A Comparative Study on Energy Efficiency of Badminton Court Lighting between High-Bay Luminaires and High-Bay Combined with LED T8 Tubes Case study: 40 Year Building KMUTNB การเปรียบเทียบประสิทธิภาพทางพลังงานของสนามแบดมินตันระหว่างรูปแบบดวงโคม High Bay เพียงอย่างเดียว และ รูปแบบดวงโคม High Bay ผสม LED T8 tube กรณีศึกษา: อาคาร 40 ปี มจพ.

Abstract

Playing badminton effectively consists of various factors, with lighting and luminaires being among those factors. The selection of luminaires and determination of installation layout affect lighting performance. Currently, the 40 Year Building at KMUTNB has badminton courts primarily for instructional purposes. From actual use of the courts, it was found that the lighting within the badminton courts of this building causes visual fatigue and glare while playing, resulting in suboptimal performance in the sport. Therefore, this article presents a study of virtual simulation within the badminton courts of the 40 Year Building at KMUTNB. The objective is to take the simulated badminton court with improved luminaire positioning to study luminaire placement according to BSI Standards as referred to in BS EN 12193:2018 Light and lighting - Sports lighting, and then to compare lighting performance and energy efficiency between Case 1: using only High Bay luminaires (HB), and Case 2: using a combination of High Bay luminaires and LED T8 tube (HB-T8).The analysis included lighting power density (LPD), average illuminance (E_av), uniformity(U₀), and unified glare- rating (R_UGL). The study and simulation were conducted for all four badminton courts using DIALux evo 13.0 to ensure lighting performance met Class III standards for local competition and recreational activities, sufficient for university badminton courts used mainly for instruction and recreation. The results showed that the average illuminance of both cases was similar and met Class III standards. When comparing energy efficiency between Case 1 (HB) and Subcase 2.2 (HB15.5-T8), it was found that Case 1 (HB) had better energy efficiency in terms of both total power consumption and lighting power density (LPD), achieving approximately 14% greater energy savings than Subcase 2.2 (HB15.5-T8).