Olbina, S and Beliveau, Y (2009) Developing a transparent shading device as a daylighting system. Building Research & Information, 37(2), pp. 148-163. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative technology; daylight autonomy; daylighting; facade design; illuminance; optics; shading device; simulation; useful daylight illuminance |
| Index terms: | case study, plastic, illuminance, alternative technology, coating, shading, daylighting, useful daylight illuminance |
| Subjects: | electrical systems, data collection methods, materials science, building design, factor and component analysis, building performance, building materials |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Construction Materials, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here