar altitude a s in¯uences the transmittance of
sunlight within the light-pipes. However, when
the sky is overcast or part-overcast, the in¯uence
of the sun’s position becomes weaker since sun-
light may no longer be the major component of
external global illuminance. Hence in the present
context the transmittance of light-pipes is con-
sidered to be a function of a s and the sky clear-
ness index kt (de®ned as the ratio of global to
the extra-terrestrial irradiance). Based on the
performance modelling of a straight light-pipe,4
Zhang and Muneer have given the formulation
de®ned by Equation (2):
DPF(x,y,z) 5 (a0 1 a1 a s 1 a2 a
1 a3 kt 1 a4 kt2 1 a5 a s kt) / D2
where D is the distance from light-pipe diffuser
centre to a given position P(x,y,z). Equation (2) is
only applicable for straight light-pipes and there-
fore cannot be used as a general design tool for
pipes of other con®gurations i.e., pipes with
bends. A generalized performance model that
covers light-pipes of all typical con®gurations
ought to take account of environmental as well
as geometrical factors.
5. Experimental set-up
5.1 The Craighouse test room
A purpose built test facility was established
within the Craighouse campus of Napier Univer-
sity. Within the open grounds the test room was
located on ¯at ground with an open southern
aspect.
The test room was 3.0 m long 3 2.4 m wide
with a height of 2.5 m. Inside the test room all
four sides and the roof had hardboard cladding
nailed to the frame. All edges and the door sur-
rounds were covered with heavy paper tape to
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
seal the inside space from ingress of daylight.
Sophisticated data-logging equipment inside the
room was protected from the effects of weather.
The room was equipped with power supply unit
to support a PC, data-logger and multiple indoor
illuminance sensors.
5.2 Light-pipes
To enable the performance comparison
between different light-pipes, the test room was
designed for ease of installation of light-pipes
with various designs. Initially, a total of eight
light-pipes with varied con®gurations (straight
runs plus those with multiple bends) were sup-
plied by the project co-sponsor. The diameters
of these light-pipes were 210 mm, 330 mm,
420 mm and 530 mm. All the light-pipes use
clear polycarbonate domes, 610 mm long sil-
verized aluminium tubes and opal polycarbon-
ated diffusers.
s
2
5.3 Sensors and data-logger
(2) One Kipp and Zonen CM11 global
pyranometer sensor was ®xed on the roof of the
test room. The pyranometer was calibrated by
the UK Meteorological Of®ce in November
1999 and its desiccant charge was renewed just
before the commencement of the measurement.
A further calibration check was performed in
August 2001. A permanent shielded output sig-
nal cable was included and was routed into the
test room and connected to a Grant’s Squirrel
1200 Series data-logger.
Three indoor illuminance sensors supplied by
Megatron Ltd of Watford, UK were employed
to record the internal illuminance produced by
the light-pipes. The actual sensing element was a
selenium photoelectric Cell Type M black resin
potted, 42 mm diameter 3 20 mm high with
integral cable. This type of cell converts the
energy from the light falling onto it directly into
electrical energy, which when converted into a
signal is transmitted along the cable to the Squir-
rel data-logger.
To enable the measurement of internal illum-
inance achieved by various light-pipes with
bends, one stand on which photoelectric sensors
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 153

could be mounted was used. The use of the Table 1 Designs of light-pipes that were monitored
adjustable stand ensured that photoelectric sen- Design Diameter, mm Type Length, Bends
sors measured the illuminance emitted from the mm number
light-pipe diffuser on a plane parallel to the cross
section of the light-pipe diffuser. The adjustable 1 210 straight 60 N/A
2 210 straight 120 N/A
stand consisted of two components, a commonly 3 210 elbowed 60 1
available photographer’s tripod and a table. The 4 210 elbowed 60 2
¯exibility offered by the tripod made the slope 5 330 straight 60 N/A
6 330 straight 120 N/A
and the distance of the plane where illuminance 7 330 elbowed 60 1
sensors were mounted adjustable. The table was 8 330 elbowed 60 2
manufactured from a piece of high-density poly- 9 330 elbowed 60 3
10 330 elbowed 60 4
styrene 25 mm thick, 1 m wide and 1.5 m long. 11 420 straight 120 N/A
Prior to use, the table was painted with a matt 12 420 straight 60 N/A
black ®nish to eliminate any light re¯ection into 13 530 straight 60 N/A
14 530 straight 120 N/A
areas within the sensors’ range. 15 530 elbowed 60 1

5.4 The Currie test room

To study the effect of light-pipe diffuser type
on light-pipe daylighting performance, a
330 mm diameter light-pipe provided by the pro-
ject co-sponsor was installed in a two-storey
detached house in Currie, 10 km south-west of
Edinburgh city centre. The object of these tests
was to compare the performance of the opal dif-
fuser against ¯at design. The opal diffuser takes
the form of a white polycarbonate convex-
shaped dome, which diffuses the light evenly
into the interior space. The ¯at diffuser is made
of translucent plastic material with crystal effect
®nish and a ¯at end. The latter type of diffuser
is used to improve the daylight transmission of
light-pipes even further, albeit having a stronger
directional component.
6. Performance monitoring and data
processing
6.1 Data from Craighouse test room
Continuous performance monitoring was
undertaken over a period from 10 May to 15
September 2000. Daylighting performance of 15
light-pipes of various con®gurations under all
sky conditions were carried out during these 4
months. Details of all tests completed are listed
in Table 1.
The light-pipe diameter, length, number of
bends and length of bends, if any, were noted.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Illuminance sensors were arranged on the ¯oor
or on stands with their respective distances to the
centre of light-pipe diffuser recorded. External
horizontal global irradiance data from the
pyranometer and internal illuminance data from
the photoelectric sensors were sampled every
10 s and the averaged minute-by-minute data
were stored by the data-logger.
After the measurements, data obtained were
processed and quality controlled. External illum-
inance, kt and a s were calculated using the algor-
ithm provided by Muneer et al.6 To ensure the
database reliability, data were discarded for a s
# 10°, or for kt $ 1. A total of 65 270 data
points for all light-pipes con®guration were
made available for mathematical modelling.
6.2 Data from Currie test room
For three days from 28 to 30 May 2001, the
daylighting performance of a 330 mm diameter
light-pipe with ¯at diffuser was monitored. The
external global irradiance and internal illumi-
nances at three points at varying distances to
light-pipe diffuser centre were measured simul-
taneously on a minute-by-minute basis. The
three indoor Megatron illuminance sensors were
installed corresponding to the previous study4 on
a light-pipe with the older opal diffuser. A total
of 4300 data points were thus obtained.
154 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes

Daylight penetration factor (DPF) for a ¯at dif- mulation that includes 12 coef®cients (a0 ± a10
fuser were calculated for all data points. Using the and m) is given by Equation (3):
DPF model (Equation 2), the corresponding DPF
that can be achieved by an opal diffuser under the S2 DPF(x,y,z) 5 (a0 1 a1kt 1 a2a s 1 a3kta s
same a s and kt were calculated to enable a per-
formance comparison. Figure 2 shows the com- 1 ak 2
4 ta s 1 a5kta 2
s 1 ak 2 2
6 ta s )
parisons of the estimated internal illuminances due r (a7 1 a8 Ap 1 a9 cot a s 1 a1 0 Ap cot a
R2(H/D)m / D2
s)

to the opal diffuser and the measured illuminances

produced by the ¯at diffuser. The calculation and
measurement were carried out for a point that was
at a vertical distance of 1.67 m from the light-pipe
diffuser centre.
7. Mathematical modelling
7.1 Straight light-pipe DPF model (S-DPF)
It was thought that an appropriate model for
straight light-pipes with differing geometrical
con®gurations should take account of the contri-
bution of the light-pipe’s length and diameter as
well as a s and kt. The proposed generalized for-
(3)
R is the radius of the light-pipe, r the light-pipe
surface re¯ectance, Ap the aspect ratio (de®ned
as the ratio of light-pipe length to diameter) and
H the vertical height of the light-pipe diffuser
above the working plane. Values for the coef-
®cients used in Equation (3) are given in
Table 2.
It may easily be shown that DPF(x,y,z) is pro-
portional to the light-pipe’s sectional area and
this accounts for the inclusion of the R2 term in
Equation (3). It may be recalled that the

Figure 2 Comparison between external and internal illuminance due to different diffusers

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 155
Table 2 CoefŽ cients used in Equations (3–7)

Models a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a1 0

Equation (3) 356.7 2 572.4 2 1.2 2 10.2 42.8 0.5 2 0.9 137.7 3.5 2 0.5 0.5
Equation (4)a 62.5 2 17.2 2.6 136.0 4.3 1.1 2 0.4
Equation (5) 305.0 2 190.5 2 2.9 2 5.3 2 5.8 0.2 0.2 133.8 4.0 7.1 2 2.1
Equation (6)b 192.5 2 108.8 2 0.3 132.4 4.4 8.6 2 2.6
Equation (7) 356.7 2 572.4 2 1.2 2 10.2 42.8 0.5 2 0.9 137.7 3.5 2 0.5 0.5

a
Equation (4) is the simpliŽ ed model of Equation (3)
b
Equation (6) is the simpliŽ ed model of Equation (5)

inclusion of a s and kt and D2 terms has already
been discussed with reference to Equation (2).
What now follows is a justi®cation of the
remainder of the terms included within Equation
(3). As a daylight re¯ecting device, the light-
pipe’s transmission is affected by the re¯ectance
of its interior coating material. Based on physical
reasoning presented in Section 3, it is possible
to show that a light-pipe’s transmittance is a
function of the number of re¯ections required for
a ray of light to descend the pipe and its re¯ec-
tance (Figure 3). The higher the re¯ectance of
the pipe’s interior surface (r ), the higher the
light-pipe’s daylight transmittance. Edmonds et
al.5 reported that for sunlight of any given inten-
Figure 3 Light entering a light-pipe descends via a series
of inter-re ections
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
sity, the number of re¯ections required is pro-
portional to Ap and cota s. Therefore, a linear
function that combines Ap and cota s has been
presently employed to account for the number of
inter-re¯ections occurring within the light-pipe.
This explains the second factor in Equation (3),
namely r (a7 1 a8 Ap 1 a9 cot a s 1 a1 0 Ap cot a s ).
A consideration of the manner of the spread
of daylight by light-pipe diffusers within interior
spaces led to the adoption of the last factor in
Equation (3) i.e., (H/D)m/D2, where 1 # m # 2.
For a given point in space, to obtain its illumin-
ance resulting from a point or ®nite light source,
the inverse square law and the cosine law must
hold. However, if a light-pipe diffuser is to be
considered as a point light source, the cosine law
should be applied only once, hence m 5 1; while
on the other hand, if the diffuser could be treated
as a ®nite light source, then the cosine law must
be applied twice, once for the emanation of light
and the other for its incidence (or projection) on
the horizontal plane. This requires m to be equal
to 2. Thus a compromise was achieved by using
a variable m. The `1/D2’ term embodies the
application of the inverse square law.
Using the above-mentioned measured Craig-
house data set, Equation (3) was ®tted. Good
agreement between the measured data and calcu-
lated values was obtained and in this respect Figure
4 shows the scatter plot of the predicted internal
illuminance against measured data. The trend line
was found to have a slope of 0.98 and the coef-
®cient of determination was noted to be 0.95.
Model validation was also undertaken by esti-
mation of the Mean Bias Error (MBE), the Root
Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Percentage
156 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes

Figure 4 Scatter plot of calculated due to Equation 3 (y-axis) against measured internal illuminance (x-axis) for straight
light-pipes (units 5 lux)

Average Deviation (PAD). The MBE was found

Percentage Average Deviation, PAD
to be -1 lux. The RMSE was 27 lux which was
2% of the maximum illuminance (1187 lux) and S (100*u Eestimated 2 Emeasured u / Emeasured)
15% of the mean illuminance (177 lux). The 5
no. of data points
PAD was found to be 12%. The results are sum-
marized in Table 3. The above statistical meas- To facilitate the use of the S-DPF model, Equ-
ures are de®ned below. ation (3) was further simpli®ed and its validation
was undertaken by estimation of MBE, RMSE
Mean Bias Error, MBE and PAD. The simpli®ed S-DPF model is:
S (Eestimated 2 Emeasured) S2 DPF(x,y,z) 5
5
no. of data points
(a0 1 a1kt 1 a2a s)r (a3 1 a4 Ap 1 a5 cota s 1 a6 Ap cota s )

Root Mean Square Error, RMSE

R2 (H/D)m/D2 (4)

!
S (Eestimated 2 Emeasured) 2
5 Values for the coef®cients used in Equation (4)
no. of data points

Table 3 Error statistics for Equations 3–7

Models MBE RMSE RMSE/Maxm ea s ure d a RMSE/Meanm ea s ure d b PAD Slope R2

Equation (3) -1 lux 27 lux 2% 15% 12% 0.98 0.95

Equation (4)c -3 lux 29 lux 2% 16% 13% 0.98 0.95
Equation (5) -2 lux 23 lux 2% 22% 25% 0.97 0.97
Equation (6)d -3 lux 25 lux 3% 24% 25% 0.97 0.97
Equation (7) -9 lux 52 lux 18% 29% 25% 0.94 0.86

a
Maxm ea s ure d : The maximum value of measured internal illuminance due to light-pipes, lux
b
Meanm ea s ure d : The mean value of measured internal illuminance due to light-pipes, lux
c
Equation (4): the simpliŽ ed model of Equation (3)
d
Equation (6): the simpliŽ ed model of Equation (5)

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 157

Figure 5 Scatter plot of calculated due to Equation (5) (y-axis) against measured internal illuminance (x-axis) for
elbowed light-pipes (units 5 lux)

Figure 6 Scatter plot of calculated due to Equation (7) (y-axis) against measured internal illuminance (x-axis) for
straight light-pipes (units 5 lux)

are listed in Table 2. Calculated internal illumin- factor (floss) within Equation (5). Lb and flen are
ance based on the procedure using Equation (4) subsumed within a modi®ed expression for Ape.
were plotted and regressed against correspond- The factor (1-floss)N used in Equation (5)
ing measured data. The slope of the best-®t trend accounts for the overall transmittance ef®ciency
line is 0.98, and the coef®cient of determination of the N bend(s),
R2 is 0.95. The MBE, RMSE and PAD for the E2 DPF(x,y,z) 5
simpli®ed S-DPF model were found to be ±3 lux,
29 lux and 13% respectively (Table 3). (a0 1 a1kt 1 a2a s 1 a3kta s

1 ak 2
4 ta s 1 ak 2
5 ta s 1 ak 2 2
6 ta s )
7.2 Elbowed light-pipe DPF model (E-DPF)
To predict the DPF(x,y,z) of elbowed light-pipe r (a7 1 a8 Ap 1 a9 cot a s 1 a1 0 Ap cot a s )
R2(1 2
systems (30-degree bends), the energy loss due
to each bend has to be considered. The length floss)N (H/D)m/D2 (5)
of each bend (Lb) and the number of bends (N) where Ape 5 (L 1 flenLb) / 2R and L is the length
have been accounted for by the use of an of straight light-pipe, flen the equivalent-length
equivalent-length factor (flen) and the energy-loss factor, Lb the sum of the linear lengths of all
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
158 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
bends and R the radius of light-pipe. floss is the
energy-loss factor for each 30-degree bend, most
commonly used in a light-pipe system. Values
for the coef®cients used in Equation (5) are
listed in Table 2.
Using an optimization procedure, regressed
coef®cients in Equation (5) were determined.
The `best’ value for flen was found to be 0.65
and the value for floss was found to be 0.2, which
is in good agreement with Carter’s study.7
The performance of the E-DPF model was
then evaluated using MBE, RMSE and PAD.
Figure 7 DPF for 420mm-diameter light-pipe as a function of a
pipe with two bends (D 5 H 5 1.2 m)
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
The MBE was found to be -2 lux. The RMSE
was 23 lux which was 2% of the maximum illu-
minance (931 lux) and 22% of the mean illumin-
ance (103 lux). The PAD of the estimated
internal illuminance was found to be 25%. A
scatter plot of the calculated against measured
internal illuminance is shown in Figure 5. The
slope of the trend line was found to be 0.97 and
the coef®cient of determination was noted as
0.97.
Equation 5 was further simpli®ed and the sim-
pli®ed E-DPF is given below:
s and kt , (a) for a straight light-pipe and (b) for a light-
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 159

Figure 8 Effect of aspect ratio on DPF, (a) for a straight light-pipe and (b) for a light-pipe with one bend (420mm-
diameter, D 5 H 5 1.2 m)

E2 DPF(x,y,z) 5 (a0 1 a1kt 1 a2a s)´ the coef®cient of determination was noted as
0.97. Results are shown in Table 3.
r (a3 1 a4 Ap 1 a5 cot a s 1 a6 Ap e cota s )
R (1 2
2

7.3 Light-pipe view factor DPF model (V-

floss)N(H/D)m/D2
Values of the coef®cients used in Equation (6)
are shown in Table 2. The MBE, RMSE and
PAD for the simpli®ed E-DPF model are ±3 lux,
25 lux and 24% respectively. The calculated
internal illuminance due to Equation (6) were
regressed against measured data. The slope of
the best-®t trend line was found to be 0.97 and
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
(6)
DPF)
The presently proposed S-DPF and E-DPF
models describe the internal illuminance distri-
bution of light-pipes using the factor (H/D)m/D2.
The `best’ value for parameter m was obtained
as 1.3. To validate the suf®ciency of the
expression (H/D)m/D2, in describing the light-
pipe internal illuminance distribution character-
160 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes

Figure 9 Comparison of the predicted DPFs for straight light-pipe and elbowed light-pipes with one, two, three and
four bends (530 mm-diameter, a s 5 45°, D 5 1.2 m, H 5 1 m)

istics, another approach, namely the `radiative Using the Craighouse test room database for
view factors’ method has been applied to enable all straight light-pipes, the view factor F v(x,y,z)
a performance comparison between the two dif- for each data point has been calculated and the
ferent approaches. value of the coef®cients in Equation (7) have
The view factor between any two surfaces is been re-®tted. Figure 6 shows the scatter plot
de®ned as that fraction of the radiative energy of the estimated internal illuminances due to
leaving an emitting surface that is intercepted by the proposed V-DPF model against the meas-
the receiving surface. The proposed view factor ured data. The RMSE and MBE for the pro-
model V-DPF of a straight light-pipe is shown posed V-DPF model were found to be 52 lux
in Equation (7), where Fv(x,y,z) is the view factor and -9 lux, corresponding to 27 lux and -1 lux
between the ceiling mounted light diffuser and for the proposed S-DPF model (Equation 3).
the given point P(x,y,z). The slope of the trend line for a plot of calcu-
lated versus measured data was found to be
V2 DPF(x,y,z) 5 (a0 1 a1kt 1 a2a s
0.94 and the coef®cient of determination was
1 a3kta s 1 ak 2
4 ta s 1 ak 2
5 ta s 0.86. The corresponding ®gures for the pro-
posed S-DPF model (Equation 3) were 0.98
1 ak 2 2
6 ta s )r (a7 1 a8 Ap 1 a9 cot a s 1 a1 0 Ap cot a s)
´
and 0.95. Results are shown in Table 3.
R2Fv(x,y,z) (7)
The method for calculating the view factors from 8. Parametric analysis
differential areas to spherical segments is given
by Naraghi.8 For the sake of completeness the A number of environmental and geometrical fac-
entire formulation is provided in Appendix I. tors have been identi®ed that in¯uence the day-
However, only case numbers III and V are of light transmission of light-pipes. In this section a
interest within the present context. parametric analysis of those factors is presented.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 161

8.1 Effect of as and kt in¯uence the light-pipe’s transmittance. Figure 8

It was shown earlier that a s affects the DPF
by altering the number of inter-re¯ections within
light-pipes. When a s increases, the number of
inter-re¯ections decreases which results in a
higher transmittance. However, when kt changes,
the extent to which a s affects DPF also changes.
Figure 7 shows the variation of S-DPF and E-
DPF against a s for varying weather conditions.
It was noted that DPF shows an increasingly
stronger trend with a s for clear sky conditions.
8.2 Effect of R and L
For any given a s and kt, the square of the
radius of a light-pipe, R2 affects the light-pipe’s
external illuminance admittance. Furthermore,
the aspect ratio of light-pipe Ap (5 L/2R) and a s
presents this functional variation.
8.3 Effect of distance D and diffuser height
H
The DPF model shows that the light-pipe’s
performance strongly depends on D, namely the
distance between light-pipe diffuser centre to the
given point P(x,y,z) and H, the vertical distance
between the diffuser centre to the working plane.
In Equations (3, 4, 5) and (6), the best-®t value
for the coef®cient m was found to be 1.3. This
indicates that in real applications, light-pipes
work more like a point light source rather than
a source of a ®nite area. The internal illuminance
achieved by a light-pipe system with an opal dif-

Table 4 Light-pipe design guideline for mid-summer for Kew, UK (Time 5 10 am, 1 July, Height of diffuser to the
working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of d a by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 140 100 50 425 295 140 740 515 245 1250 870 415
Part-overcastc 80 60 30 245 170 85 430 300 145 725 505 240
Overcastd 45 30 15 125 90 45 220 155 75 370 260 125
1200 mm Clear 80 55 30 295 205 100 555 385 185 995 695 330
Part-overcast 45 35 15 170 120 60 320 225 110 575 400 190
Overcast 25 20 10 90 60 30 165 115 55 295 205 100
1800 mm Clear 45 30 15 205 140 70 415 290 140 790 550 265
Part-overcast 25 20 10 120 85 40 240 170 80 460 320 155
Overcast 15 10 5 60 45 20 125 85 40 235 165 80
2400 mm Clear 25 20 10 140 100 50 310 220 105 630 440 210
Part-overcast 15 10 5 80 60 30 180 125 60 365 255 120
Overcast 10 5 5 45 30 15 95 65 30 185 130 65
3000 mm Clear 15 10 5 100 70 35 235 165 80 500 350 165
Part-overcast 10 5 5 60 40 20 135 95 45 290 205 100
Overcast 5 5 5 30 20 10 70 50 25 150 105 50
3600 mm Clear 10 5 5 70 50 25 175 125 60 400 280 135
Part-overcast 5 5 5 40 30 15 100 70 35 230 160 80
Overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 55 40 20 120 85 40

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 88 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 50 klux 0.4
Overcastd 25 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
162 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
Table 5 Light-pipe design guideline for winter for Kew, UK (Time 5 10 am, 1 February, Height of diffuser to the
working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of d a by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 20 15 10 65 45 20 110 80 40 190 135 65

Part-overcastc 15 10 5 50 35 15 85 60 30 145 100 50
Overcastd 10 10 5 35 25 15 60 45 20 105 75 35
1200 mm Clear 10 10 5 40 30 15 75 55 25 140 100 50
Part-overcast 10 5 5 30 20 10 60 40 20 110 75 35
Overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 45 30 15 80 55 25
1800 mm Clear 5 5 5 25 20 10 55 40 20 105 75 35
Part-overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 40 30 15 80 55 30
Overcast 5 5 5 15 10 5 30 20 10 60 40 20
2400 mm Clear 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 15 80 55 25
Part-overcast 5 5 5 15 10 5 30 20 10 60 45 20
Overcast 5 5 5 10 5 5 20 15 10 45 30 15
3000 mm Clear 5 5 5 10 10 5 25 20 10 60 40 20
Part-overcast 5 5 5 10 5 5 20 15 10 45 30 15
Overcast 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 10
3600 mm Clear 5 5 5 10 5 5 20 15 10 45 30 15
Part-overcast 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 15
Overcast 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 5 25 20 10

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 31 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 18 klux 0.4
Overcastd 9 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest.

fuser is proportional to (H/D)1.3 and inversely straight light-pipe with an increasing number
proportional to D2. of bends.

8.4 Effect of light-pipe bends 8.5 Effect of diffuser type

In Equations (5) and (6), the best ®tted value
for floss was found to be 0.20, which means that
each 30-degree bend looses 20% of energy dur-
ing daylight transmission. For a light-pipe with
N bends, the total energy transmittance of light-
pipe bends is therefore (1 2 floss)N, where floss 5
0.2. The use of bends increases the value of the
aspect ratio and thus it reduces the daylight
transmittance. Figure 9 shows the comparison of
DPF for a 600 mm-long, 520 mm-diameter
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Figure 2 presents the daylighting performance
of two light-pipe diffuser designs. The DPFs that
were achieved by the light-pipe with a ¯at dif-
fuser were higher than those achieved by an opal
diffuser. The performance gain ratio ranges from
2 (8 am, 31 May) to 4 (2 pm, 29 May), and the
average value has been found to be 2.9. This
factor is herein called the Diffuser Factor (fD).
By applying the average fD factor to the internal
illuminances values given by Equations (3, 4, 5)
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 163
Table 6 Light-pipe design guideline for spring and autumn for Kew, UK (Time 5 10 am, 1 April, Height of diffuser to
the working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of d a by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 95 70 35 295 205 100 515 360 175 875 610 290
Part-overcastc 55 40 20 160 110 55 280 195 95 470 330 160
Overcastd 30 20 10 85 60 30 150 105 50 255 180 85
1200 mm Clear 55 40 20 200 140 70 380 265 130 690 480 230
Part-overcast 30 20 10 110 75 40 205 145 70 370 260 125
Overcast 15 15 5 60 45 20 115 80 40 205 140 70
1800 mm Clear 30 20 10 140 95 45 285 200 95 540 380 180
Part-overcast 15 15 5 75 55 25 155 110 50 295 205 100
Overcast 10 10 5 40 30 15 85 60 30 160 110 55
2400 mm Clear 20 15 5 95 65 35 210 145 70 425 300 145
Part-overcast 10 10 5 50 35 20 115 80 40 230 160 80
Overcast 5 5 5 30 20 10 65 45 20 125 90 45
3000 mm Clear 10 10 5 65 45 25 155 110 55 335 235 115
Part-overcast 5 5 5 35 25 15 85 60 30 180 130 60
Overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 45 35 15 100 70 35
3600 mm Clear 5 5 5 45 30 15 115 80 40 265 185 90
Part-overcast 5 5 5 25 20 10 65 45 20 145 100 50
Overcast 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 15 80 55 30

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 68 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 39 klux 0.4
Overcastd 19 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest.

and (6), the internal illuminances that can be
achieved by a ¯at diffuser ®tted light-pipe can
be determined. Further work would however be
required for a more precise assessment of the
latter diffuser which has only recently been
introduced in the market.
8.6 Effect of internal re¯ection
The internal surfaces (ceiling, roof and ¯oor)
of the Craighouse test room were painted white
which has a high re¯ectance, the assessment of
the contribution of internal re¯ected illuminance
is therefore necessary to enable an assessment
of the contribution of internal re¯ection on DPF.
In the absence of any other information regard-
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
ing the inter-re¯ection of diffuse as well as beam
illuminance within rooms and also bearing in
mind the fact that light-pipes are primarily pro-
viders of diffuse illuminance, the internal re¯ec-
tion characteristics of light-pipes were treated as
being of similar order as windows. Therefore,
for the Craighouse test room, the contribution of
internal-re¯ected illuminance to the total illum-
inance that is received at survey points can be
qualitatively assessed by comparing it to that of
a window operating under similar conditions.
The surface re¯ectance of the test room has
been matched using the CIBSE Lighting Guide9
and was found to be 0.74. By abbreviated analy-
sis, the contribution of internal re¯ection to the
164 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
Table 7 Light-pipe design guideline for mid-summer for Kew, UK (Time 5 mid-noon, 1 July, Height of diffuser to the
working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of d a by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 160 110 55 475 330 160 830 580 275 1395 975 465
Part-overcastc 110 75 40 330 230 110 570 400 190 965 675 320
Overcastd 55 40 20 160 110 55 275 195 95 465 325 155
1200 mm Clear 90 65 30 335 235 110 625 440 210 1120 780 375
Part-overcast 65 45 20 230 160 80 435 305 145 775 540 260
Overcast 30 25 10 110 80 40 210 145 70 375 260 125
1800 mm Clear 55 40 20 235 165 80 475 330 160 895 625 300
Part-overcast 35 25 15 160 115 55 330 230 110 620 435 205
Overcast 20 15 10 80 55 30 160 110 55 300 210 100
2400 mm Clear 30 20 10 165 115 55 360 250 120 720 505 240
Part-overcast 20 15 10 115 80 40 250 175 85 495 350 165
Overcast 10 10 5 55 40 20 120 85 40 240 170 80
3000 mm Clear 20 15 10 115 80 40 270 190 90 575 405 195
Part-overcast 15 10 5 80 55 30 190 130 65 400 280 135
Overcast 10 5 5 40 30 15 90 65 30 195 135 65
3600 mm Clear 10 10 5 80 60 30 205 145 70 465 325 155
Part-overcast 10 5 5 55 40 20 145 100 50 320 225 110
Overcast 5 5 5 30 20 10 70 50 25 155 110 55

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 94 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 55 klux 0.4
Overcastd 27 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest.

light-pipe DPF of largest diameter (0.53 m)
light-pipe was obtained as only 5% of the total
DPF using the chart given by Muneer.10
Presently undertaken analysis shows that the
maximum contribution of internal re¯ection to
the total internal illuminance measured on each
survey point in the Craighouse test room will
not exceed the level of 5%. In summary, for the
present DPF model, the effect of internal re¯ec-
tion is of a low order.
9. Light-pipe design guidelines
The proposed model S-DPF (Equation 3) enables
the prediction of the internal illuminances that
are achievable by opal diffuser light-pipes of
various con®gurations and under different sky
conditions. As a set of guidelines for practical
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
engineering design, Tables 4±9 provide the
internal illuminances at various distances that
can be achieved by opal diffuser light-pipes of
varying geometrical con®gurations operating
under a set of three weather conditions for Kew,
London.11 The Tables also cover a set of three
seasonal variations: summer, winter, and autumn
and spring together.
Based on E-DPF (Equation 5), it has been
found that light-pipe’s daylight transmission
reduction factor due to the use of one 30-degree
bend is around 0.2. This factor can be used as a
simple guideline for elbowed light-pipe design.
It has also been noted that the ef®ciency loss due
to the introduction of bends is a function of solar
altitude, which means that for different weather
conditions and different times of the year, the
actual transmission reduction factor differs. The
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 165
Table 8 Light-pipe design guideline for winter for Kew, UK (Time 5 mid-noon, 1 February, Height of diffuser to the
working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of da by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 35 25 15 115 80 40 200 140 70 340 240 115

Part-overcastc 25 15 10 70 50 25 125 85 45 210 150 70
Overcastd 15 10 5 45 35 15 80 60 30 140 100 50
1200 mm Clear 20 15 10 75 50 25 140 100 50 260 180 90
Part-overcast 15 10 5 45 35 15 90 60 30 160 115 55
Overcast 10 5 5 30 20 10 60 40 20 105 75 35
1800 mm Clear 10 10 5 50 35 15 100 70 35 200 140 65
Part-overcast 5 5 5 30 20 10 65 45 20 125 85 40
Overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 40 30 15 80 60 30
2400 mm Clear 5 5 5 30 25 10 70 50 25 150 105 50
Part-overcast 5 5 5 20 15 10 45 30 15 95 65 35
Overcast 5 5 5 15 10 5 30 20 10 65 45 20
3000 mm Clear 5 5 5 20 15 10 50 35 20 115 80 40
Part-overcast 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 10 70 50 25
Overcast 5 5 5 10 5 5 20 15 10 50 35 15
3600 mm Clear 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 15 90 60 30
Part-overcast 5 5 5 10 5 5 25 15 10 55 40 20
Overcast 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 10 5 35 25 15

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 41 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 24 klux 0.4
Overcastd 12 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest.

more sophisticated mathematical model E-DPF 10. Conclusions

(Equation 5) should therefore be applied where
more accurate design for elbowed light-pipes
is required.
To predict the achievable internal illuminance
by straight light-pipes with ¯at diffusers, a
multiplicative factor fD is used to obtain the
internal illuminances values indicated in Tables
4±9. For elbowed light-pipes with ¯at diffusers,
combining the use of fD with the factor floss 5 0.2
may be used as a simpler guideline. However, by
applying the fD to the results given by E-DPF
model (Equation 5) a more accurate performance
assessment may be made.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
In this article, mathematical models were
developed for assessing the performance of
light-pipes. Experimented data from a total of
17 geometrical con®gurations were used in this
exercise. Four months of continuous measure-
ments have been carried out to monitor the per-
formance of various light-pipes under varying
sky conditions. Two models, S-DPF for straight
light-pipes and E-DPF model for elbowed light-
pipes are presented. A total of 69 570 data
points, using illuminance measured at one-
minute frequency were gathered to evaluate the
166 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes
Table 9 Light-pipe design guideline for spring and autumn for Kew, UK (Time 5 mid-noon, 1 April, Height of diffuser
to the working plane 5 2 m)

Length Weather Internal illuminance achieved at a horizontal distance of d a by a light-pipe of

condition diameter f , lux
f 5 210mm f 5 330mm f 5 420mm f 5 530mm
d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5 d5
0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m 0m 1m 2m

600 mm Clearb 115 80 40 355 245 120 620 430 205 1045 730 350
Part-overcastc 65 45 25 200 140 65 345 240 115 585 410 195
Overcastd 35 25 15 105 75 35 180 125 60 305 215 105
1200 mm Clear 65 45 25 245 170 80 460 325 155 830 580 275
Part-overcast 40 25 15 135 95 45 260 180 85 465 325 155
Overcast 20 15 10 70 50 25 135 95 45 240 170 80
1800 mm Clear 35 25 15 170 120 55 345 240 115 655 460 220
Part-overcast 20 15 10 95 65 35 195 135 65 365 255 125
Overcast 10 10 5 50 35 20 100 70 35 190 135 65
2400 mm Clear 20 15 10 115 80 40 255 180 85 520 365 175
Part-overcast 15 10 5 65 45 25 145 100 50 290 205 100
Overcast 10 5 5 35 25 15 75 55 25 150 105 50
3000 mm Clear 15 10 5 80 55 30 190 135 65 415 290 140
Part-overcast 10 5 5 45 35 15 110 75 35 230 160 80
Overcast 5 5 5 25 20 10 55 40 20 120 85 40
3600 mm Clear 10 5 5 55 40 20 145 100 50 325 230 110
Part-overcast 5 5 5 30 25 10 80 55 30 185 130 60
Overcast 5 5 5 20 15 5 45 30 15 95 70 35

Weather condition Horizontal global illuminance Sky clearness index, kt

Clearb 76 klux 0.7

Part-overcastc 44 klux 0.4
Overcastd 22 klux 0.2

da 5 the distance between the projection of the diffuser centre on the working plane and the point of interest.

proposed models. The slope of the scatter plot
of the internal illuminances calculated by S-DPF
(Equation 3) model plotted against the measured
data was noted to be 0.98 and the coef®cient
of determination (R2) was 0.95. The Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Bias Error
(MBE) for S-DPF model were found to be 27
lux and -1 lux. The corresponding ®gures of the
slope for the scatter plot, R2-value, RMSE and
MBE for E-DPF (Equation 5) model were 0.97,
0.97, 23 lux and -2 lux. It is worth mentioning
that the model errors are low under clear-sky
conditions when the possible energy savings are
the largest. However, under low illuminance
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
conditions due to sensitivity related problems of
sensors the errors would be larger.
The effects of geometrical and environmental
factors on the daylighting performance of light-
pipes are analysed. Based on the above two DPF
models, practical guidelines for light-pipe engin-
eering design are put forward. Tables that pro-
vide the internal illuminance that are achievable
by light-pipes at any given point on the working
plane under varying weather conditions are
presented.
The S-DPF and E-DPF models are inherently
statistical in nature. Hence their application is
limited to the respective input dataset. As such
 X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie 167

the lumen output calculation of light-pipes up to Appendix A: The view factor between a
2 m in length and solar altitude up to 60° (mid- plane element and a spherical sector
summer sun position for southern England) can
be treated with con®dence. Further measurement
work is underway with longer pipes.

Acknowledgements

The present study was co-funded by Mono-

draught (UK) Limited and Napier University.
The authors would like to extend their thanks to
Mr Terry Payne, Managing Director of Mono-
draught.

11. References

1 Shao L. Mirror lightpipes: daylighting

performance in real buildings. Lighting Res.
Technol. 1988; 30: 37±44.
12 LH
2 Yohannes I. Evaluation of the performance of I: D . and 2 1 , H , L
Î
S D
12 L2
light-pipes used in of®ces. PhD Thesis. d h l
where D 5 ,H5 ,L5 :
Nottingham: Nottingham University, 2001. r r r

H S D
3 Oakley G, Riffat SB, Shao L. Daylight 1 12 LH
5 cos2
performance of lightpipes. Solar Energy 2000.
1
FdA12
Î
A2
2p
D 12 L2
4 Zhang X, Muneer T. A mathematical model for
2(1 2 2L 2 2 D2 2 H2 1 2HL)
the performance of light-pipes. Lighting Res. 1

Technol. 2000; 32: 141±46. Î (1 1 D2 1 H2 2 2HL) 2 2 4D2(1 2 L 2)

S! Î Î
D
5 Edmonds IR, Moore GI, Smith GB, Swift PD. (1 1 D2 1 H2 2 2HL 1 2D 1 2 L 2)(D 1 2 L2 2 11 LH)
Daylighting enhancement with light-pipes 3 tan2 1

(1 1 D2 1 H2 2 2HL 2 2D 1 2 Î L 2) (D 1 2 Î L2 1 12 LH)
coupled to laser-cut light-de¯ecting panels.
Lighting Res. Technol. 1995; 27: 27±35. Î D2 2 11 2HL 2 (D2 1 H 2)L2 2 Î D2 2 11 2H 2 2 (D2 1 H 2)H2
1 2
6 Muneer T, Abodahab N, Weir G, Kubie J. D2 1 H2

Windows in buildings thermal, acoustic, visual

and solar performance. Oxford: Architectural
1 2
(D2 1
H
H2)2
3 F SÎsin2 1

H2 1
H2

(D2 2
(D2 1

1) (D2 1
H 2)L

H 2)
D
SÎ DG SÎ DJ
Press, 2000.
H(1 2 D2 2 H 2) 12 H2
7 Carter DJ. The measured and predicted 2 sin2 1
1 2sin 2 1
D
H2 1 (D2 2 1) (D 2 1 H 2)
performance of passive solar light pipe systems.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2001; 33. II: D ,
12 LH
and 2 1 , H, L:
8 Naraghi MHN. Engineering Notes. American Î 12 L2

H Î
Institution of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
!
1 1 2 H2 D2 1 H2 2 1)(1 2 H 2)
1987. FdA12 5 tan2 1
2
A2
p D2 1 H2 2 1 D2 1 H2

S DJ
9 The Society of Light and Lighting. CIBSE
H H D2 1 Î H2 2 1
Lighting Guide 11: Surface re¯ectance and 2 3
cos2 1
D
(D2 1 2
H )
colour. London: The Society of Light and 2

12
Lighting, 2001. III: when L . 0D.
LH
and H , 2 1
10 Muneer T. Solar radiation and daylight models Î 12 L2

for the energy ef®cient design of buildings. when L , 0D.

12 LH
and
1
, H, 2 1
Oxford: Architectural Press, 1997. Î 12 L2
L

11 Hunt DRG. Availability of daylight. Watford: when D .

LH 2 1
and H ,
1
:
Building Research Establishment, 1979. Î 12 L2
L

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
168 A design guide for performance assessment of solar light-pipes

FdA12 A2 5
1
2p H cos2 1
S 12

Î
D 12
LH

L2
D 1
Î (1 1
2(1 2

D2 1
2L 2 2

H2 2
D2 2

2HL)2 2
H2 1

4D2(1 2
2HL)

L 2)
photometric speci®cation from which other
measures could be derived.
tan2 1
S! (1 1 D2 1 H2 2 2HL 1 Î
2D 1 2

Î
L2)(D 1 2 Î
Î
L2 2 11 LH)
D 2) The ratio of ¯ux output to ¯ux entering: the
(1 1 D 1
2
H 2 2
2HL 2 2D 1 2 L )(D 1 2
2
L 1 2
12 LH) ef®ciency of the device.
Î D2 2 11 2HL 2 (D 2 1 H 2)L2 H 3) The ratios of the illuminance received on
1 2 1 2
D2 1 H2 (D2 1
3
given surfaces from the device to the lumin-
H 2 )2

cos2 1
SÎ H2 1
H2 (D2 1

(D 2 2
H 2)L

1)(D 2 1 H 2)
DJ ance of sky patches: Daylight Coef®cients.
4) The ratios of the received illuminances to the
IV: when L . 0D,
12 LH
and H , 2 1
external horizontal illuminance: the proposed
Î 12 L2 Daylight Penetration Factors for light-pipes,
when L , 0D,
12 LH
and
1
, H, 2 1
analogous with the Daylight Factor for con-
Î 12 L2
L
ventional windows.
H
FdA12 A
z
5 2 3
(D2 1 H 2 )2

V: when D ,
LH 2 1
and H ,
1 Authors’ response to Professor PR
Î
H J
L
1
1 2 L2
1 2 2L2 2 D 2 2 H 2 1 2HL
Tregenza
5 11
FdA12 A2
2p
Î (1 1 D2 1 H2 2 2HL) 2 2 4D2(1 2 L 2)
X Zhang, T Muneer and J Kubie

Discussion We thank Professor Tregenza for his comments

and additional information. Professor Tregenza
Comment on ‘A design guide for has shed further light on the possible evolution
performance assessment of solar light- of a generalized approach for any given day-
pipes’ by X Zhang, T Muneer and lighting device’s comparative assessment.
J Kubie Daylight factor has been accepted as an indus-
Professor PR Tregenza (Shef®eld University) try standard for window design. However, for
innovative daylighting devices and some of the
It is not easy to compare the performance of dif- new designs, especially those that utilize not
ferent daylight penetration devices because there only sky-light but also sunlight, to date, no gen-
is no universally agreed method of presenting eral method is available to assess their day-
their photometric characteristics. The suggestion lighting performance. Based on the concept of
of the authors for a `Daylight Penetration Factor’ light-pipe daylight penetration factor, DPF,
is therefore welcome. introduced in this article along with the above
I would like to have the authors’ views on procedures suggested by the discusser a refer-
how the approach might be generalized. It would ence method may be adopted for an agreed stan-
be especially useful to have a format for per- dard. In this respect we would like to propose
formance data that could be applied to any day- an additional two methods that may be included
light transmitting device ± from a simple win- for further consideration.
dow to a complex optical system ± and such a The ®rst of these additional methods would
format might be de®ned for several statistics, assign a Figure of Merit (FoM) that would be
such as: the ratio of illuminance achieved by any given
light-pipe to illuminance due to a `reference’
1) A bi-directional transmittance function, light-pipe of prescribed dimensions. The above
which relates the angular distribution of inci- FoM would be evaluated under prescribed sky
dent light to the intensity distribution of the conditions with ®xed solar position. A second
output; this, in conjunction with the dimen- comparative procedure may be based along simi-
sions of the device, would be the fundamental lar lines, as above, but in this case the `reference’
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 20, 2015