ACCURACY OF LIGHTING ANALYSIS FEATURE IN AUTODESK 3DS MAX DESIGN 2012

Ryan Flattery Portland State University Department of Architecture PO BOX 751 Portland, OR 97201

ACCURACY OF LIGHTING ANALYSIS FEATURE IN AUTODESK 3DS MAX DESIGN 2012

Ryan Flattery Portland State University Department of Architecture PO BOX 751 Portland, OR 97201

ABSTRACT In this paper, the Lighting Analysis Assistant in Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 is examined for its ability to accurately replicate physically measured daylight conditions. On-site illumination measurements with a light meter are taken in clear and overcast sky conditions in one north and one south facing classroom at Central Catholic High School (CCHS) in Portland, Oregon. The illumination measurements are used to inform a series of digital lighting analysis renderings using the manually adjustable sky model settings in 3ds Max Design 2012. The conclusions indicate the Autodesk 3ds Max Design Lighting Analysis Assistant is generally accurate for replicating both daylight distribution and intensity within a reasonable margin of the measured conditions given the uncontrolled variables of furniture and wall coverings present in the classrooms. It should also be noted that on-site measurements are always slightly skewed by changing exterior sky conditions. Autodesk 3ds Max Design Lighting Analysis results in the north facing room 207 were, on average, slightly below measured levels while results in southerlyexposed room 208 were always above measured levels. This suggests that modelling direct versus indirect light is one of the greatest challenges for the program.

1.0 INTRODUCTION Natural light is a vital factor for building occupant health and well-being and when designed properly reduces energy consumption. Accurate lighting analysis during the design phase is critical for integrating successful daylighting in new and remodeled buildings. Daylighting design is a balancing act for designers: the challenge is letting in some, but not too much natural light, while avoiding direct solar heat gain at unwanted times of the year. In the past, building daylighting was analysed during the design process by creating physical study models and performing extensive testing in a heliodome. Recent technological advances have led to the development of computer software with the ability to simulate lighting conditions for interior spaces. These tools can help designers more quickly iterate effective window placement, solar shading, zoning for lighting fixtures, and documentation for the sustainable design process. It is imperative to gauge the accuracy of these new digital lighting analysis tools so design decisions are not made based on erroneous predictions. Autodesk 3ds Max Design has emerged in a new wave of digital lighting analysis design programs. 3ds Max Design began incorporating the daylight analysis tool in 2008 and is now on the 4th release with 3ds Max Design 2012. An online search revealed several tutorials and how-to white papers created by Autodesk. However, there were no statements discovered that

state the programs accuracy or published studies found that assess precision of the daylighting analysis feature. With increasing popularity of programs such as 3ds Max Design as tools for basing design decisions and LEED documentation on, accuracy of the program has come under examination. 1.1 Daylight Analysis in Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 The Lighting Analysis Assistant in 3ds Max Design processes illumination levels through Mental Ray, a production-quality rendering application integrated into the program. Mental Ray simulates daylight through two primary illumination tools: mental ray Sun (mr Sun) and mental ray Sky (mr Sky). mr Sun simulates direct illumination provided by the sun. mr. Sky simulates how the sky diffuses light in different conditions such as overcast or clear. An example of the typical render output asked of lighting analysis software is that of the LEED rating system for sustainable building certification. LEED daylighting credit 8.1 requires daylight analysis measurements to be recorded on the equinox. LEED daylighting analysis using computer simulated results specifies the use of an .epw file for the location closest to the building site. Energy Plus Weather (.epw) files are averaged annual illumination data for a location. .epw files contain the direct and indirect illumination that would typically be expected for a given location at a given time and day of the year. In addition to plugging in downloaded .epw files, 3ds Max Design allows a user to set the sky manually. There are four options for mr Sun and mr Sky in 3ds Max Design 2012 : [1] using an .epw file [2] haze driven [3] perez all weather [4] CIE. Since this study seeks to replicate observed daylight conditions in a digital model, .epw files are not prudent to use for sun & sky models, as they are based on averaged past conditions. Similarly, the haze driven model is more appropriate for creating desired rendering effects in an architectural perspective and is not meant for simulating accurate daylighting. Therefore, this study will use the manually adjustable perez all weather and CIE (overcast and clear) sky models.

1.2 Material Properties Assigning accurate material reflectance is a crucial aspect of setting up a digital model for daylight analysis. The material reflectance determines how much of the light hitting a particular material is reflected on to other surfaces, contributing significantly to the overall illumination levels in the room. For this research, three methods for calculating material reflectance will be explored and cross-compared as an ancillary study. Another critical aspect to consider in daylighting analysis is the visible light transmittance (VLT) property of glazing used in the project. VLT of glazing is the primary determinant for the amount of daylight that enters a given space. 1.3 Central Catholic High School Central Catholic High School in Portland, Oregon was chosen for this study because it contains similarly-sized classrooms representative of typical classrooms throughout the United States. These rooms typically have a side-lighting condition from one wall. Additionally, the simple geometry of classrooms at CCHS (Figure 1) makes modeling and assigning materials straightforward.

Figure 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY Two classrooms are selected at CCHS. These rooms are across the hall from each other on the 2nd floor. Room 207 is 630 SF with windows along its north wall. Room 208 is 725 SF with windows along the south wall. Physical dimensions of the existing classrooms and all fenestrations are taken. 2.1 On-site Illumination Readings To assess the ability of Autodesk 3dx Max Design Lighting Analysis Assistant to produce accurate illumination predictions, two distinct lighting conditions are desired for this study: one full cloud cover condition with no direct illumination and another with little to no cloud cover. Physical measurements are taken on an approximately 4 grid in the classrooms with a LiCor LI-250 Light Meter. Given the timing of class schedules and room occupancy, there is a small window of vacancy over the lunch period where light measurements can be taken. Light measurements are taken at desk level, 30 above finished floor. Outdoor illumination readings are taken on 5-minute intervals during the interior measurement periods on December 6th, 2011 and February 3rd, 2012. See Appendix A for on-site measurement data. 2.2 Creating a Digital Daylighting Analysis Model in Autodesk Revit Architecture and Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 The two rooms are digitally modelled to exact physical measurements in Autodesk Revit Architecture. Materials from the Autodesk Materials Library are applied to appropriate surfaces and reflectance values are assigned using figures determined by a spectrometer. A model of the two classrooms is exported from Revit as a .fbx file, a format compatible with Autodesk 3dx Max Design. The .fbx file is then linked into a blank 3dx Max Design project. The linking process imports all of the materials applied to walls, floors, ceilings, and other surfaces in Revit Architecture. Additionally, linking a file allows the model to be updated with changes made in Revit

Architecture while preserving lighting analysis settings configured in 3dx Max Design. 2.3 Navigating the Lighting Analysis tool in Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 The lighting analysis tool permits a breadth of render output customizing through a variety of highly-specific settings. Navigating this complex tool for architectural daylighting analysis purposes is relatively simple, however. Select the Lighting Analysis tab on the top menu bar, this will open the Lighting Analysis Assistant dialog box. Under the General section, the validate rendering settings, edit button, there are 10 preset Mental Ray renderer options a user can select. Based on the recommendation of Eddy Krygiel in an Autodesk University seminar, mental.ray.daylighting. high is the preferred setting for accurate architectural daylighting analysis purposes. Also under this menu, the Diffuse Bounces setting should be increased to 7. This controls the number of time light reflects off various surfaces throughout the interior of a space. Setting Diffuse Bounces greater than 7 has a negligible impact on the illumination levels but greatly increases rendering time. Selecting Sun and Sky settings Setting up an accurate sky model in Mental Ray for the specific conditions to be tested is crucial to understanding how daylight will behave in a space. In 3ds Max Design, there are two primary sun & sky models that are manually adjustable. The first was created by the International Commission on Illumination and is titled CIE. The CIE model is known for being most accurate in extreme sky conditions. The CIE sky model has two settings to choose from: clear and overcast. The second manually adjustable sun & sky model is called Perez All Weather. Perez all weather is regarded as being most accurate in intermediate sky conditions. The CIE and Perez All Weather models require the user to specify the direct and indirect illumination levels to be simulated in the analysis rendering process.

Creating Light Meters Under the Analysis Output tab in the Lighting Analysis Assistant, there is a button titled Create a Light Meter. Clicking this permits the user to draw a two-dimensional light meter plane. This plane can be adjusted to the desired height using the X, Y, Z controls at the bottom of the viewport. In the settings bar on the right of the page, the Length Segs and Width Segs allow the user to determine how many grid lines the light meter will have. At each intersection of two grid lines, an illumination reading will be calculated when a lighting analysis is run. The program also applies a color value to the amount of light at any given point on the light meter. The user is able to define the range of this feature on the main Lighting Analysis Assistant window under Analysis Value Color Coding. For each physical measurement taken in the classrooms on December 6th, 2011 and February 3rd, 2012, two 3ds Max Design lighting analysis renderings are created for comparison using the CIE (either clear or overcast settings based on the appropriate sky conditions) and perez sky models. This results in a total of 8 lighting analysis renderings compared to the 4 physical measurements. See Appendix B for lighting analysis renderings. 2.4 Material Reflectance To compare the potential ways of measuring material reflectance, three different methods were utilized and cross-compared (see fig. 2). The three methods are: [1] Using a LiCor LI-250 light meter. The light meter measures the total amount of visible light at the sensor. Calculating reflectance by this method involves holding the light meter sensor flat on the surface to be tested and taking a reading. Then, the sensor is flipped to face the sample material. A second reading is taken and divided into the first one to get the resulting material reflectance. [2] Scanning physical material samples into .jpg format and opening them in Adobe Photoshop CS. The next step is to convert the image to black and white and perform a batch sample of a typical section of the image. Finally, in the material color options menu, choose Hue/Saturation/Brightness (HSB). The

figure for the B category will provide the percentage of brightness the sample contains. Subtract that number from 100 to get the reflectance. [3] Measuring Reflectance Measurement Methods
Li-Cor Light Meter Material Ceiling Tile Corkboard Floor Tile - Gray Wall Paint - White Reflectance 0.67 0.29 0.42 0.71 Lambda Spectrometer Reflectance 0.85 0.26 0.35 0.68 Photoshop HSB Sample Reflectance 0.95 0.42 0.79 0.92 Figure 2

reflectance using a Lambda Spectrometer. This machine was accessed in the Portland State University Green Building Research Laboratory. Spectrometer measurement is the most accurate method for calculating material reflectance as it tests a sample across a full range of intervals on the entire visible light spectrum. Material reflectance percentages calculated by the spectrometer and light meter tools had surprisingly similar results. Between the 5 materials tested, the light meter was within 20% of the spectrometer reflectance readings on all materials except the ceiling tile. It should be considered a reliable tool for field measuring reflectance for digital modelling purposes. All interior classroom surfaces in the digital models were assigned Autodesk Materials Library 2012 materials and reflectance percentages based on Spectrometer readings. Glazing Glazing in the rooms is 1/8 single pane set in aluminium frames. To assess the Visible Light Transmittance (VLT), four readings are taken on the outside and inside faces of the single pane glazing in both rooms and the VLT is calculated by averaging these readings. The glazing is determined to have a

61% VLT which equates to a material reflectance of 39%. 2.5 Comparison The comparison method this study used is based on the fact that light diffuses in a generally linear pattern from a window to the back of a room. Spot measurements taken by the light meter and from the analysis renderings were averaged out by row, stepping back from the windows. The by-row averages of the rendered analysis results were compared to the on-site measurements to find percentages of divergence from the observed illumination levels.

Room 208 Physical light measurements in the space ranged from 36 lux to 530 lux. CIE Overcast Sky Model The CIE Overcast sky model rendering revealed a similar illumination pattern to the physical measurements taken in the room. All rendered spot measurements were slightly higher than observed, with exception of the second and third rows in from the windows, which were approximately 30% lower than the on-site measurements. The point calculations ranged from 72 lux - 330 lux. CIE Overcast predicted 111% of the measured illumination in the space. Perez All Weather Sky Model The Perez All Weather sky model lighting analysis rendering spot measurements ranged from 149 lux - 632 lux. It contained a similar illumination distribution to the CIE overcast sky model and observed conditions. It predicted 113% of the measured illumination in the room. Febuary 3rd, 2012 Conditions were clear with abundant sunshine. Measured outdoor illumination ranged from 49,000 lux in direct sun to 1690 lux in the shade. Room 207 Physical light measurements in the space ranged from 109 lux to 362 lux. CIE Clear Sky Model The CIE Clear sky model rendering revealed a similar illumination pattern to the physical measurements taken in the room, with the second and third rows in from the windows containing the greatest amount of illumination. The point calculations in the CIE Clear rendering ranged from 130 lux - 310 lux. CIE Clear predicted 80% of the measured illumination in the space. A majority of spot measurements were substantially below observed conditions. The furthest two rows back from the windows contained nearly double the illumination predicted by the CIE Clear sky model.

3.0 RESULTS December 6th, 2011 Conditions were densely overcast with measured outdoor illumination from the sky ranging between 4440 lux - 5360 lux. Room 207 Physical light measurements in the space ranged from 56 lux to 495 lux. CIE Overcast Sky Model The CIE Overcast sky model rendering revealed a similar illumination pattern to the physical measurements taken in the room, with the second row in from the windows containing the highest concentration of light. The spot measurements ranged from 91 lux 373 lux. CIE Overcast predicted 91% of the measured illumination in the space. Perez All Weather Sky Model The Perez All Weather sky model lighting analysis rendering spot measurements ranged from 110 lux 369 lux. It contained a similar illumination distribution to the CIE overcast model and observed conditions but predicted 117% of the measured lighting in the room. All spot measurements in the Perez analysis were slightly higher than on site measurements with the exception of the second row, which was approximately 30% lower per spot measurement.

Perez All Weather Sky Model The Perez All Weather sky model lighting analysis rendering spot measurements ranged from 149 lux - 348 lux. It contained a similar illumination distribution to the CIE Clear sky model and observed conditions and predicted 92% of the measured illumination in the room. Room 208 Physical light measurements in the space ranged from 293 lux to 36000 lux. CIE Clear Sky Model The CIE Clear sky model rendering revealed a similar illumination pattern to the physical measurements taken in the room. All rendered spot measurements were slightly higher than observed, with exception of the second and third rows in from the windows, which were approximately 30% lower than the on-site measurements. The point calculations ranged from 1467 lux - 23455 lux. CIE Clear predicted 129% of the measured illumination in the space. Perez All Weather Sky Model The Perez All Weather sky model lighting analysis spot measurements ranged from 773 lux - 13987 lux. It contained a similar illumination distribution to the CIE Clear sky model and observed conditions. It predicted 354% of the measured lighting in the room. Nearly all of the numbers were grossly over observed conditions. The direct light conditions, however, were substantially under the on-site measurements. 4.0 Conclusion The results indicate that CIE overcast and Perez All Weather (Perez) sky models are both marginally off from measured daylight in overcast skies observed on December 6th, 2011. CIE overcast is 2% over measured levels on average while perez is 15% greater on average than observed illumination levels. Under clear skies on February 3, 2012, the CIE Clear sky model under-estimated measured illumination levels in room 207 by 20% while over-estimating illumination levels in the south room by 29%. The Perez sky model also under-estimated room 107, but only by 8% under the measured illumination levels. Room 208, however,

was rendered with 354% the illumination measured in the room. CIE Sky Model CIE sky model calculations were on average 14% under the physically measured light levels in north facing room 207. CIE illumination levels were 20% over measured daylight conditions in south exposed room 208. Perez All Weather Sky Model The Perez All Weather sky model was 4% over physically measured illumination in room 207. In room 208, perez all weather predicted 17% over observed illumination in the room with overcast skies on 12.6.2011. On 2.3.2012, however, under sunny skies, perez all weather rendered 354% of the physically measured light in south exposed room 208. Perez all weather was within a reasonable margin of error in all lighting analysis predictions except one. An additional series of physical measurements should be taken in intermediate skies (overcast or indirect sun in the 20,000 lux range) to further determine its accuracy in the conditions it is considered to be best with. Additional testing with furniture and wall coverings removed in the classrooms, or including these elements in the digital model would control the variables that were not accounted for in the study. It is assumed that modeling these elements (that are not 100% reflective) would reduce the lighting analysis software predictions by a nominal percentage. This would bring room 208 closer to equal with the measured daylight in the space but would push the room 207 lighting analysis numbers even lower in the CIE models. It would make all 4 of the perez analysis renderings closer to even with the measured conditions.

5.0 Acknowledgements The author thanks Andrew Sharp and Central Catholic High school for his cooperation with the metering of classrooms, Abby Dacey and Mark Shropmeyer of boora architects for assistance with project coordination and 3ds Max Design 2012, Dr. Kyle Konis of Portland State University for daylighting expertise, Seth Moody with

the Portland State University Green Building Research Laboratory for assistance with material reflectance testing, and Assistant Professor Corey Griffin of Portland State University.

6.0 References (1) CIE, Spatial distribution of daylight - CIE standard overcast sky and clear sky. ISO 15469/CIE S003, 1996. (2) CIE, Spatial distribution of daylight - CIE standard general sky. Draft Standard, CIE DS 011.1/E, 2001. (3) Krygiel, E., (2010) Daylighting Analysis with Autodesk Revit and Autodesk 3ds Max Design [Video file]. Retrieved from http://au.autodesk. com/?nd=event_class&session_id=7195&jid=614811 (4) Stephens, T. Lighting Analysis with 3ds Max Design [PDF document]. Retrieved from Advanced Technologies Web Site: http://www.atsicad.com/atsicad_site_2010/ pdf/CADExpo_course_handouts (5) US Green Buidling Council, LEEDTM Reference Guide version 2.0, Paladino Consulting LLC, (URL:) www.usgbc.org

APPENDIX A ON-SITE ILLUMINATION MEASUREMENTS DECEMBER 6, 2011 FEBRUARY 3, 2012

31 - 6

12.06.2011 11:45 - 11:57 am

outdoor illumination 4725 lux (11:45am) 5040 lux (11:52am) 5360 lux (11:57am)

56 71

78 76 61

82 78 62 50

68 lux average

5050 lux average

235 441

419

446 480 495 345 368 247

386 lux average

15 -10

215 284

287

310 321 338 343 302 190

305 lux average

20 - 1.5

161

188

218 230 208 232 187

168

119

190 lux average

163 154 164 168 170 149

195 135 108 156 lux average

4 -3

150 155 156 143

157

90

82 133 lux average

~3 - 0

~3 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

room 207

date : December 6, 2011 time : 11:45am - 11:57am average measured illuminance : 5050 lux

CCHS ROOM 207

[not to scale]

12.06.2011 11:20 - 11:35 am

outdoor illumination 4900 lux (11:20am) 4440 lux (11:35am)
50 47 49 64 66 42 67 57 55 53 lux average

36

4670 lux average

60

70 71 102 103 79 112 87

93

77

85 lux average

102

112 116 163 172 190 150

152

141

20 - 2

125

142 lux average

160 187 222 245 318 338 225

332

263

202

249 lux average

209 291 337 431 540

314

360

445

399

260

360 lux average

65 57 55 54 57 42 48 lux average

room 208
45 38 41

23

~4 - 0 ~4 - 0 ~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

36 - 2

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

date : December 6, 2011 time : 11:20am - 11:35am average measured illuminance : 4870 lux

CCHS ROOM 208

[ not to scale]

31 - 6

2.03.2012 10:50 - 11:15 am

outdoor illumination 1790 lux (10:50am) 1830 lux (11:05am) 1690 lux (11:15am)

109 144

144 157 88 113

160 163 132

134 lux average

1770 lux average

204 290 214

290

324 347 362 310 305

294 lux average

15 -10

240 330 223

285

326 343 360 350 298

306 lux average

20 - 1.5

260 311

281

296 314 320 345

295

236

295 lux average

250 315 302 340 340 322

280 262 231 294 lux average

4 -3

246 289 344 320

304

227

176 272 lux average

room 207
~3 - 0 ~3 - 0 ~4 - 0 ~4 - 0 ~4 - 0 ~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

date : February 3, 2012 time : 10:50am - 11:15am average measured illuminance : 1770 lux

CCHS ROOM 207

[not to scale]

02.03.2012 11:25 - 11:37 am

outdoor illumination 48,000 lux (11:25am) 48,500 lux (11:31am) 49,000 lux (11:37am)
1430 1010 300 1660 880 245 884 lux average 1004 662 520

1130

5600 430

35000 2215 32000 925 525 11100 478

1086

8936 lux average

22000

36000 1550 2306 1009 9030 570

627

590

20 - 2

510

7419 lux average

20000 24000 1520 1825 1150 1490 1350

970

708

540

5355 lux average

1306 1680 1190 1070 1420

1840

880

804

830

556

1158 lux average

440 500 580 540 320 293 556 lux average

room 208
722 880 780

540

~4 - 0 ~4 - 0 ~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

36 - 2

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

~4 - 0

48,500 lux average

date : February 3, 2012 time : 11:25am - 11:37am average measured illuminance : 48,500 lux

CCHS ROOM 208

[ not to scale]

APPENDIX B 3ds Max Design LIGHTING ANALYSIS RENDERINGS DECEMBER 6, 2011 FEBRUARY 3, 2012

room 207 date : December 6, 2011 time : 10:52 sky model : Perez All Weather direct normal illuminance : N/A diffuse horizontal illuminance : 5,050 lux

room 207 date : December 6, 2011 time : 10:52 sky model : CIE (Overcast) direct normal illuminance : N/A diffuse horizontal illuminance : 5,050 lux

room 208 date : December 6, 2011 time : 10:52 sky model : Perez All Weather direct normal illuminance : N/A diffuse horizontal illuminance : 4,870 lux

room 208 date : December 6, 2011 time : 10:52 sky model : CIE (Overcast) direct normal illuminance : N/A diffuse horizontal illuminance : 4,870 lux

room 207 date : February 3, 2012 time : 11:02 sky model : Perez All Weather direct normal illuminance : 48,500 lux diffuse horizontal illuminance : 1,770 lux

room 207 date : February 3, 2012 time : 11:02 sky model : CIE (Clear) direct normal illuminance : 48,500 lux diffuse horizontal illuminance : 1,770 lux

room 208 date : February 3, 2012 time : 11:31 sky model : Perez All Weather direct normal illuminance : 48,500 lux diffuse horizontal illuminance : 1,770 lux

room 208 date : February 3, 2012 time : 11:31 sky model : CIE (Clear) direct normal illuminance : 48,500 lux diffuse horizontal illuminance : 1,770 lux