Conclusion
Hypothesis 1 - Morrill Hall allows for sufficient light (20 - 25 footcandles) into the workspaces to perform required tasks.
Before making a conclusion, we must first understand the objectives of this hypothesis and we must also understand the methods used to reach our conclusions from the gathered data.
For this project we have set the required amount of light at a workstation between 20 - 25 footcandles. This is a low to mid-range estimate for what would be required in many of these working conditions. If a workstation does not meet the required minimum of 20 fc during the middle-point of the day, with clear skies, then it is safe to assume that this workstation has inadequate daylighting, especially when less optimal conditions are present.
Below is information obtained from various sources, including the IESNA, that were used to determine the lighting levels requirements we based our conclusions on. These graphs illustrate common and recommended light levels required for various tasks. |
Measuring Units Light Level - Illuminance
Illumenance is measured in foot candles (ftcd, fc) (or lux in the metric SI system). A foot candle is actually one lumen of light density per square foot, one lux is one lumen per square meter.
- lux = fc 10.752
- fc = lux / 10.752
Common Light Levels Outdoor
Common light levels outdoor at day and night can be found in the table below:
| Condition |
Illumination |
| (ftcd) |
(lux) |
| Sunlight |
10,000 |
107,527 |
| Full Daylight |
1,000 |
10,752.7 |
| Overcast Day |
100 |
1,075.3 |
| Very Dark Day |
10 |
107.53 |
| Twilight |
1 |
10.75 |
| Deep Twilight |
.1 |
1.08 |
| Full Moon |
.01 |
.108 |
| Quarter Moon |
.001 |
.0108 |
| Starlight |
.0001 |
.0011 |
| Overcast Night |
.00001 |
.0001 |
Common and Recommended Light Levels Indoor
The outdoor light level is approximately 10,000 lux on a clear day. In the building, in the area closest to windows, the light level may be reduced to approximately 1,000 lux. In the middle area its may be as low as 25 - 50 lux. Additional lighting equipment is often necessary to compensate the low levels.
Earlier it was common with light levels in the range 100 - 300 lux for normal activities. Today the light level is more common in the range 500 - 1000 lux - depending on activity. For precision and detailed works, the light level may even approach 1500 - 2000 lux.
The table below is a guidance for recommended light level in different work spaces:
| Activity |
Illumination
(lux, lumen/m2) |
Illumination
(ftcd) |
| Warehouses, Homes, Theaters, Archives |
150 |
14 |
| Easy Office Work, Classes |
250 |
23 |
| Normal Office Work, PC Work, Study Library, Groceries, Show Rooms, Laboratories |
500 |
46.5 |
| Supermarkets, Mechanical Workshops, Office Landscapes |
750 |
70 |
| Normal Drawing Work, Detailed Mechanical Workshops, Operation Theatres |
1,000 |
93 |
| Detailed Drawing Work, Very Detailed Mechanical Works |
1,500 - 2,000 |
140 - 286 |
|
Hypothesis 1 CONCLUSION
Case 1: Floor 1, Zone A
Despite the visual appearance of the space, light meter samples determined that only locations B and C had IENSA recommended levels of natural light. Workstations A and D, though close, fell short of being adequate.
These readings may not be completely precise due to the amount of film and dirt on the windows during the time of the light readings.
| Case 1 Conclusion: Only 2 of 4 workstations receive sufficient natural daylight to perform the required tasks. |
Case 2: Floor 2, Zone C
The light readings taken from this space also show a insufficient amount of natural light for all but the one workstation at location D. This workstation was in direct sunlight at the time, creating a high glare situation at the workstation. This would be problematic if one where to be using the computer.
| Case 2 Conclusion: Only 1 of 4 workstations receive sufficient natural daylight to perform the required tasks. |
Case 3: Floor 4, Zone A
This location proved to live up to the complaints noted by those who took the survey. In this location, only one of the workspaces received adequate daylight, and that was station "A" right next to the window on the West wall. The rest of these spaces were seriously lacking in natural lighting, especially the conference table and library book shelf in the back of the room along the East wall.
| Case 3 Conclusion: 1 of 7 workstations receive sufficient natural daylight to perform the required tasks. |
Hypothesis 1 Summary Conclusion
From the evidence gathered through light meter readings it was determine that the offices investigated for this study are generally inadequately daylit. Of all the workstations examined, only 4 out of 15 had an adequate amount of daylighting. This contrasts with the visual impressions of the room from first-hand experience and it is believed that a light reading taken on a overcast day would reveal that most of these workstations would probably have sufficient daylighting.
|
|
Hypothesis 2 - The floors of Morrill Hall that exceed a 10’ floor-to-ceiling height suffer from a heat stratification of at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Hypothesis 2 Conclusion
Though there is some heat stratification in the rooms of Morrill Hall, most were under 5 degrees of difference between the ceiling and floor. Also, it came as a surprise that the room with the lowest ceiling height had the greatest stratification.
It is possible that the stratification results are also dependant on which floor or side of the building the room is on, but further research would be needed to test this.
According to the survey, most people are very uncomfortable with the temperature in the rooms. Though this hypothesis tested the vertical stratification, it appears the discomfort might come from horizontal stratification from inadequate heaters and ventilation. Perhaps this would also be a worthwhile experiment in the future.
|
|
Hypothesis 3 - The single-pane
windows are a source of heat transfer (heat gain or loss of
200%)
Hypothesis 3 Conclusion
| |
North |
South |
East |
West |
|
Outside to Window Temp. Difference |
3.16 |
3.875 |
4.5 |
6.5 |
|
Window to Inside Temp. Difference |
2.0 |
1.375 |
1.25 |
1.0 |
|
Outside to Inside Temp. % Diff. |
107% |
103% |
108% |
108% |
It was on average 4.1875 degrees cooler
outside than it was inside the building.
According to our paper survey, the
majority of people feel there is a
considerable
difference in temperature depending on where
in the room or building a person is. Most of the
occupants who took the survey are
not satisfied with
the temperature. Not a single person who took
the survey feels Morrill Hall performs well in regards
to energy efficiency.
There is a visible difference between the
temperature of the inside of the building to the outside
of the building but it is more apparent when direct light
is hitting the windows as it transfers all the sun's
radiation into the room as was seen by the office in the
South-West corner of the building. The windows were all
slightly cooler compared to the interior room temperature,
except for the South-West office, which suggests that the
windows are being affected by the cooler temperatures
outside.
I think that the data would have been more
dramatic if the building were analyzed during the peak of
winter since most of the building occupants complain of
the winter cold entering through the windows. Most of the
window caulking is cracked, the windows do not sit
properly in their frames, and the occupant of the
South-West office has one window that has a significant
gap in the window which allows wind, rain, and snow to
fall directly into her office. She has tried to mitigate
the transfer of wind, rain, snow, and heat/cold by
stuffing towels into the gaps in the window.
This hypothesis I will deem false. From
the data collected there was not a 200% heat gain/loss. It
appears from the data and surveys collected that it
depends on the time of year as to how much heat transfer
there will be as well as what side of the building the
window is located. A general statement of "The single-pane
windows are a source of heat transfer (heat gain or loss
of 200%)" is not accurate at all times for all sides of
the building. I do think that there is some form of heat
transfer from the windows and I would suggest replacing
the old single pane windows with modern double pane. A
window with a Low-e coating would cut down on the heat
gain from direct sunlight which would serve will in the
office on the South-West corner as well as the other
windows along the South and West side of the building.
|
|
|
|
