Architectural Technology Ligthing Exercise
PHYSICAL MODELS It is worth noting at this point that due to my space being on the fourth floor, there was no need to model surrounding context in my lighting studies, as the space was higher than everything else! On the right is a breakdown of how the model was improved to reduce sunlight. The model was tested for three different days of the year from gallery opening time (9am) to 1pm, after which sunlight never entered the space. The model was updated 3 times, although after the second update only summer sunlight had to be responded to, as no other sunlight was entering. Baffles were developed, as shown below, and during updates 2 and 3 of the physical model I experimented with the number of baffles needed to achieve my original goal. The original model and first update were tested in the Heliodon, and the second and third updates in the park on a sunny day. By investing some time in it, the model produced some quite convincing results, one of the downfalls is the fact that to make aesthetic changes, such as removing skirting boards, would ruin the appearance of the model slightly, as they were glued down. Whilst my final results so far indicate there are still some remnants of sunlight on the north wall in the height of summer, over 90% of sunlight has been removed, and by inserting more baffles the remaining sunlight can also be removed.
1000
1100
1200
1300
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Original
INTRODUCTION Over the course of two weeks I developed a physical and digital lighting model in tandem to inform the design of one of my spaces, along with a lighting strategy in general for my building. The space I chose to investigate was an art gallery with a viewing gallery above. My objective was to create a 100% daylit space in the art gallery, without impeding the views from the viewing gallery above. After initially building the first iteration of my physical model, I tested it in the heliodon to establish where and when sunlight was entering the space. Following this I built the model digitally and made crude alterations, with regular draft renderings to establish the effect they were having. I then used what I learnt to develop some more refined design solutions in the physical model.
0900
J U N E
Update 1
Update 2
Update 3
S E P T E M B E R D E C E M B E R
Original
Update 1
Update 2
Original
Update 1
Update 2
Tom Woodward
Architectural Technology Ligthing Exercise
DIGITAL MODEL The digital model was both faster and slower than the physical model. In terms of making quick changes, it was much quicker. I could assess where sunlight was entering the space at any time of day in an instant, by doing quick draft renderings and then creating objects to shade any problem areas. However, to produce convincing and high quality renderings took much, much longer, and required an accuracy with objects that was not achieved nearly as quickly. Plus it wasn’t as fun as building big models. It was particularly frustrating having to wait a long time for an image to render (potentially several hour), when inevitably something would always go wrong... be it a computer crash or a final result with blotches etc. Therefore to arrive at a final image of high quality proved to be considerably more time consuming than anticipated, and even current results shown here I am not entirely happy with.
From my very first two renderings I could see there would be problems with sunlight hitting my paintings.
One of the advantages of 3DS max was the ability to model my building with physically accurate artificial lighting... something that is not really achievable in a physical model. I modelled a series of spotlights illuminating my paintings, although at this point the painting files went corrupt and just came up with black boxes.
One of the issues I had was achieving a floor finish that matched my physical model, as using an ‘unfinished’ floor dulled the colour, whilst using a glossed floor created a shiny reflection.
Another advantage of the digital model was the ability to get inside my spaces - I could immediately see how my alterations to block sunlight affected the view that could be seen on the floor above.
This rendering was actually done by Wassim, but illustrates the sometimes confusing results of 3DS Max; in this image light is filtering through the edges of the space... which had not happened in any of the previous renderings.
Tom Woodward
Architectural Technology Ligthing Exercise
FURTHER ANALYSIS/COMPARISON One scientific measurement that could be done on both models was measuring the lux levels within the space. This was done in the pysical model through use of the ‘Megatron’, which used a series of light meters, designed to be at desk level on a 1:20 model, to measure the Lux levels at various points in the room. Having tested all the meters, I used the artificial sky to simulate a Welsh overcast sky of 5000 lux, before taking internal measurements. I set the light meters up in a grid, and as anticipated found that the centre of the space, where there were no light wells, was darkest. The south side of the space was darker than the north side , as I had to increase the height of the external wall to prevent sunlight penetration. Given that around 400 lux is an appropriate lighting level for a gallery, the average of 566 Lux was slightly too bright, although not bad, and probably slightly reduced with glazing and inhabitation. This worked out as a daylight factor of around 11.5%. On the digital model I got values twice as high. The same general pattern is illustated in the diagram, with the highest light intensity towards the north wall (bottom wall on the picture). The darkest areas were in the centre of the space. The daylight factor is around 22%, which suggests that far too much light is entering the space. There is obviously a slight difference due to material reflectance on the models, but it seems highly unlikely that it would be to this extent. Therefore, at least one of my sets of readings must be wrong, and I am tempted to trust the Megatron, having seen the light meters all read the artificial sky to be 5000 lux, along with a much more comprehensive understanding of how the megatron works compared to 3DS.
1(outside model): 5000 Lux 2. 500 3. 400 4. 700 5. 500 6. 400 7. 800 8. 600 9. 400 10. 800 Average: 566 Lux Daylight factor: 11.5%
In summary, the light studies were a very informative way of understanding the lighting in my space, elements of which could be applied to my entire scheme. Both methods of working proved useful, and both save time in different ways. However, I retain my preference for physical modelling; whilst it is simpler, this means it is much more easily understandable. Of course enough time spent working with 3DS could achieve the same level of understanding. In terms of achieving my goal of a space with no sunlight but plenty of daylight, without impeding the views of the floor above, I feel current progressions have got me very close to achieving this goal. Further modifications to achieve it would be to increase the number of baffles, and perhaps shorten the width of the gap in the ceiling on either side.
Tom Woodward
Architectural Technology Technical Section
GABION WALL The inspiration for my walls came from a dry stone wall on top of a hill surrounding Pontypridd. Having decided this was not a suitable solution given the absurd cost, I resolved to follow a gabion wall approach instead. The 120mm wide gabions slot into the profile of steel I columns, which also form the loadbearing structure of the building.. Outside of this column and gabion wall is the external glazing, with stainless steel fittings that connect back to the steel frame. On the ground floor the gabions are exposed internally, creating speckles of light across the room. On the floors above the gabions continue and are visible externally, but internally the finish is white plasterboard.
Insulation Painted Plasterboard Steel I Column Wooden Flooring Double Glazing Screed Insulation Concrete Floorplate Gabion Wall
Tom Woodward