English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Field work measurement in the East room from previous work were found to be 2.28% with a wall to window ratio (WWR) of 50% and a %DF of 1.23% for a modified WWR of 25%. This paper examines the extent of the field work %DF values compared to the %DF values that could be derived for similar cases while using alternative methods. The alternative methods include Building Research Station (BRS) protractors and three other simulation software including ECOTECT, IES<VE> and ReLux. Results found that the %DF differences between field work values and the alternative methods were minimal. This proves that the %DF method is still a very reliable method for daylight assessment. Keywords— Daylight factor %DF, Window to wall ratio (WWR), Building Research Station protractors (BRS), ECOTECT, IES<VE> and ReLux

Comparison of percentage of Daylight Factor values DF from field work to alternative methods of similar derivations