Maintenance Factor in Dialux: Real-Life Measurements vs. Set Value (0.77) and Intensity (200lx)

Hello all,
I've had a problem with my head for some time. How is it with the maintenance factor in Dialux and the actual measurements on site. Suppose the project is set to 0.77 and the intensity is 200lx. So what will the intensity really be? How is it calculated?
Thank you in advance for your help

The MF factor is set so that after some time (e.g. 2 years) the intensity in a given place continues to meet the requirements of the standard. Then you need to perform activities, e.g. cleaning, replacing sources, etc.

AXELF wrote:

So what will the intensity really be?

More. At least as much as when calculating for a factor of 1.

AXELF wrote:

How is it calculated?

Reality does not count, it can be measured.

I heard that it can be calculated 1 / 0.77, then the result is multiplied by the mean value and it comes out the same as assuming a factor of 1. But I don't know if it is correct.

Since:
E o MF = Em
This:
Em o 1 / MF = E
There is no big secret here, but it is still not "reality" but numbers and letters on a piece of paper.

Thank you

In theory, just like my colleagues mentioned above.
In practice it is different. You can buy the goods and advertise because the measurements will not work - I had such a topic. You can buy the goods and have it too bright.

kozi966 wrote:

AXELF wrote:

So what will the intensity really be?

More. At least as much as when calculating for a factor of 1.

AXELF wrote:

How is it calculated?

Reality does not count, it can be measured.

As an adjunct ...
In practice, with some types of luminaires, immediately after installing and lighting the lighting, you can measure that the lighting shines for you more than it should, e.g. 130-150% compared to what you will measure in 40-100 hours of work (theoretically MF = 1). The fittings have to 'warm up' and then the stream emitted from them stabilizes.
Once at a friend's I tested an application on the phone for measuring the intensity of lighting over time, which confirms what I wrote above.

As for the simulations themselves, recently reviewing them from lighting manufacturers, to whom I commission the simulation, I can see that the maintenance factor is 1 regardless of the maintenance cycle. Are their products that great?

JohnySpZOO wrote:

Are their products that great?

The MF factor consists not only of the part dependent on the luminaire but also of the part depending on e.g. the room.
The paint "wears out" - it becomes dirty with time, dust settles on it, reflection decreases.
The MF correction factor itself consists of many "factors.
MF = LLMF * LSF * LMF * RSMF (* NRF)

Where the lamp itself (source) maintaining its flux is only LLMF (lamp lumen maintenance factor), and the group of lamps operating for the intended period is LSF (lamp survival factor).
LMF is already a flux coming out of the luminaire (luminaire maintenance factor), which depends, for example, on dirty luminaires.
The aforementioned RSMF is a room surface maintenance factor.

So, in my opinion, if someone sets MF at 100%, he or she assumes in advance that the lamp has a system that initially reduces the luminous flux, which it programmatically increases over time, has some "magic methods of maintaining cleanliness and quality of the luminaires / room, or he doesn't know what he's doing.

Probably only if you live in a vacuum you can take the factor 1 because dust will always appear

kozi966 wrote:

The MF factor consists not only of the part dependent on the luminaire but also of the part depending on e.g. the room.

I know this, so when I get the calculations, I try to recalculate in my own way when something does not suit me or is on the border By the way, from a year ago I had the theme of a funeral home where the interior of the half of the building was in shades of black - simulations for the PB were made as standard 0.77 and here in the executive you have the modification of almost all the lighting because it will not work ... - arrangement made in PW. Life, you have to redo everything
Later, as everything is accepted by the architect, the inquiry goes to the cost estimate.

Once upon a time, Philips had such large 'heads' with several light sources in one housing, which allegedly caused air flow when the lampshade heated up, the movement of which cleaned the housing. It was 10 years ago.

kozi966 wrote:

So, in my opinion, if someone sets MF at 100%, he or she assumes in advance that the lamp has a system that initially reduces the luminous flux, which it programmatically increases over time, has some "magic methods of maintaining cleanliness and quality of the luminaires / room, or he doesn't know what he's doing.

I once read in ElektoInfo about some intelligent lighting system, where luminaires based on sensors located in the room and adjust the beam to the conditions prevailing there - maintenance-free installation.

I installed a similar patent on the basis of the Philips magic system (I do not remember the name of the system anymore) in 2013 at school, regulating the intensity of lighting by adjusting it to the current insolation, cooperating with a lighting intensity meter built in the middle of the room.
Everything is fine, but in practice, space and lottery. It shone as it shouldn't shine or it was moody dark as it was supposed to be bright The funniest thing was that the funds for the modernization of lighting came from European funds and it had to be built and functioned as in the project. It was supposed to be cheaper and it turned out as always ... The producer's service spread their hands amen saying that everything is ok. At school at night, there is a disco in the windows. As a result, the fun with the lighting intensity after 3 weeks ended with a note that the lighting was functioning properly (intelligently) and the lighting intensity sensors were taped over.

Hello
If I do not have data from an investor, I assume a stock / maintenance ratio of 0.8

pzdr
-DAREK-