- 學位論文
結合照度標準之住宅全年自然採光評估 ―以公寓大廈類型為例
Evaluation of Year-round Daylighting of Residential Dwellings based on the Illuminance Standard--Using Apartment Buildings as an Example.
摘要
我國能源需求在過去二十年間成長快速，在人工照明普及的今天，如何降低建築的照明耗能是一個重要的課題。對擁有充沛日照的台灣而言，充分利用自然光，將能大幅降低照明耗能。 本研究分別挑選了三種集合住宅平面，探討其不同緯度地區、八種不同方位、十二個月份下，室內照度滿足CNS照度標準之自然採光性能NL值，並分析各種因素對於採光面積百分比的影響。第二階段則進一步以三種平面中的其中一種，探討外遮陽深度變化對於室內採光面積百分比的影響。 研究結果顯示，A平面的採光面積百分比介於44.86%~45.78%，而B平面的採光面積百分比介於45.75%~50.57%，C平面的採光面積百分比則介於25.76%~29.08%。在八種方位的採光面積百分比下，A平面之間的差異為0%~0.91%，B平面之間的差異為0.02%~4.82%，C平面之間的差異則為0.01%~3.29%。在不同緯度的地區下，低緯度地區的採光面積百分比與高緯度地區相比，差異微乎其微。而在不同外遮陽深度下，則是每增加0.5m的深度，採光面積百分比減少3.28~4.16%。 由此可歸納出，將大面積的採光面分散配置於四向，比集中於某一側，會得到更均勻的照度分佈。採光面至平面配置中央距離較短之平面形狀，採光範圍分布更廣。正方形的平面形狀較不受方位影響，H型的平面形狀採光面配置於東方、西方較佳，L型的平面形狀採光面配置於東方、南方較佳。不同緯度的地區在晴天下的採光面積百分比差異不大。另外，水平遮陽的深度愈深，採光面積百分比也愈低。 在本研究所探討的各項影響因素之中，不同平面之間的差異可達21.42%，同平面不同方位下的差異最大可達4.82%，同平面不同都市下的差異最大可達0.3%，同平面每增加0.5m水平遮陽深度的差異最大可達4.16%。由此可知，平面配置是影響採光性能的最大因素。
並列摘要
Taiwan's energy demand has grown rapidly in the past 20 years. With the popularization of artificial lighting, how to reduce the lighting energy consumption of buildings is an important subject. As far as Taiwan with abundant sunshine is concerned, making full use of natural light will greatly reduce lighting energy consumption. In this study, three kinds of residential plane were selected, and the NL value of natural lighting performance of indoor illumination meeting CNS illumination standard in different latitudes, 8 different orientations and 12 months was discussed, and the influence of various factors on the percentage of daylighting area was analyzed. In the second stage, one of the three planes is further used to discuss the influence of the change of external shading depth on the percentage of indoor daylighting area. The results show that the percentage of daylighting area in plane A is between 44.86%~45.78%, while that in plane B is between 45.75%~50.57%, and that in plane C is between 25.76%~29.08%. Under the percentage of daylighting area in eight orientations, the difference between plane A, plane B and plane C is 0%~0.91%, 0.02%~4.82% and 0.01%~3.29%, respectively. Under different latitudes, the difference in the percentage of daylighting area between low latitude areas and high latitude areas is negligible. Under different shading depths, the percentage of daylighting area decreases by 3.28~4.16% for every 0.5m depth increase. Therefore, it can be concluded that if a large area of daylighting surface is distributed in four directions, a more uniform illumination distribution will be obtained than if it is concentrated on one side. The plane shape with a shorter distance from the daylighting surface to the center of the plane has a wider distribution of daylighting range. The plane shape of the square is less affected by the orientation. For the H-shaped plane shape, the daylighting surface is better in the east and west, while for the L-shaped plane shape, the daylighting surface is better in the east and south. There is little difference in the percentage of daylighting area in sunny days in different latitudes. In addition, the deeper the horizontal shading, the lower the percentage of daylighting area. Among the influencing factors discussed in this study, the difference between different planes can reach 21.42%, the maximum difference between different directions on the same plane can reach 4.82%, the maximum difference between different cities on the same plane can reach 0.3%, and the maximum difference for every 0.5m increase in horizontal shading depth on the same plane can reach 4.16%. It can be seen that the plane configuration is the biggest factor affecting the lighting performance.