Architectural TechnologyLigthing Exercise

INTRODUCTIONOver 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. A�er initially building the �rst 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 dra� renderings to establish the e�ect they were having. I then used what I learnt to develop some more re�ned design solutions in the physical model.

Tom Woodward

SEPTEMBER

0900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Original

Update 1

Update 2

DECEMBER

0900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Original

Update 1

Update 2

JUNE

Original

Update 1

Update 2

Update 3

0900 1000 1100 1200 1300

PHYSICAL MODELSIt is worth noting at this point that due to my space being on the fourth �oor, 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 di�erent days of the year from gallery opening time (9am) to 1pm, a�er which sunlight never entered the space. The model was updated 3 times, although a�er the second update only summer sunlight had to be responded to, as no other sunlight was entering. Ba�es were developed, as shown below, and during updates 2 and 3 of the physical model I experimented with the number of ba�es needed to achieve my original goal. The original model and �rst 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 �nal 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 ba�es the remaining sunlight can also be removed.

Architectural TechnologyLigthing Exercise

DIGITAL MODEL

Tom Woodward

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 dra� 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 �nal result with blotches etc. Therefore to arrive at a �nal 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 �rst 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 arti�cial 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 �les went corrupt and just came up with black boxes.

One of the issues I had was achieving a �oor �nish that

matched my physical model, as using an

‘un�nished’ �oor dulled the colour, whilst using a

glossed �oor created a shiny re�ection.

Another advantage of the digital model was the ability to get inside my spaces - I could immediately see how my alterations to

block sunlight a�ected the view that could be seen on the �oor above.

This rendering was actually done by Wassim, but illustrates the sometimes confusing results of 3DS Max; in this image light is

�ltering through the edges of the space... which had not happened in any of the previous renderings.

Architectural TechnologyLigthing Exercise

FURTHER ANALYSIS/COMPARISON

Tom Woodward

1(outside model): 5000 Lux2. 5003. 4004. 7005. 5006. 4007. 8008. 6009. 40010. 800Average: 566 LuxDaylight factor: 11.5%

One scienti�c 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 arti�cial 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 di�erence due to material re�ectance 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 arti�cial sky to be 5000 lux, along with a much more comprehensive understanding of how the megatron works compared to 3DS.

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 di�erent 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 �oor above, I feel current progressions have got me very close to achieving this goal. Further modi�cations to achieve it would be to increase the number of ba�es, and perhaps shorten the width of the gap in the ceiling on either side.

Architectural TechnologyTechnical Section

GABION WALL

Tom Woodward

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 pro�le 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 �ttings that connect back to the steel frame. On the ground �oor the gabions are exposed internally, creating speckles of light across the room. On the �oors above the gabions continue and are visible externally, but internally the �nish is white plasterboard.

Wooden Flooring

Painted Plasterboard

Insulation

Screed

Insulation

Concrete Floorplate

Gabion Wall

Steel I Column

Double Glazing