Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow more current lighting usages #723

Open
DaJansenGit opened this issue Sep 26, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Allow more current lighting usages #723

DaJansenGit opened this issue Sep 26, 2022 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@DaJansenGit
Copy link
Member

With the change from xml -> json for use conditions the previous existing parameter maintained_illuminance [Lumen/m²] was removed. The parameter describes the needed illuminance for the different usages of zones (use condition) and is available in DIN 18599-10.

Currently the lighting power is inserted as a fixed value which seems to come from SIA 2024, didn't found the value in DIN 18599-10. Anyway this fixed value doesn't allow to calculate the specific power of lighting based on different types of lighting. (see here)

To allow more current lighting setups and more flexibility I propose the following:

  • Add the maintained_illuminance again to have the needed illuminance for each zone
  • add the additional paramter lighting_efficiency_lumen which is the german "Lichtausbeute" from above. This parmeter has the unit [Lumen/W_el]
  • This way we can calculate the lighting_power by
    lighting_power = maintained_illuminance / lighting_efficiency_lumen [W/m2]

the lighting_efficiency_lumen should be an additional parameter for use_conditions.py with a default value which can be adapted based on the technogies from the linked image above. We could provide some examples in the docstring like "traditional light bulb: 20 lm/m2, LED: ~ 150 lm/m2" etc.

@DaJansenGit DaJansenGit self-assigned this Sep 26, 2022
@DaJansenGit
Copy link
Member Author

@PRemmen Was there a reason to remove the maintained_illuminance when you switched from xml -> json?

@PRemmen
Copy link
Member

PRemmen commented Sep 26, 2022

@DaJansenGit no reason that I can remember

@DaJansenGit
Copy link
Member Author

@DaJansenGit no reason that I can remember

Ok, thanks :) Then I will proceed with the proposed changes and do a PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants