Results and Conclusions from the Shading Model
|
Below is the final results and conclusions determined for the various types of shading devices which were tested. A complete breakdown and set of results for each device over all 52 weeks of the year can be found in the excel file attached.
|
| ||
From the results of the modelling simulation outlined in the graph above it was found that the percentage reduction in energy delivered by heating/cooling system for each shading variation was as follows:
From the shading results it was found that the dynamic tilt shading device reduced energy consumption more than the dynamic horizontal device. The dynamic tilt model reduced energy consumption by a total of 7.9%.
Overall, the steady tilt gave the best results with a total of 8.9% energy reduction for heating and cooling requirements. However, the steady tilt also blocks useful light for the whole year which may increase the need for artificial light. In addition, the orientation of the steady tilt also means that the views outside will be blocked cutting the occupants off from the outside environment somewhat and in terms of architectural merit, the steady tilt device would also not be a viable option as it has a massive visual impact on the outside of the building and may be considered an 'eye sore'.
- Fixed horizontal depth: 7.5%
- Dynamic horizontal: 6.5%
- Fixed tilt: 8.9%
- Dynamic tilt: 7.9%
From the shading results it was found that the dynamic tilt shading device reduced energy consumption more than the dynamic horizontal device. The dynamic tilt model reduced energy consumption by a total of 7.9%.
Overall, the steady tilt gave the best results with a total of 8.9% energy reduction for heating and cooling requirements. However, the steady tilt also blocks useful light for the whole year which may increase the need for artificial light. In addition, the orientation of the steady tilt also means that the views outside will be blocked cutting the occupants off from the outside environment somewhat and in terms of architectural merit, the steady tilt device would also not be a viable option as it has a massive visual impact on the outside of the building and may be considered an 'eye sore'.
Future Investigation
Further studies within the field of shading would be to integrate the use of lighting control with dynamic tilt. This could potentially save energy in two ways. Firstly, the lights could be off when there is sufficient daylight entering from outside rather than on all the time, and as light can increase temperature inside a building, having them switched off would reduce energy consumption further. Alternative shading schemes could also be investigated to ensure the most beneficial configuration is identified.