Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Antonio DAquilio
Student:
First mentor:
Second mentor:
Third mentor:
Preface
This research is the final work for the degree of Master of Science in Building Technology, in the faculty of
Architecture at Delft University of Technology. For the development of this study I have been supervised by
my mentors Dr. MSc Arch. Michela Turrin, Dr. Regina M. J. Bokel and Dr. Craig L. Martin.
Arup (Amsterdam) and specifically the MEP team provided the information regarding the case study and
helped me in the latest developments of the work by giving me feedback and suggestions.
Antonio DAquilio,
July 2015, Delft, the Netherlands
Acknowledgements
There are many people that supported my research and contributed in different ways and that I would like
to thank.
For her continuous support I would like to thank my first mentor Michela Turrin. From the very beginning
she has been keen to help me in every aspect and her guidance was fundamental for the development of
this research and my professional development.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Regina Bokel. Thanks to her support I managed to overcome the
technical problems and to restrain the boundaries of my investigation within manageable limits.
I wish to thank Craig Martin. His critical point of view was very helpful in approaching the architectural
aspects within my investigation.
I would like to thank the people from Arup that I have been guided by in the latest developments of my
thesis, especially Rachid Abu-Hassan, Alex Christodoulou and Mark Koks and the whole MEP team, which I
have been working with for the last months. Their feedback made me reconsider some important aspects
and the way to present and effectively explain my research.
I would like to thank my parents, Domenico and Laura and my sister Marta. Their daily support and presence always pushed me to higher goals, always with love and pride.
I would like to thank Thalia, who shared with me the problems and the beautiful moments of this journey.
Without her patience and support I would not have made it through.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Problem statement and Research question
1.3 Aims and Focus of this research
1.4 Methodology
11
12
13
13
14
2 Background Research
2.1 Precedent works
2.2 Sustainable design aspects
2.3 Passive design strategies
2.4 Building Performance Simulation (BPS)
2.5 Building Performance Optimization (BPO)
2.6 Conclusions
17
18
24
28
31
33
36
39
40
40
41
42
43
44
44
47
48
48
51
51
52
53
54
55
60
60
64
64
65
66
67
72
72
78
80
85
86
87
88
89
89
91
92
94
95
96
97
101
103
105
106
120
121
123
124
126
128
130
138
141
142
143
144
Conclusions
145
Recommendations
149
Bibliography
151
Table of images
155
Appendix A
159
Appendix B
163
Appendix C
175
Acronyms
AFN: Airflow Network
BPO: Building Performance Optimization
BPS: Building Performance Simulation
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics
EA: Evolutionary Algorithm
EPW: EnergyPlus Weather data file
GH: Grasshopper, plugin for Rhinoceros
GA: Genetic Algorithm
HB: Honeybee, plugin for Grasshopper
IOP: Integrated Optimization Process
LB: Ladybug, plugin for Grasshopper
MOO: Multi-objective optimization
PMV: Predicted Mean Vote
PPD: Percentage of People Dissatisfied
UDI: Useful Daylight Illuminance
UDI*: Useful Daylight Illuminance (with approximation principle applied to the case study)
WWR: Window to Wall Ratio
ZEB: Zero Energy Building
1.1 Introduction
Energy used in buildings accounts for about 40% of the total co2 emissions of the developed countries
(Prez-Lombard, Ortiz et al. 2008). However, it was indicated that buildings have the highest potential in
reduction of co2 emissions with the lowest costs (IPCC 2007). Many regulatory and incentives are helping
in pushing new buildings design towards sustainability. For example, the recast Directive on the Energy
Performance of Buildings (EPBD) introduced new directions that require all new buildings to be nearly
zero energy buildings (nZEB) by 2020.
In general, office buildings are more energy consuming than other building typologies. Energy Use Intensity (EUI) in office buildings is within the range of 100 to 1000 kWh/m2a, depending on the location of the
buildings, building dimensions, and the number and types of equipment used in the office buildings. For
example, in USA, the average EUI has achieved 300 kWh/m2a, and about 79% of this is due to lighting and
ventilation alone. In UK, 72% of the total energy is needed for these two building services (Siew C.C. 2011).
In the Netherlands, the energy use of trade and commercial offices is the highest of the building sector
(ECN 2012).
Decisions made in the early stage of the design process can have huge impacts on the future performance
of a building. For example, making the right decision for the orientation of the building can save up to 40%
of the energy consumption, with no extra costs. (Commission 1999)
Therefore, the design process is recognized as fundamental for energy performance goals. However, the
design of energy performing buildings is not straight-forward. The design process becomes complex because of many competing objectives that are not easy to be handled by the designer (for example, thermal
and daylight performances). An approach called simulation-based optimization uses simulation tools for
the evaluation of building performance, and an optimization algorithm for optimal solution search. The
good points of computational optimization of buildings in the early stages are the following:
It informs the design process and gives evaluation of design strategies.
It is able to handle big amount of data (coming from different parameters involved into the design) and extract useful information from data.
Provides a number of valuable solutions for engineering problems related to competing performances of a design.
Because of the improvements achieved in the field of computer science, between 1980s and 1990s this approach began to be applied. However, the number of research papers on optimization of buildings started
increasing sharply only after 2005 (Evins 2013).
Up to date, many studies and design of high performance buildings using optimization techniques have
been done. Many of them focused only on one or some of the problems related to the buildings optimization for energy efficiency. Sahu et al., for example, minimized energy demand with a Genetic algorithm by
using as parameters the construction elements, for an air-conditioned building in a tropical climate; Holst
minimized the energy use and the thermal comfort metric of Percentage of People Dissatisfied (PPD) by
optimizing the window area and types and thermal properties of the envelope (with EnergyPlus), and so
on.
Also various studies considering all the design variables to minimize the energy use (Holistic approach)
have been conducted, such as: Peippo et al., Evins et al., Pountney et al., Salminen et al. and more.
Although these holistic optimization processes have taken into consideration most of all the variables related to the energy consumption in buildings, they lack the potential of natural ventilation for thermal
comfort and for the reduction of energy use due to mechanical ventilation and cooling systems (HVAC).
Important for the efficiency of the ventilation strategy is its optimization in early stages of a design, where
decision that will affect natural ventilation effectiveness and other aspects are taken into account. These
main decisions regard the building forms, openings and building orientation (Ghiaus and Allard 2005). In
the few examples of optimization studies involving natural ventilation, the common strategy is to model it
as scheduled rates, without considering the efficiency of the design in providing natural airflow.
12
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
10
15
20
25
30
Up to date, only a small number of academic studies were conducted on the optimization of natural ventilation strategies in the early design stage together with simulation for daylight and energy use. One reason for this can be the lack of fast simulation tools for the early design stage. This is especially true if we
consider the need of a large number of evaluations needed in this particular phase of the design process.
13
Focus
When an energy efficiency concept is developed for a new building, there are passive and active aspects
to take into account. Even though a holistic approach encompassing both these aspects might be possible,
the focus of this thesis is on those parameters and evaluation criteria directly related to the building form
finding for offices. Passive aspects and strategies play a key role for the future efficiency of office buildings,
and they must be planned and optimized early in the design process. Thus, the proposed computational
process focuses on the design form finding in the early stages integrating passive design strategies, with
a focus on natural ventilation strategies for passive cooling. The process is meant to be for temperate and
hot climates, and it will be tested on a case study located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
1.4 Methodology
The research done within this thesis can be divided into 5 steps:
1.
2.
need.
3.
4.
5.
Background research.
Assembly and validation of tools for the calculation of Natural Ventilation and Heating/Cooling
Assembly of an integrated optimization process.
Application of the proposed process on a case study of office building.
Comparison of results and final discussion.
Background research
The background research comprises a Literature review and an Interview to architects/engineers. The Literature review is the big part of the background research that was needed in order to take fundamental
decisions for the development of this Thesis, and to support those decisions.
Literature review
The review done on previous studies of energy performance optimization of buildings was fundamental
in order to critically understand and start working on the current limits of optimization processes studied
within the academic field. Also, a literature research was done on the environmental problems related to
buildings, on the potentials of designing following sustainability criteria related to energy and on the current Building Performance Simulation (BPS) techniques.
Questionnaire
Next to this, a questionnaire was delivered to a number of Architects and Engineers of top-level studios
and consultancy firms, in order to assess the current situation of building optimization in real practice.
The objective was to retrieve information on the potential of such a process and on the feasibility of being
embedded into the early stage of a design. As shown in the next chapter, this step was important to understand what are the limits of optimization in real practice, and spot in which way, such an optimization
process can have a wider application on average level building designs.
Tools development
The next step was to build the tools that were needed in order to test an integrated approach for optimization. In this phase, the development of a Natural Ventilation solver and a Heating & Cooling need tools
were computationally developed. In this phase, research was also done on the calculations to be used.
Since the focus of this thesis is on natural ventilation as passive cooling strategy, the Natural Ventilation
solver was tested and compared with an existing software (CoolVent).
14
Literature research on
Optimization studies
Case study
Comparison of results
15
16
tation was optimized through outdoor velocity and pressure field simulation with Computational Fluid
Dynamics method (CFD). A step-by-step process is proposed, in which every parameter is optimized manually. In this way the parameters defining the design are not directly related with each other, losing possibilities for energy savings (Liu, Liu et al. 2014).
In the study by Hens, 2007, a multi-objective optimization is conducted for energy use, ecological impact
and cost of dwellings. They used a two-stage process, first optimizing envelope properties such as constructions, shading, glazing area and air tightness, and second optimizing system properties including CHP,
heat pumps, storage and controls. Energy simulations were done in TRN-SYS with natural ventilation rates
calculated in COMIS. Calculations for thermal comfort and energy use were performed. (Hens, 2007)
Perez et al (2012) presented an evaluation of natural ventilation to achieve the optimal indoor thermal
comfort within a building. The parameters used for the optimization are: Materials of construction, Building shape, Building orientation, Openings sizes, Openings orientations, Openings shapes, Surroundings.
Different values of the indoor air temperature in a building case are shown by changing these characteristics of the building, trying to find which one is the most important to optimize natural ventilation. The
research was done using the coupled thermal-airflow building simulation program EnergyPlus. The way of
coupling of Energy Plus is a coupled iterative approach (onion coupling). (Perez, 2012)
In the study done by Stephan et al (2011), the authors developed an optimization process for opening
dimensions based on a reversible model. A numerical model calculates the wind-driven pressures and the
equivalent airflow. This model is reversible: the variables can be considered both as input and as report.
For the optimization process, the proposed method is divided into 4 parts. First, setup of a mechanical
ventilation mode is applied: to reduce the number of variables the authors considered the building as
mechanically ventilated; the only three variables considered are the night ventilation rate, when to start
ventilating and when to stop it. Outside this range, the ventilation has a fixed value. Second, subdivide
the simulated days into patterns: the simulated days are divided into pattern selected by the user. Third,
generate an optimal ventilation sequence: an optimization process is used to find the best values for the
selected variables, so a sequence of ventilation rates can found. Finally, it is possible to determine openings dimensions using inverse calculations: once the sequence of ventilation rates is defined, it will be used
to feed the reversible numerical model, to calculate the best opening area. A case study in Cargese (France)
is analyzed and optimized (Stephan, Bastide et al. 2011).
In 2013, Kim et al. proposed an evaluation process that couples Building Energy Simulation (BES) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for naturally ventilated buildings. The studys purpose is to analyze the
indoor thermal environment depending on natural ventilation rate. Heat transfer driven by natural ventilation, indoor and outdoor temperatures have the highest impact. The time-step of BES is set at 5 minutes,
while the coupling of BES and CFD is every hour. Once the BES is done, the boundary conditions, such as
wind speed and direction and indoor walls surface temperatures, are set
to start the CFD analysis, where the detailed airflow calculation takes place. 3 cases are analysed: a case
in which only the BES simulation calculates the indoor temperatures, and two cases with coupled BES and
CFD (one with only the airflow rate used as heat transfer factor, and one with both airflow rate and convective heat provided). The tree results were compared with standalone BES calculations and field measurements for an apartment housing located in Incheon, Korea. Results show that 1: assessment of natural
ventilation performance is not accurate with only BES, and thus coupling simulation tools is necessary to
get accurate values for the simulated indoor environment; 2: it is hard to define the natural ventilation rate
when the building is parallel to the main wind direction; 3: under higher airflow rates, the convective heat
transfer does not change much the results compared to the case in which only airflow rate is used for the
calculation of heat transfer.
In 2014, Singh et al (Singh S. 2014) studies the effectiveness of a holistic optimization process, considering all the parameters of both form and envelope of an office building. Calculations were conducted in
EnergyPlus and natural ventilation was also considered, but within a defined time-set not dependent on
buildings geometry.
Verbeeck and Hens developed an optimization study on energy use, ecological impact and cost of dewellings. They applied a two-stage process. First they optimized the envelope properties (shading, construction, glazing area), and then focused on active aspects, such as CHP, heat pumps. The tools used were
TRN-SYS for thermal analysis and energy use and COMIS for the calculation of natural ventilation rates.
19
A schematic overview of the optimization studies reviewed along this research is here presented. As figure
2.1
shows the number
of studies involving naturalstudies
ventilation is small.
Moreover, only a few studies
comPrevious
optimization
considering
Natural
prised natural ventilation in an integrated way, considering also other conflicting criteria such as daylight.
Ventilation strategies
Capozzoli et al.
2009
Hens et al.
Jakubiec et al.
Jin, Jeong
Kim et al.
Li et al.
Li et al.
Lin, Gerber
Liu et al.
2007
2011
2014
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
Perez et al.
Energy
2011
2008
Shi,Yang
Singh, Kensek
2013
2014
Stephan et al.
2011
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape, Orientation
Energy
Shape
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Envelope
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Energy
Energy
Whole building
Whole building
Windows dimensions
Non-Integrated approach
Non-Integrated approach
Integrated approach: A step-by-step process is proposed, in
which every parameter is optimized manually. In this way the
parameters defining the design are not directly related with
each other, losing possibilities for energy savings
Whole building
Airflow,Thermal comfort
Envelope
Non-Integrated approach
References:
Capozzoli A., Mechri H., Corrado V., Impacts of architectural design choices on building energy performance, applciations of uncertainty and sensitivity techniques, Eleventh International IBPSA Conference Glasgow, Scotland July 27-30, 2009
Evins, R. (2013). "A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22(0): 230-245.
Jakubiec J. , Reinhart C., Diva 2.0: Integrating daylight and thermal simulations using rhinoceros 3d, daysim and energyplus,Proceedings of Building Simulation 2011: 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, 14-16 November
Jin, J.-T. and J.-W. Jeong (2014). "Optimization of a free-form building shape to minimize external thermal load using genetic algorithm." Energy and Buildings 85(0): 473-482.
Li B.,Yu Q., Li Z., Zhou X., Researchonparametricdesignmethodforenergy efficiency ofgreenbuildinginarchitectural scheme phase, Frontiers ofArchitecturalResearch(2013) 2, 1122
Li Z., Lin B., Lv S., Peng B., Optimizing the building form by simulation - A paramteric design methodology study with integrated simulation at schematic phase, 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambry, France, August 26-28
Lin, S.-H. E. and D. J. Gerber (2014). "Designing-in performance: A framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design." Automation in Construction 38(0): 59-73.
Liu, S., J. Liu, Q.Yang, J. Pei, D. Lai, X. Cao, J. Chao and C. Zhou (2014). "Coupled simulation of natural ventilation and daylighting for a residential community design." The 2nd International Conference on Building Energy and Environment (COBEE), 2012, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA 68, Part B(0): 686-695.
Perez I., stergaardb P., Remmenb A., Model of natural ventilation by using a coupled thermal-airflow simulation program, Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 388393
Shi X.,Yang W., Performance-driven architectural design and optimization technique from a perspective of architects, Automation in Construction 32 (2013) 125135
Singh S., Kensek K., Early design analysis using optimization techniques in design/practice, Building Simulation Conference Atlanta, GA September 10-12, 2014
Stephan, L., A. Bastide and E. Wurtz (2011). "Optimizing opening dimensions for naturally ventilated buildings." Applied Energy 88(8): 2791-2801.
Kim H., Haw J., Kim T., Leigh S., Application of coupled simulation between BES-CFD for naturally ventilated residential buildings, Proceedings of BS2013: 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambry, France, August 26-28
design stage?
The potential of using it in early project stages is significant. To name examples, it can help determine zones
of solar radiation exposure, and suggest massing adjustments accordingly, or anticipate strategies for effective sun shading elements later in design.
d. For optimization processes, do you use available tools, or do you build your own tools at UNStudio? Do
you have an integrated approach, as described above?
As described, UNStudio uses both available and own tools. We strive for an integral approach in all design
phases, and that includes energy analysis too, amongst other design considerations.
e. Do you try to combine natural ventilation with thermal analysis of buildings? If yes, what kind of computational techniques do you use to achieve this? Do you use dedicated software? What current limits do
you encounter, if any?
Thermal analysis would typically be conducted by our engineering consultants.
Interview 2 - Rachid Abu-Hassan, Arup
a. Do you apply Optimization of energy performance in the early design stage - or only for specific problems related to later phases of the design?
There have been many projects that were optimized, but at the moment it is still something that is not
done on regular basis, and it is not done for the whole building. The problems that are taken into account
deal with multiple and contrasting criteria, such as acoustics and cooling, or lighting and acoustics. The
approach is still focused on specific engineering problems.
There have been studies and projects in which the building geometry, massing and orientation were optimized, with a simple approach and next to the designer. This resulted in a better communication with the
architect and in a faster execution of preliminary engineering problems and evaluation. However, there is
still a lack for an integrated process that would be beneficial for the overall energy consumption of buildings.
b. If you use it in the early stage, do you use computational processes for the optimization? Which ones
specifically?
The use of optimization is most of the times performed within parametric modelling tools. The number of
variables to be set and assessment make the process easier if done within customized ad-hoc solutions.
Therefore, built-in software and parametric definitions are done for specific problems, but not yet regularly.
The optimization, when done for more advanced engineering problems, is dealt through the use of more
complex simulation tools, without coupling with optimization algorithm.
c. If you do not use it in the early stage, why is it so? Do you see potentials in using it in the early stage
and would you be interested in using an integrated optimization process for energy efficiency in the early
design stage?
Many are the potentials in developing such processes. It seems interesting, but in our team, we are still not
doing optimization with an integrated approach. The reason is because most of the times we are focusing
on more specific problems that come out later in the design process. However, working next to the architect
with a good interdisciplinary optimization process would be beneficial for both the designers and for the
engineers.
d. For optimization processes, do you use available tools, or do you build your own tools in ARUP? Do you
21
conceptual phase
design development
technical development
23
Ecology
(CO2 emissions)
Minimization of
energy requirements
Economy
(life cycle costs)
Usage
Society
(acceptance)
Legislation
Architecture
Optimization of
energy supplies
Architecture
(quality of a design)
The passive aspects are all those characteristics that will affect the buildings performance when no artificial mean is adopted. By taking into considerations these aspects, the designer can make sure early in the
design process that the energy needs are kept low. The components and building parts should be designed
to deliver not only architectural, functional and constructional specifications, but also with the aim of
gaining extra energy-efficiency benefits. In this way, the building shape and materials can be harmonized
in order to provide a comfortable internal environment for as long as possible, without the use of extensive
mechanical installations.
Active aspects can be directly assumed as the building services. They provide indoor comfort when passive
means cannot. Therefore, they require energy to be able to work. Tracing the energy requirements and the
provision of this energy in order to maximize efficiency can optimize active aspects.
According to this schematic overview of an energy concept development factors, the main evaluation
criteria used to objectively evaluate a sustainable design are: ecology, economy, society and architecture.
Ecology evaluation
The ecological evaluation is based on the negative consequences that energy supplies and energy use
may have on the environment. A widely used measure factor is the carbon dioxide or similar substances
emissions.
Economic evaluation
The objective of this evaluation is to estimate the total costs over the entire life cycle of a building. It must
also consider the costs for optimizing energy efficiency of systems (renewables and installations), but also
the costs for the eco-efficiency of building designs.
Social evaluation
The effects on users are of vital importance when evaluating a building, because they can affect the overall
well-being of the users and also the proper operation of a building. Thermal, visual, acoustic and olfactory
comfort are the main aspects that affect the perceived comfort level of users.
24
Architectural evaluation
The energy concept for a new design can deeply affect the appearance of a building, and also its functionality. Therefore, the architectural expression and intention must be embedded in the energy concept in
the harmonized way.
CHANGES OF POSTURE
25
METABOLIC RATE
Physiology
Thermal comfort is linked to the need to maintain a constant internal temperature (Nicol F. 2012).
Thermoregulation occurs in human body in order to maintain this balance. If the body temperature drops,
the blood circulation to the peripheral parts of the body is reduced through vasoconstriction (contraction
of the surface blood vessels).
If the body temperature rises vasodilatation occurs. It expands the vessels close to the skin, increasing the
blood supply to the periphery, and consequently, heat loss through overheating of the skin surface.
Psychophysics
Human brain uses many unconscious actions to thermoregulate our body. Psychophysics is the study of the
relation between these reactions and the stimuli we receive from the physical world.
The factors influencing these actions has been found to be the age, sex, culture and personality of a person.
GENDER
AGE
PERSONALITY
Physical mechanisms
PH YS IC AL MEC HA N I SMS
After a certain
the produced
heat produced within
the bodythe
must body
balance the
heat lostbalance
from the body.
The main
physical
After a certain period,
theperiod,
heat
within
must
the
heat
lost from the body. The
processes for heat loss are: convection, radiation and evaporation.[1]
main physical processes for heat loss are: convection, radiation and evaporation.
Evaporation
When breathing or sweating, our
body can regulate its temperature
by means of evaporation. The heat
lost is the energy required to turn
the water into vapour.
Clothing
Clothing insulation can act
against transfer of dry heat
and aect heat loss by
evaporation. Clothes are an
extra resistance to the
diusion of water vapour
away from the skin and they
can absorb excess moisture
next to the skin.
Radiation
Heat can be lost also through
radiant heat, from the body
surfaces.
Conduction
In certain circumstances, heat is lost from
the soles of our shoes
or clothing surfaces by
cinduction to cold
surfaces, such as the
oor pavement.
Convection
If the temperature of the air is
lower than that of the skin or
the surface of the clothes, heat
loss through convection will
take place.
There is the need for constantly achieving temperature balance, but this does not always result in thermal
comfort. Several researchers have built models to predict the thermal comfort, and most of them come
from surveys of people response to the thermal environment.
26
Visual Comfort
The indoor environment must fulfil the visual needs of its occupants, according to the task they are performing in it. Visual comfort can normally be achieved by providing a sufficient level of Illuminance (lux).
However, there might be glare sources causing visual discomfort and reduced performance (Velds 1999).
Also, a good view outside of the building helps in increasing visual comfort and create a healthy and productive environment.
Daylight has been largely investigated; also because of its potential for energy savings, since almost 20% of
the total energy electrical consumption in Europe is cause by artificial lighting. (Orme 2011)
Finally, when talking about visual comfort and daylight, a key aspect for many well-known architects is the
use of light as an expression element, able to change the perception of spaces and the feeling that generates on people.
Acoustic comfort
Acoustic or aural comfort refers to the noise level within an indoor space. There is a right level and quality of noise that should be reached in order to not compromise the productivity and health of the people,
according to the task that they perform in the space. Normally, people get more productive when they
have acoustic comfort. The noise can come from the indoor space equipment, people or from outdoor
sources, such as street traffic or surrounding buildings. Very important for the comfort of its inhabitants is
aural comfort in schools and office buildings, where tasks requiring concentration are performed (Paradis
2014).
In order to achieve acoustic comfort, metrics such as decibel level (sound pressure), sound reflections and
reverberation time should be controlled. Design strategies such as sound breakers and barriers are the
most used along with geometry of the indoor space, which can be optimized to achieve smaller numbers
of reflections.
Operational Energy
The operational energy of buildings is a term describing the energy needed by buildings in order to achieve
thermal and electrical need for its users, during their operation. This issue is very important not only because of the carbon footprint that can be related to it (and consequently greenhouse gas emissions), but
also of the energy saving potential when a building is optimized toward this aspect.
For commercial and public buildings, for example, it was shown from a study done in UK that 20% of energy saving could be achieved by applying simple solutions (CIBSE 2005)
Energy use intensity (EUI) is the most important parameter that is used for the design of efficient buildings.
EUI is the total annual energy use divided by the gross floor area of the building. It can be expressed in
kWh/ft2, kWh/m2, kBtu/ft2, and MJ/m2. In Europe, it is commonly described with kWh/m2. The reason
why this evaluation criterion is widely applied is because it is a good way of comparing building energy
performance, without considering building dimensions and typology. It is not a measure of total energy
consumption. It can be used to understand energy performance and to set goals for the design of a new
building, comparing it to EUI baselines.
However, the EUI performance measure comprises the energy delivered to a building for all its services,
thus accounting also for the efficiency of the installations and systems.
A performance measure used for estimating the energy needed by a building to deliver thermal comfort
without considering energy efficiency of systems or auxiliary energy is the Energy need.
The energy need for heating and cooling is the heat to be distributed or extracted from a conditioned
space to preserve a desired air temperature for a specific period of time. It is the highest energy requiring
aspect in a building. Second is the energy need for lighting.
27
savings which would otherwise need expensive and complex solutions. Energy efficiency can be affected
by shape, thermal response, insulation, windows and glazing as well as ventilation and daylight strategies.
29
Stack ventilation
When there is a difference in density between indoor and outdoor air volumes, stack effect takes place. A
pressure difference is created by the difference in density, which will eventually result in bringing air inside
and pulling air outside of the building through envelope openings.
When the temperature inside the building is higher than the one outside, the bottom part experiences
under pressure, while the upper part will have over pressure, resulting in a plane at a certain height, where
the pressure difference between inside and outside is zero. This plane is referred to as neutral plane. The
openings under this plane will bring air inside, the ones above will exhaust air outside. (CIBSE 2005)
The most known design strategies using stack effect, which are: solar chimney, atria, double-skin facade.
Night ventilation
Night ventilation is not a design strategy, but an operational strategy. It uses the fluctuation of temperature
during the day to provide natural cooling. There are many advantages in using this strategy:
Because in the night-time the outdoor temperatures are lower, there is a greater temperature difference
between the indoor and outdoor environments. Therefore stack driven flow can be enhanced and also the
resulting cooling capacity.
The ventilation during night helps in dissipating the heat stored in the fabric of the building, decreasing
the mean radiant temperature of the surfaces. This plays an important role in the way the people experience the indoor environment the following day.
Noise and draught problems can be avoided by ventilating during unoccupied periods, such as night-time.
Design strategies for natural ventilation
Solar Chimney
Chimneys can provide stack driven ventilation whenever the air in the chimney is higher than the outdoor
air. Temperature can be increased by solar gains and therefore chimney designs can include glazed elements. The solar heat is absorbed by the interior surfaces of the chimney, and then is released to the air,
promoting buoyancy.
Atrium
The atrium is a variant of the chimney principle. The main difference is the other functions that the atrium
embeds, such as the circulation spaces and social interaction. Moreover, it provides an attractive space
that can be part of the design expression. The way it can be used as natural ventilation strategy is affected
by all the other criteria that need to be satisfied. One of the main advantage of atrium ventilation is that it
can be used to exhaust the air from both sides of a building, towards a central extract point. The designer
should pay attention to the neutral plane, which defines whether the atrium is providing fresh air to all storeys or it is affecting the top storeys with inflows. Moreover, atria can also serve as buffer zones, to preheat
the incoming air or only to reduce the heat losses towards the environment.
Wind can be used to improve atrium ventilation by providing a difference in pressure on the windward and
leeward faades. Important to consider is the change in wind direction, because it could cause an inflow
from the atrium, decreasing the stack effect and its ventilation potential.
Double-skin faade
The double-skin faade is another design strategy that uses the principle of stack (or chimney) effect. The
difference is that here the whole facade act as a large air duct.
30
The solar gains are trapped in a cavity between the inner and outer skins, providing ventilation by stack
effect. The air is exhausted at the top of the faade. The ventilation is planned in order to remove heat absorbed by the blinds or to provide natural airflow to the building floors, therefore the air is exhausted into
the cavity. In this case the building faade can be divided in segments having their own ventilation system.
This is often done when the building is a high-rise (CIBSE 2005).
Effects of outdoor environment onto natural ventilation performance
The outdoor environment can have influence on the performance of a specific natural ventilation strategy
in a building. Factors such as wind direction and speed, topography and open areas in the urban environment can affect the volume of air displacement within the building spaces. These factors, if considered
early in the design stages can affect the following design aspects.
Building Orientation
Natural ventilation should be integrated with the building orientation, when the designer should consider
the impact of different wind directions and patterns. Building exposure and different orientations can
affect the ventilation and therefore they play an important role in the future performance of the passive
strategy.
Building Shape
The building shape can influence the effectiveness of a specific strategy. The main factors to consider are
the height of the design strategy for stack ventilation, the faade geometry, which can result in different
pressure coefficients, and the main building shape, which can influence the way the volume of air moves
along the indoor spaces. Moreover, the neighbouring building shapes can also affect the natural ventilation
in a building.
flow, such as long-wave radiation between internal and external surfaces, transmission through fabric,
solar radiation on the inside surfaces, convection and conduction between indoor air to walls and window
surfaces, etc. The heat balances equation are formed and solved for each time step to predict the surface
and air temperatures, and heat flows. This method comprises four main processes:
1. Outside-face heat balance
2. Wall conduction process
3. Inside-face heat balance
4. Air heat balance
Quasi-steady state monthly methods
In Quasi-steady state methods, the energy need for space heating and cooling purposes is calculated by
summing up the monthly energy requirements for heating and cooling.
This method calculates the heat balance over long time steps (one moth or season). It takes into account
the dynamic effects of a heat flows of a building by using an empirically defined gain/loss utilization factor.
For heating, an utilization factor consider the fact that only part of the internal and solar heat gains is hekpful in decreasing the heating loads, while the rest can lead to overheating.
Also the cooling calculation uses two utilization factors: one for the losses (heat transfer by transmission
and ventilation heat transfer) and one for the gains (internal and solar heat gains). The first is used because
only a part of the heat transfer helps in decreasing cooling loads, while the rest occurs during periods (for
example during night) when they do not influence cooling needs. The utilization factor for gains considers
that only part of the internal and solar heat gains is balanced by transmission and ventilation heat trasnfer,
by defining a maximum internal temperature. The rest of the gains can increse the cooling lods.
With this method, the monthly calculation is able to give correct results on an annual basis, but the results
close to the beginning or the end of heating and cooling seasons could show large errors (CEN 2007)
Zonal models
Compared to the AFN model, zonal models split the studied indoor space into several small subvolumes,
and they can calculate the mass, energy conservation and other momentum equations to identify the
airflow within a space. This approach can also output the difference of temperature within a space, which
is closer to the reality than AFN. Specific movement of air and temperature gradients can be retrieved by
this calculation method (Santamouris, Allard et al. 1998). However, the level of accuracy is lower than CFD.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Instead of calculation the bulk flow through openings, like in AFN, the CFD calculations solve the fundamental equations of movement of individual elements of fluids. It can predict with very high precision the
air motion at all points in the flow. When embedding thermal equations, CFD can also predict in detail
buoyancy and temperature gradients. This method is often applied for calculating special rooms, like atria.
However, for initial sizing of natural ventilation system, this type of calculations is rather extensive in terms
of computational time.
2.5.1 Definition
Optimization is the procedure that strives to find the minimum or maximum value of a function that is
dependent on a number of variables. The optimization function, which represents a design problem, is
called cost or fitness objective function and is normally calculated through simulation tools. Optimization
methods can be applied to many different building design problems, such as orientation, massing, faade
design, thermal comfort and daylight. If the design problem is one, then the optimization process is normally called single-objective optimization. If, on the other hand, the problems to be solved are more than
one, the analysis is referred to as multi-objective optimization.
m = 1,2,, M
Where x is a vector of n decision variables, representing the design space, and m is the number of objective
functions.
objective function 2
Dominated solutions
Pareto front
closest point
Utopia point
objective function 1
methods are called heuristic, which means that they do not guarantee to achieve the true optimum, but
they can offer an efficient and relatively fast search method that has a good probability of finding solutions
close to the optimum.
The direct search method compares new solutions with the best found so far and determines the next
trial solutions based on their results. However, it has been established that these search method can get
trapped into local optima that can be far from the global optima of the specific problem. Algorithms belonging to this method are: Pattern search (e.g. Hooke and Jeeves), Linear programming, Non-linear programming.
Others existing methods are meta-heuristic algorithms that mimic natural processes, such as Harmony
Search, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Simulated Annealing (SA) and
Evolutionary algorithms (EA)
Evolutionary algorithms
Evolutionary algorithms mimic natural evolutionary principle to organize and construct their optimization
process. For a number of iterations, called generations, these type of algorithms apply the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest solution by eliminating the weakest solutions for every generation. There are
a number of operators used to create new solutions, such as mutation, which introduces random changes, and crossover, that mixes characteristics between different solutions. The most common evolutionary
algorithms are: Genetic Algorithms(GA), Evolutionary Programming (EP), Covariance Matrix Adaptation
Evolutionary Strategy (CMA-ES), Differential Evolution (DE).
A more detailed review of Genetic Algorithm was done, in order to understand the mechanisms of one of
the most used method for optimizing building problems (Evins 2013) .
Genetic algorithms
Genetic algorithm is a heuristic search that mimics the natural selection found in nature. In fact, the idea
of this process comes from the observation of lifes evolution. Life evolves by exchanging DNA information
and producing new combinations of traits. Those organisms that survive a specific environment will generate the next generation. Every each generation the organisms get stronger because they inherit the strongest traits of the previous generation. After many generations, the newer populations will be the strongest
ones. Mutation at every generation can also help in finding new ways of survival in the given environment.
35
The computer-aided process of Genetic algorithm is an iterative process that, after many generations, will
provide a number of optimal solutions for a given problem. The algorithm has few main actors: Genomes,
Generations and Populations.
The Genome is a sequence of values that encompass the variables of a design. The Generation is a specific
combination of genomes at a specific moment during the algorithm. The Population is a group of Genomes
of the current Generation.
The genomes of a population undergo through a series of steps in order to create the next generation: Fitness, Crossover, Mutation and Reproduce. The fitness is a value describing the probability that a genome
will survive and be able to reproduce. The crossover is when two genomes exchange parts of their data
with one another. Mutation occurs when pieces of data of a Genome are randomly altered. Reproduce is
when the Genome copies itself into the next generation.
Even though there are many variations of Genetic Algorithms, the overall process stays the same. The steps
are as follows:
1.
Produce an initial generation of Genomes using a random number generator.
2.
Determine the fitness of all of the Genomes.
3.
Determine which Genomes are allowed to reproduce.
4.
Crossover the Genome pairs in the allowable population.
5.
Pick the 2 fittest Genomes of the 2 parents and 2 children resulting from the crossover and add
them to the next generation.
6.
Produce random mutations through the next generation population.
7.
Calculate the next generations fitness and loop back to step 3.
36
2.6 Conclusions
A number of different conclusions can be derived from the background research.
Regarding the review on academic optimization studies, although natural ventilation has been widely studied through simulations made with CFD, FFD and Airflow Network, only rarely it has been combined with
other factors affecting the energy use of the building, like daylight and thermal performances. A reason
for this is the lack of calculation tools for the early design stages allowing flexibility in the design and fast
elaboration.
This is also confirmed by the interviews done to top-level professionals belonging to architecture and engineering firms. According to the interviews, it appears that optimization has been done in the last few years,
but never in an integrated approach involving also the coupling of thermal analysis and natural ventilation
for early design stages.
Regarding sustainable design aspects, it appears clear that among all the aspects and evaluation criteria
that should be addressed in early design stages, the ones that have a direct dependency on main design
decisions are the passive aspects, such as orientation, building geometry, envelope performance, solar
exposure, solar protection etc.
Among these aspects, there is a large set of design possibilities and passive strategies that can be planned
early in the design process for office buildings located in temperate and hot climates, in order to achieve
low-energy goals. Specifically for this research, the potential of natural ventilation as passive mean for
cooling during summer months is investigated. Therefore, attention will be paid to wind assisted stack
effect. Moreover, exposure to solar radiation and daylight for reduction of need for heating and lighting
is considered. The Atrium as main passive strategy is selected in order to merge the natural ventilation
strategy with natural daylight.
The passive strategies related to early design stages are also one main focus of this research. Therefore,
building orientation, shape and window to wall ratio will be introduced within the proposed computational
process. Moreover, the basic aspects related to envelope design, such as envelope materials U-value (for
both windows and opaque elements), Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of glazed elements and shading
devices are selected as main parameters to be included and optimized within an early design.
Regarding Building Performance Simulation (BPS) and Building Performance Optimization (BPO), it is clear
that many computational techniques were developed in the last decades, in order to assess and optimize
building designs. Simulation techniques such as quasi-steady state monthly or seasonal method (for heating and cooling energy need), envelope flow models (natural ventilation) and raytracing (daylight) seem
to be the most suitable for early stages, where the need for a large number of simulations requires fast
evaluation tools. In line with the theory on level of approximations, described in 2.5.4, the criterion for the
selection of these specific calculation methods is the computational time needed for an evaluation. The
selected methods need short time for one assessment because they sacrifice accuracy, while focusing only
on the main aspects affecting their specific evaluation.
Finally, genetic algorithm have gained the trust of many experts in building optimization, because of their
ability in searching within large design space, and for their probability in finding global optimal solutions,
compared to other techniques. Within this research, the need for an algorithm able to optimize multiple
and conflicting criteria within a highly constrained design space led to the selection of genetic algorithm
as most suitable method.
37
38
3.2 Principle
As explained in the paragraph regarding energy concept development, there are a number of performance
criteria that can be applied to a design for a new and existing building. These basic aspects are related to
Ecology, Economy, Society, Architecture.
In order to restrain the scope of the proposed approach, the selected evaluation criteria are the ecological
evaluation and the social evaluation. The reason for such a selection comes for a direct and well-known
relationship between architectural design and effects that this has on users and on the environment. The
other aspects, related to Economy and Architecture are also recognized as fundamental in building design.
Evaluation criteria for Enegy concept
Economy
(life cycle costs)
CO2 emissions
Embodied energy
Energy need
Visual comfort
Active strategies
Passive
dehumidication
Earth
coupled
Orientation
(sun+wind)
ventilation
cowl
Exterior Wall
to Floor Area
ratio
venturi
rood
Architecture
(quality of a design)
Society
(acceptance)
Ecology
Thermal comfort
Acoustic comfort
Passive strategies
Daylight
Solar
Passive
access protection solar
night
ventilation
Stack eect
40
Natural
ventilation
Cross
ventilatoin
Envelope
Thermal
protection
Solar
chimney
Thermal mass
Double
skin facade
Thermal zooning
single-sided
ventilation
3.3 Methodology
In order to build a coherent process, the methodology was based upon the definition of building optimization analysis given by Maschairas et al. (Vasileios Machairas 2014). According to their research, a building
optimization analysis is basically comprised of 4 steps:
identification of the design variables and their specific constraints.
selection of building performance simulation tools and making of a building model.
selection of objective functions.
selection of an optimization algorithm.
Next to these steps, an analysis and selection of sustainable design evaluation measures was done. This
helped in coherently defining the evaluation criteria that will be considered, in order to set specific objective functions and define coherent inputs for the calculation models. Moreover, attention was paid
on building performance requirements, specifically for office buildings, in order to be able to set proper
objective functions.
It is important to clarify here that the computational process described in this chapter is hypothetical, because it slightly differs from the one that will be applied on the case study. This differentiation was needed
in order to overcome time related issues. More information is given in chapter 6.
Computational methodology
In order to be able to prove the benefits of embedding Natural ventilation in early stages optimization, a
computational algorithmic process needed to be built and tested. The fundamental idea for the developed
process is to integrate multiple evaluation tools and combine them with an optimization algorithm within
a parametric environment. The objective is to prove the possibilities that such a computational process can
have to be embedded within a design process.
For the development of the process Grasshopper (GH) for Rhinoceros was used. GH is a graphical algorithmic editor for Rhinos 3d modelling tool, which enables parametric modelling within the Rhino environment. Components belonging to GH, Honeybee and Ladybug (plugins for GH) were used and a number of
calculation tools were developed, in order to assess building performance. The tools for the evaluation of
Heating&Cooling need and Natural ventilation were programmed by using the VB.Net scripting tool in GH.
The adopted programming language is Visual Basic. More information can be found in the chapters 4 and
5.
41
comfort zone can range between 19 - 29C can be considered comfortable (Nicol F. 2012). This implies that
a lower need for cooling and heating can be achieved when the adaptive potential is considered.
For the application of the integrated process, this range will be used in Scenario (chapter 7), where it is also
combined with the PPD model for summer months. In Scenario 2, the temperature range used to calculate
the monthly energy need is dependent on thermal comfort level experienced in summer months within
the designed space. In this case, the setpoint for cooling will be set as the highest temperature considered
comfortable, according to the adaptive model. More information on this can be found in 8.2.
Location on site
Nowadays, an increasing number of buildings are built within an urban setting. Therefore the designer
needs to consider the specific location on site, depending on a number of factors, related both to architectural and performance criteria. If we look at the performance criteria, some of these factors can be: shading effect of surrounding buildings, shading effect of the new design to existing buildings, wind pattern,
noise distribution.
In order to investigate the potential of different configuration of the building within the given site, a parameter to be set is the position of the center point (or center points) of a building. In this case, an important
aspect is the constraints that define the range of positions that this point can assume. This aspect will also
be discussed in the design constraints paragraph.
Orientation
The orientation has a very important role in energy optimization. Choosing the best orientation can maximize daylight, winter heat gains and minimize heat losses. Moreover, an optimized orientation can also be
beneficial for natural ventilation strategies, such as atrium or solar chimney. When considering surrounding buildings,
For the proposed process the parameter regarding the building orientation refers to the angle of rotation
around a user defined center point. The building can assume different orientations as a whole, or, when
the design intent allows for disaggregation, it can be rotated evenly between building parts (as shown in
the scenario 1 of the case study.
The parameter to be set is a rotation angle (degrees), and normally, the rotation axis lies at the mid-point
of the building volume.
Building Shape
A building featuring a compact shape has smaller exposed area per floor area, which reduces the effects of
the external environment. However, it may necessitate extra artificial lighting in its core, and also heavier
mechanical ventilation. On the other hand a taller construction can increase energy consumption because
of a greater exposure.
Building shape refers to those parameters that define the building geometry. It directly relates to the architectural intent, therefore it is not possible to strictly categorize it. However, it is possible to state that
the parameters related to the building shape will directly influence the building compactness, thus its
performance. A good way of dealing with this parameters is setting the total surface area as a fixed value,
in order to avoid that optimization would results in very small objects (Caldas 2008). Another way could be
to set the total building volume as a fixed value.
For office buildings, normally built around a distribution core or central open space (ref.), the implemented
parameters (within scenario 1) influencing the building shape are the floor shapes projection.
It is important for the designer to translate the architectural intent into variables that, once optimized, can
still express the design concept.
Number of floors
Setting the number of floors as a variable will also influence the building shape, therefore its thermal and
especially natural ventilation performance. It is important to notice that this parameter, either by setting
the volume or the total surface area as fixed values, will indirectly affect the shape of the floor projection.
Attention should be paid in order to constrain this variable within an acceptable range (e.g. local administration standards, solar envelope, etc.)
45
high heat gains, while low values means low heat gains. This aspect is important to determine the cooling
load of a building. It is affected by the glazing type and number of panes. For instance, a clear glass can
have above 80% of solar gains, and highly reflective coatings can have down to 20%.
Step 5 is the phase in which calculation for worst-case scenario in summer for natural ventilation, monthly
average ventilation rates are calculated. The monthly values are then fed into the Heating&Cooling calculation component. Step 6 is where the monthly heating and cooling loads are calculated. In step 7 the data
(airflow and indoor air temperature) are retrieved from the NaturalVentilation solver.
Step 8 is where the objective functions are set. Basically the values inherited from the UDI calculation
(%), heating and cooling need (kWh/m2a) and Adaptive comfort level are either maximized or minimized,
according to 3.6.
1
3
2
4
3
7
5
8
5
8
9
49
12
7
10
11
6
3
1
2
Fig. 3.3 - Scenario 1, GH definition
50
the Adaptive model is applied). Zone 11 is the zone in which the heating and cooling energy need calculation takes place. Finally, in zone 12 the outputs from the daylight analysis, PPD and Energy need for heating
and cooling are converted into objective functions by Octopus (plug-in for GH).
3.13 Conclusions
Energy concepts are built upon a number of different aspects. However, the proposed process needed a
specific focus. The focus is on buildings comprising atrium or solar chimney. The idea is to create a computational framework comprising the most important passive aspects affecting the future performance of
office buildings located in temperate and hot climates. Therefore, the potential of natural ventilation for
passive cooling can be investigated and optimized together with other conflicting aspects, such as solar
exposure, solar protection, daylight level. The focus on office building required a specific research on performance requirements for this typology and also a restriction of the design aspects to those that can be
more suitable for commercial buildings. Since a large number of office buildings in the Netherlands and in
other temperate and hot climates comprise atria as passive design strategy (not always used for natural
ventilation), this particular design aspect was considered for the practical application of the developed
process. Therefore, the hypothetical process described in this chapter will serve as a framework for the
practical application on a case study comprising atrium design.
Important for the proposed computational process is the evaluation tools for heating and cooling need
and natural ventilation described in this chapter and partially shown in 3.12. In the next two chapters, the
specific calculation methods and the components used within this thesis will be discussed in detail.
52
The developed optimization process necessitates calculation tools for the evaluation of energy performance related to heating and cooling need of a building. Because of the several evaluation steps required
by the process, it was very important the use of a simplified fast calculation model.
pl
Qsol, i
Qvent
(Qap+Qp) + (Qsol, d+Qsol, i) - Qvent - Qtr = 0
Qsol, d
Qap
Qp
Qtr
The basic principle governing the whole calculation method is the heat balance of a zone. The calculated
gains are solar and internal heat gains. The losses are due to heat transfer by transmission of the building
envelope and by ventilation. Furthermore, heating and cooling energy needs are calculated separately,
applying a utilization factor, which will account for dynamic effects.
Assumptions
The ISO 13790 standard uses the following assumptions for the its quasi-steady state method:
The heating set-point temperatures for heating and cooling should not be larger than 4C.
The building is considered as one zone. However, multiple zones can be calculated together, but heat
flows due to transmission or ventilation between zones is not considered.
The spaces have well-mixed indoor air temperature.
The spaces are all completely cooled or heated at any time.
These conditions need to be considered in the practical application on the case study.
54
W
W
W
Solar heat gains can be of two types: direct, when they are absorbed through windows, or indirect, through
absorption in opaque buildings elements. Internal heat gains are the sum of all the gains coming from internal sources, such as people, appliances, lighting etc.
Heat can be transferred through the building fabric, whenever difference in temperature between indoor
and outdoor air occurs. Thermal conduction is the physical phenomenon that causes heat loss by transmission. Thermal conductivity of the exterior materials define how large is the heat loss. Heat transmission is
calculated by using the U-values of the material.
Ventilation heat transfer (natural ventilation, or mechanical ventilation system) is governed by the temperature difference between the set point temperature and the supply air temperature (Kokogiannakis 2008).
The calculation that is used to estimate the energy need for heating is as follows:
2
In a similar way, the energy need for space cooling is calculated by using:
3
To calculate the heat flow due to transfer, the following equation is used:
4
to
55
The heat transfer coefficient by transmission can be calculated with the following:
5
where:
6
where:
(m3/s).
In order to calculate the solar heat gains for each element of the building that is exposed to sun, the following equation is used:
8
where:
The effective collecting area of the surface k receiving solar radiation can be calculated by using two different equations, one for glazed elements, the other for opaque elements. The following is used to define
the effective area of glazed elements.
10
56
with:
The effective surface area for an opaque element k is described by the following equation:
11
with:
The heat exchange between the sky and exterior surfaces of the building, by thermal radiation, is given by
the following equation:
12
where:
According to the Standard, the external radiative heat transfer coefficient can be approximated with the
following equation:
13
where:
Calculating ss can be rather complex. However, according to the Standard, hr can be approximated to
5k .
The calculation used to determine the gain utilization factor (H and C) is performed for each month by
using the gain/loss ratio for the specific month and a numerical parameter (H) that depends on the inertia
of the building. These calculations are empirically derived from simulations done on a variety of buildings.
The gain utilization factor for heating can be calculated with:
57
14
15
16
17
where:
In a similar way, the gain/loss ratio for cooling is calculated with the following:
18
19
20
21
where:
The numerical parameters H and C depending on the building time constant () are defined by the following equations:
22
23
where:
24
where:
The internal heat capacity of the building zone is calculated by summing the heat capacity of the surfaces
in contact with the air volume of the zone.
58
25
In order to calculate the intermittent energy need for heating and cooling, a reduction factor is applied to
the overall process just described. It might be used in order to estimate the impact of different schedules
on the building performance.
In this case the energy need for intermittent heating is calculated with the following:
26
where:
27
where:
28
where:
For both total energy need and intermittent energy need, the results are normalized by the floor area and
converted to kWh (by multiplying the result by 0.277777778/Floor area). In this way, the output of these
calculation is converted to a value non dependent on the building dimensions. This output can be used to
compare different design performance.
59
4.3 Workflow
The workflow for the use of the developed components is divided in steps, as shown in figure.
Natural ventilation
average monthly rates
(hot months)
Requirements
for ventilation rates
(no hot months)
Building program
equipment, lighting +
people gains density
Building geometry
Opaque surfaces
total area
Glazed surfaces
total area
Walls U-value
Opaque elements
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Total
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Glazed elements
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Glazing U-value
Facades geometry
extracted
Heating&Cooling
need calculation
Monthly results
Solar radiation
calculation
Glazing SHGC
Weather data
Monthly average
temperatrues
The first step is the extraction of data from the building geometry, envelope materials and weather data.
From the building geometry, opaque and glazed elements total surface area are needed in order to run
the calculation for heat transfer by transmission and solar heat gains. Envelope materials features, such
as SHGC of windows and U-values of glazing and walls are also inputs for these calculations. Weather data
is used to run the solar radiation calculation, which is performed through the Solar Radiation component
from the plug-in for GH (Ladybug). Furthermore, average temperatures are extracted from the weather
data file, also done through components from Ladybug.
Moreover, the internal heat gains are calculated according to the specific building program and total surface area.
The calculation is performed by a stand-alone component that outputs the monthly need for heating,
cooling, and the total need.
thesis. Even though the calculation components have a simple and clear interface, they are not intended
to be fully automated, but to serve the bigger picture described in chapter 2. Therefore, in order to work
properly, data needs to be manually extracted from the building geometry for any purpose.
1.
2.
4.
3.
Fig. 4.3: Components for Heating and Cooling developed in Grasshopper for Rhinoceros
The components illustrated in figure 4.3 are here after described in detail.
61
63
4.5 Conclusions
The developed set of components is based on a reliable international standard, which is granted to have a
good level of precision especially for hot and cold months, while it might have a small distance from reality
for months at the beginning or the end of the cooling period (Kokogiannakis 2008). However, this calculation method can be a good basis for annual energy need analysis, especially in the early design stages.
Moreover, the possibility of inputting the values inherited from the Natural Ventilation solver described in
the next chapter will be fundamental for the research done within this thesis. The results coming from the
connection of these two set of tools can be interesting to understand the effect of natural ventilation on
the total energy need of a building. It is not unlikely to say that in a number of design solutions that will be
evaluated for the case study optimization, the output for heating need will result in loads also in summer,
when natural ventilation is used for passive cooling. Therefore, it is important to test the way these two
sets of components interact and what is the balance that the building needs to achieve in terms of temperature and airflow in order to have good results for the overall energy need.
4.6 Recommendations
The main recommendation about the developed set of tools is the automation of results. It is necessary
to remember here that data is extracted from the parametric model by passing through another step that
needs to be covered by the user, for a specific situation. Therefore, the process can become complex. A
solution for this could be the automation of the whole process in a fewer number of components capable
of be inputted directly with the building geometry and envelope materials features.
Moreover, the solar radiation calculation is currently done through the use of the plug-in for GH Ladybug,
but another approach could result in having the calculations for solar radiation embedded directly together with the solar heat gains calculation tool.
64
5.1 Introduction
The review done on existing tools for natural ventilation showed that there is a dominance of analysis
tools such as (Modelica, Comis, Contam) over design tool. However, it is well known that in the early
stage of the design, a fast feedback from the design choices is needed, in order to support the development of the design itself. Furthermore, it is not unlikely to say that most of the calculation software for
natural ventilation have a high computational time to give feedback. From the review done on analysis
software for natural ventilation, Coolvent by MIT appears to be the best in terms of computational time
and results, since it outputs both values for airflow and temperature of the indoor air.
Accuracy
Detailed
(slow)
Isothermal CFD
(Fluent, Phoenics, DB, etc)
CFD
(Fluent, Phoenics, DB, etc)
Zonal model
(E+, Esp-r, POMA, etc)
Rough
(fast)
Multi-zone model
(COMIS, CONTAM, etc)
CoolVent
(multi-zone model)
no
yes
However, its simplistic interface and the absence of an actual building model make this software not easy
to be coupled with other evaluation tools, which is fundamental for the goals of this thesis. Therefore,
there was the need for the development of a simple and fast tool, capable of giving results both for airflow
and temperature, that could be used within a parametric environment and coupled with other evaluation
tools (such as the Heating&Cooling need discussed in chapter 4).
The selected calculation method includes a set of empirical formulas. The simplified nature of these equations makes them suitable for the early design stages. They define the bulk air displacement due to wind
pressure or stack effect, or a combination of both.
To be solved is the equations that govern the flow of air through openings throughout a building. In order
to give an output for both airflow and temperature, the calculation model will comprise also the heat
balance equation described in equation 1 of chapter 4. Regarding the opening area that allows air displacement, the principle applied is the one for single zone buildings. However, since the purpose was to create a
tool capable of calculating the effects of solar and heat gains and heat transfer on the natural airflow, each
zone should be calculated separately.
The principle behind this set of tools is in line with the concept of approximation described in 2.5.4, which
is specific for early stages optimizations, when a high number of evaluations are needed. By reducing the
level of accuracy of one evaluation, its computational time can be reduced. This is normally called problem
approximation. However, the outputs of the evaluations should still be considered reliable in terms of coherency, instead of high detail of results.
66
where:
Qi is the airflow through the opening i (m3/s).
Cdi is the discharge coefficient (-).
Ai is surface area of the opening (m2).
pi is the pressure difference (Pa).
is the density of the air. It can be approximated to 1,2 kg/m3.
The discharge coefficient is a non-dimensional value depending on the area ratio and the Reynolds number
of the opening. Generally, a value between 0.60 and 0.8 is taken as standard, even though it could vary
noticeably with low values of Reynolds number.
where:
PE0 is the external hydrostatic pressure at ground level (Pa).
PI0 is the internal hydrostatic pressure at ground level (Pa).
0 is the density difference at ground level (kg/m3).
g is the gravitational force per unit mass (m/s2).
zi is the height of opening i above ground level (m). This is the height where the flow leaves the opening,
normally the height of the opening.
The density difference at ground level is defined by:
where:
e and i are the densities of the external and internal air respectively (kg/m3).
Equation 2 can be applied to any opening having any direction, and can either describe an outflow or an
inflow. It is also independent of the fact that the indoor temperature can be either higher or lower than
the one outside.
67
Where pwi is the wind pressure at the point on the envelope where the opening i lies (Pa).
pwi is normally derived from wind tunnel test, and it is normally addressed in terms of wind pressure coefficient.
where: pref is a reference pressure (Pa) and U is the wind speed (m/s).
Therefore, the pressure difference across an opening, at which an external flow occurs, becomes:
where:
p0 is an abbreviation for: PE0 - PI0 - pref
This definition of pressure difference is taken from the CIBSE Applications Manual AM10. In this manual,
the equations used are derived on assumptions made in order to directly calculate the ventilation opening dimensions that satisfy a defined airflow pattern (CIBSE 2005). In case we want to evaluate a specific
design, this equation needs a numerical method, known as Newton-Raphson method, to solve both for
difference of pressure and airflow. The unknown term is the p0. This is what is solved in an Airflow Network model.
Where Aeff is calculated with equation 12. Pw is the difference of pressure over the whole building, due
to wind (Pa). It is defined by the following equation:
where:
Cpw is the wind pressure coefficient on the windward facade (-).
Cpl is the wind pressure coefficient on the leeward facade (-).
The sign is used because the wind can be either assisting or opposing. Therefore, + will be used for assisting, while - for opposing.
68
10
Where:
analyised point
NCp is the normalized Cp (-).
Z angle between the wind direction and the outward normal of the
As is the wind angle (radians). It is the
wall considered.
G = Ln (S) (natural logarithm of the side ratio S). The side ratio S is the ratio between the width of the considered wall and the width of the next wall.
ng top view
analyised point
facade normal
wi
nd
wi
nd
dir
ec
tio
dir
ec
tio
n
C2 = -1.175
C3 = 0.131
C4 = 0.769
C5 = 0.071
C6 = 0.717
From the normalized Cp value calculate the actual Cp by multiplying the normalized value by the Cp at zero
incidence for that wall. Use Cp at zero incidence to be 0.6.
69
11
Where:
Building front view
Cp is the Wind pressure coefficient on a specific point (-).
H
Xr=(XL-0.5)/0.5 (-).
XL is the Length Ratio: the horizontal position of a point on a wall, the ratio of the distance X of a point from
analyised point
the border of the wall to the length L of the wall considered (-).
AS is the wind angle (radians).
Z
S is the side ratio (-).
ZH is the Height Ratio: the vertical position of a point on a wall. It is the ratio of the distance Z of a point
from the ground to the height H of the wall considered (-).
Building topBuilding
view front view
S
H
analyised point
on
cti
ind
e
dir
analyised point
wi
nd
facade normal
AS
wi
nd
dir
ec
tio
dir
ec
tio
n
CO = 0.068
C2 = 1. 733
C4 = -0.922
C1 = -0.839
C3 = -1.556
C5 = 0.344
n
o
cti
C6 = -O.801
C9 = 0.691
C7 = 1.118 analyised C10
= 2.515
point
C8 = -0.961
C11 = 0.399
wi
nd
facade normal
C12 = -0.431
C13= 0.046
dir
ec
wi
nd
dir
e
cti
tio
X
e
onused to
In order to account
proposed a correction factor,
n
ASfor neighbouring buildings, Swami and Chandra
dir
L
nd
i
adjust thew Cp obtained with the previous formulas. The factor depends on the geometrical disposition of
L
the neighbouring buildings.
13
14
An acceptable approximation of this equation would be ignoring the differences between densities. In this
way it can be simplified to:
15
71
5.3 Workflow
The workflow for the natural ventilation solver shares many similarities with the one for heating and cooling need. However, the calculations done in this case are for the worst case scenarios in summer, that will
be used to evaluate the thermal comfort levels.
Wind pressure
coecient
Wind pressure
dierence
Eective opening
area
Building program
equipment, lighting +
people gains density
Building geometry
Opaque surfaces
total area
Glazed surfaces
total area
Walls U-value
Opaque elements
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Glazed elements
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Glazing U-value
Facades geometry
extracted
Airow &
Temperature
average
airflow rate
Total
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Solar radiation
calculation
Glazing SHGC
Weather data
Monthly average
temperatrues
As for heating and cooling the first step is the extraction of data from the building geometry, envelope
materials and weather data. After this, the calculations for heat transfer by transmission, solar heat gains
and internal heat gains are done. At the same time, wind pressure coefficients on the faades, pressure
difference along the building and effective opening area are calculated. These results are fed into the Airflow&Temperature component, which can output values of airflow and temperature for each calculated
zone. The output can be either a snapshot for a worst scenario in summer or a monthly average airflow.
As for heating and cooling need, solar radiation is calculated through Ladybug, an environmental analysis
plugin for GH.
Ventilation solver. This means that a set of calculation components was developed by programming the
equations found through the research done within this thesis on natural ventilation calculation models.
The main objective for the development of the calculation components was to achieve a fast tool, capable
of output values for both airflow and temperature, which will be needed to assess a worst-case scenario
for thermal comfort in summer. Therefore, the main focus was to find the set of equations that would give
the wanted results without compromising computational time and complexity of the script.
This results in a non-completely automated process, which will be illustrated and explained in the next
paragraphs. As the same for Heating&Cooling need component, data needs to be extracted by the building
model and fed in to the components by the user. Again, solar radiation calculation needed for the calculation of solar heat gains is done by using Ladybug. Moreover, the developed Natural Ventilation solver
needs calculations of heat transfer by transmission, solar heat gains and internal heat gains. For these, the
same components illustrated in chapter 4 will be used.
T zone 1
Q zone 1
T zone 2
Q zone 2
T zone 3
T zone n
Q zone 3
Q zone n
T atrium
New
Q zone 2
New
T zone 2
New
Q zone 3
New
Q zone n
n iterations
New
T zone 3
New
T zone n
Atrium-Environment
pressure difference
T Atrium
Q Atrium
5.4.3 Assumptions
The Natural Ventilation solver components are built on a number of assumptions.
The main assumption regard considering the building as one unique zone, while calculating separately the
air displacement for each zone, considering also the effects of internal and solar gains and heat transfer
73
by transmission.
The size of the opening is assumed to be small enough for the calculation of the pwi at the specific point to
be appropriate. This assumption can be reasonable for small openings such as vents and normal window
sizes, but it can result in low precision for larger openings.
Within the developed calculation tool, the total amount of air leaving the atrium or solar chimney is always
split among the number of zones connected to it. This is an approximation necessary since it is not easy to
predict the exact behaviour of the air distribution along the building height, because the exact difference
of pressure between the zones and the atrium zone is unknown. Such a detailed simulation is performed
by software like CoolVent (which uses a set of complex Airflow Network calculations), which predicts the
differences of pressure between building zones.
Equations number 13 shows the way the effective opening concept is extended to multiple openings
placed in parallel. However, this equation is an assumption taken in order to calculate the total opening
area of the building. With this assumption it is possible estimate the building capacity for natural airflow.
Height ratio is the ratio between the height of the point on the facade and the total building height. Length
ratio, Height ratio and Side ratio need to be manually provided by the user.
Pressure difference due to wind
Inputs
_Wind pressure coefficent windward facade (-)
_Wind pressure coefficient leeward facade (-)
_Wind speed (m/s)
Outputs
_Wind pressure due to wind (Pa)
The pressure difference due to wind (equation number 8) is calculated by this component, whose output
will be fed in to the Airflow&Temperature component. In case of atrium and assisting wind, the wind pressure coefficient on the leeward facade (which belongs to the atrium in this case) should be considered as
negative and set as an average value for horizontal surfaces. In case of opposing wind, the wind pressure
coefficient for the atrium openings can be considered as positive. The wind speed (m/s) is retrieved from
the environmental analysis components belonging to Ladybug (plugin for GH), which extracts the data
from the EPW file.
Effective opening area component
Inputs
_Exterior Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Interior Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Opening Area Atrium (m2)
Outputs
_Effective Opening Area (m2)
This component runs for a specific number of zones (this image shows only 3). The effective opening area
will be fed into the Airflow&Temperature component and it defines how much the building is capable to
be natural ventilated. Multiple openings in parallel should also be defined by feeding both the exterior and
interior opening area of each zone. The dimensions of the ventilation openings (either windows or vents)
can be provided by extracting geometry data from the building model.
Neutral plane component
Inputs
_Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Opening Height zone n (m)
_Opening Area Atrium (m2)
_Opening Height Atrium (m)
Outputs
_Neutral plane height (m)
The neutral plane component has one main output: the height at which the neutral plane of the atrium/
solar chimney lies above the ground. The inputs needed is the surface area of the interior ventilation
75
openings and their height for each storey. The same information are needed for the Atrium openings. The
equation used for this component is number 16.
Airflow&Temperature component
Inputs
_Outdoor temperature (C)
_Solar heat gains zone n (W)
_Solar heat gains Atrium (W)
_Internal heat gains zone n (W)
_Internal heat gains Atrium (W)
_Heat transmission zone n (W)
_Effective opening area (m2)
_Atrium Height (m)
_Difference of pressure due to wind (Pa)
Outputs
_Airflow rate zone n (m3/s)
_Airflow rate Atrium (m3/s)
_Air temperature zone n (C)
_Air temperature Atrium (C)
The Airflow&Temperature component can differ according to the calculated scenario (as better explained
in the next paragraph). It gives an output for both ventilation and temperature for each zone. It embeds
the equations presented in 5.2. The evaluation is for a specific moment of the year, as a snapshot. The
inputs needed, such as solar heat gains, heat transfer by transmission and internal heat gains need are
considered as average for each storey. They can be retrieved by the other components presented in chapter 4. The number of zones is specific for the design assessed. The component developed for the practical
application within this thesis comprises 30 storeys/zones. Therefore, the number of floors is needed as
input, in order to split the airflow leaving the atrium within the right number of floors that the building
has. Moreover, the airflow rate can be affected by the difference of pressure along the building, therefore,
in order to account for it, the input for difference of pressure due to wind should be fed.
A1 + A2 + A3
A1 + A2 + A3
Aa
cpl
cpw
igh
ogh
Calculation scenario 2
In scenario 2, the building uses both an atrium/chimney and a Double Skin Faade (DSF), as ventilation
strategy. However, the natural ventilation calculation is only affected by the atrium. In order to simply the
calculation, no effects related to air displacement within the DSF are accounted. However, it is important to
notice that the gains coming from the DSF will be influencing the temperature of the building zones, which
is important to investigate the potential in extending the natural ventilation period of a building. However,
the DSF should be shaded in summer to avoid overheating of the incoming air.
Also in this case the natural airflow can be affected by wind pressure on the facade of the DSF and atrium
roof.
Ad A1 + A2 + A3
A1 + A2 + A3
Aa
cpl
cpw
igh
ogh
Scenario 3
In scenario 3, the building is cross ventilated. In this case the buoyancy driven flow can be neglected from
the calculations. Therefore the calculation model in this case only considers the difference of pressure due
to wind, acting on the windward and leeward faades, and the effective opening area of each storey. In
order to account for the changes in temperature between zones, once again the internal and solar heat
gains are taken into account, as well as the heat transfer by transmission and ventilation. The airflow output of each zone is affected by the height above the ground of the zone, because the wind speed follows
the principle explained in 5.2.5.
77
A1
A2
A3
cpw
cpl
Qap Qp
Qsol,interpret
d
(QapIn
+Qorder
p) + (Qsol, d+Qsol, i) - Qvent - Qtr = 0
to compare and better
the results
The BEANS software is able to cut slices of the thermal stratification and give an output for any analysis
height that is set by the user. From the results of the analysis done for a height of 5 meters (low figure)
from the ground level of the atrium, the mean temperature is 26C. However, the highest temperature
given at a height of 20 meters is about 36C.
78
A model representing the Atrium Building was created in Rhinoceros and imported in Grasshopper. By setting the ventilation openings (Effective opening area) in a way that the results coming from the component
would match the same amount of airflow calculated by the BEANS software (mechanical ventilation), it
was possible to get a comparable result for the temperature. In this way, it was possible to spot eventual
major differences between the two simulation tools. However, the validity of this comparison was only
restricted to the thermal calculation involved in the Natural Ventilation solver.
The output for the atrium temperature coming from the developed calculation tool shows similar result to
the peak temperature calculated by the software. It was deducted that the temperature output given by
this component is actually an approximation of the highest temperature within a zone.
When an atrium design is involved, a more detailed thermal analysis should be conducted, especially if the
occupants of the building use the atrium. However, for the goals of this thesis, a good approximation of
the highest temperature can be good enough to roughly determine the amount of airflow that is leaving
the atrium/solar chimney.
79
The results coming from the component show a zone temperature ranging from 27.10C (top storeys) to
25.90C (lower storeys). It is important to notice the neutral plane calculation, which outputs a value of
7.35 meters. This means that the neutral plane of the atrium is at a height lower than the vents of the top
storeys. As shown in literature, this can result (under specific condition) in an inflow at the top storeys (fig.
5.12). The results coming from the component needed then to be updated in case of an inflow coming
from the top storeys. The total airflow leaving the atrium vents is 6.37 m3/s.
80
The results from CoolVent confirm the prediction of the Airflow&Temperature component, giving a total
airflow of 6.33 m3/s, and an inflow at the top storeys. However, the specific airflow rates per zones are
different. This is related to the assumption of splitting the total airflow among the number of floors, which
was taken in order to simplify the calculations within the component. This affects also the output temperatures. It can be observed in CoolVent that the lower temperatures are found at the bottom storeys, which
can also be seen from the Airflow&Temperature tool.
According to the results from the Airflow&Temperature component, the neutral plane lies below the top
vents, meaning that an inflow can occur at the top floor. The total airflow leaving the atrium is 3.76 m3/s,
while the zone temperature is 20.70C. In this case, the total airflow shown in figure 5.14 is not affected by
the neutral plane. The intention is to show the similarities between the two calculators, in case the neutral
plane results would have matched the results from CoolVent.
For this simulation, CoolVent shows an upper storey airflow rate close to 0 m3/s, and a total airflow of 3.60
m3/s. This case is a good example to show the limits of the developed component. If the neutral plane calculation does not allow for an accurate result, the component would give slightly diverse results from the
CoolVent ones. The zone temperatures from the Airflow&Temperature component are also slightly higher
than the ones retrieved from CoolVent.
81
The results from the Airflow&Temperature component show a neutral plane higher than the top vents, and
a total airflow of 4.59 m3/s. The zones temperature is in average 20.28C. CoolVent results show similarities, since the total airflow is 4.48 m3/s. Once again, the temperature results show dissimilarities, because
of the different airflow rate occurring at each floor.
82
The results from the component show an increase of airflow and a decrease of average temperature, with
a total airflow rate of 8.92 m3/s.
The results in CoolVent show that an increase of the ventilation rate is confirmed. However, a dissimilar
result for the total airflow is given. This might be due to the wind pressure coefficients that are considered
as average for the whole building faades (Cp windward and Cp leeward). As shown in the last case of
comparisons, the CoolVent software does not consider changes in wind speed related to the height above
ground. This might bring slightly different results from the ones output by the Airflow&Temperature component.
It can be observed from retrieved from the developed component that the neutral plane height above
ground is 14.30 meters, which is higher than the last two upper storeys. This means that the output of
the total airflow must be adjusted accordingly. The total airflow rate is then 6.00 m3/s, while the zones
temperatures are around 23C.
83
Similar results can be retrieved from the CoolVent model, since the output for the total airflow is 7.67 m3/s,
while the temperatures range from 20.8C to 24.3C.
At the upper floor, where the wind speed is higher and the airflow rate is the higher, the temperature is
lower. Moreover, the left side of the building has lower temperatures, since the external temperature only
affects it. On the other hand, the right side is affected also by the gains of the zone on the left side of the
84
The graph shows that the two tools generally share similar results and a good match in terms of coherency.
Precise results appear to be the ones retrieved from the first three scenarios, in which also the central
atrium configuration was tested. It is good to know that this tools can have good results in terms of central
atrium scenario, since it is going to be used for the application on the case study within this thesis.
Moreover, it is shown in case 4 that the increase of airflow due to wind effect is coherent with the result
retrieved from CoolVent, even though with relative difference. The comparison of case 5 shows that the
tool outputs similar values also in case of a tall building. This is also a good result for the future application
on the case study, which comprises high-rise blocks.
In general, the results of specific zones can be relatively different, but always within an acceptable limit.
This is due by the assumption taken in dividing the total airflow leaving the atrium within the number of
storeys. However, from literature it is well-known that this situation should be the best design situation,
because the design would be delivering the same thermal comfort for each storey. Moreover, this situation
can be achieved with an increasing ventilation openings area increasing along the building height.
The application of the Natural Ventilation solver can be considered a good level of problem approximation, useful to overcome time issues typical of early stages of a design. This set of calculation tools are
very quick in providing a result, especially when data are inputted manually. Since more reliable results
are given when solar radiation analysis and calculation of solar heat gains are done, the overall calculation
can take longer (depending on the geometry to be analysed) due to the computational time needed by the
solar radiation analysis provided by Ladybug (plug-in for GH). However, the same solar radiation analysis
needed to run the Heating&Cooling need component can be used for the purpose of natural ventilation
analysis.
85
5.8 Recommendations
The same recommendations as for the Heating&Cooling need calculation tools can be given for the Natural
Ventilation solver. An important future step for these sets of tools is the automation of data for input. At
the moment, the tools need to be fed for any kind of data. A future possibility would be to retrieve the
geometric information directly from the building model geometry. This would result in a faster execution
of the preparation of an optimization analysis.
Furthermore, the neutral plane and effective opening are calculations could be embedded into one unique
component to be fed into the Airflow&Temperature component. In this way, an automated result considering the position of the neutral plane might be performed.
86
A practical application of the developed optimization process is tested on a case study of an existing office
building. The objective of this investigation is to show the potential of an integrated approach for optimization by re-shaping an existing building, whose design was not developed trough the use of computational
analysis. The case study was provided by Arup (Amsterdam), which has worked on the re-design of the
technical installations of the current building.
6.1 Location
The building used as a case study is the Atrium Building. It is located in the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, specifically in the district of Zuidas.
Zuidas is a business district, also known as the Financial Mile that is fatly developing, where several large
multinationals have built their headquarters. It is expected to develop more and have the second largest
train station of the city of Amsterdam within a few years.
The building shares its site with two other tower buildings, both featuring 16 storeys. The highway A10,
which stands at a distance of about 100 meters from the building faade, prominently characterizes the
south side.
88
89
Currently, the program at the ground floor is characterized by: catering areas, restaurant, commercial
rooms, atrium space (for block A), service core and a large technical space. The main entrance, belonging
to block A justifies its shortest height and the south-facing atrium.
The first floor presents office, meeting and commercial rooms, while having also one of the three blocks
completely occupied by technical rooms.
It is important to notice here, that the atrium of block C does not reach the first floor, but it starts cutting
the building slabs only from the third floor. Small meeting rooms and open office layouts characterize the
third floor and the ones above.
Also important is the layout of block B, where as for the block C, the building features the atrium void only
starting from the sixth floor. This is also due to the distribution of technical rooms at the first floors of block
B.
90
91
Noise pollution
From the analysis done on the surroundings of the Atrium, the greatest noise source that could cause pollution is the highway facing the building on the South side. It seems clear that the distance is not enough
to guarantee a natural dissipation of the noise coming from the car traffic, which could cause discomfort
within the office environment. Therefore, the use of faade strategies to decrease the impact of noise
could be a good solution for this problem.
92
Visual comfort
Another indoor environmental issue is found within the design of block B. This building block is characterized by an atrium that does not reach the ground floor, resulting in a number of deep floor storeys. Specifically, the first six storeys are not reached by the atrium, as shown in the following image.
Even though the first three storeys are occupied entirely by mechanical rooms, the need for extra artificial
lighting requires extra energy consumption. Furthermore, the fourth and fifth floors are occupied by office
space, which will especially require a constant need for artificial lighting. The deep plan layout of the first
six storeys does not allow easy penetration for natural ventilation. Moreover, this building is not naturally
ventilated and its atria are therefore only a mean of passive daylight.
93
6.6 Conclusions
The Atrium building results to be a good base for an optimization analysis. Its shape suggests specific architectural intents that can be traced and translated back to initial early stages decisions. Moreover, the
buildings main feature, the three Atria, are a beautiful example of sustainable architecture, even though
currently they are not used for passive cooling goal.
As explained, the current building design presents indoor environmental issues that are also confirmed
by thermal analysis. Therefore, it is not unlikely to say that the existing building design can be improved.
The found issues helped in defining two different scenarios for the re-design of the case study. These two
scenarios comprises different aspects of energy performing building design, both with a focus on natural
ventilation as strategy for passive cooling.
Scenario 1 - Whole building optimization
The first scenario is the most complete one, since it will eventually provide answers for all the proposed
research questions. The focus is on the main design aspects and variables affecting building geometry and
basic envelope parameters discussed in chapter 3. The goal is to find new building and atria configurations
that can lead to higher performances.
Scenario 2 - Optimization of Atrium A
The second scenario focuses on simple facade design aspects, such as facade materials and shading devices geometry. The goal is to show the potential on integrating shadings into the practical application of the
proposed holistic process, which is not accounted for in scenario 1. The reason for this is the difficulty, with
common computational means, to parametrically model a whole building comprising also shading devices,
especially when several evaluations are to be performed.
94
7.1 Methodology
As shown in the following figure, the methodology applied for the development of Scenario 1 comprises
7 phases.
Current issues
Optimization strategies
Opt. without NV
strategy
Opt. with NV
strategy
Final discussion
Phase 0 comes with the analysis of the current situation of the case study, the Atrium building.
During step 1 fundamental decisions related to the re-design of the office building were taken, such as
variables, constraints, which will guide the optimization study for the current Scenario.
After, evaluation criteria and objective functions are selected and incorporated in order to assess the fitness of the individuals. Differences between the hypothetical process and the applied one will be explained in paragraph 7.3.
In order to be able to compare the results of the optimization against an initial design, a base case is proposed. It is important to notice here that the base case is taken as a good approximation of the original
design. A complete analysis of this base case is done and it will be used as starting point (to be improved)
of the optimization.
The next step is the application of the tested optimization process within the specified boundaries and
objectives and retrieving the results from three tests: one comprising Atria as natural ventilation strategy,
one without any natural ventilation strategy but keeping the Atria as natural daylight strategy, and one test
done following the guidelines of the hypothetical process in terms of variables to be set (with a holistic
approach). These three tests are done in order to be able to spot whether and in what extent natural ventilation strategies can affect the design in its early stages.
The results retrieved from the optimization studies are then shown and compared with each other and
also with the base case analysis. More information about the specific methodology applied on Scenario 1
is presented in paragraph 7.6.1.
Finally, a discussion about all the data retrieved from the optimization studies done within the Scenario 1
is presented.
96
20
morphology and layout can be considered as passive strategy, since it can assume different configurations
allowing for different passive performance.
Independent design variables
B
Block shape
The shape of each building block is set as continuous variable. The parameter is defined until its first decimal number. Specifically, the design variable affecting a block shape is the ground floor rectangular shape.
The rectangle defining the ground floor and therefore the whole building block can be scaled within deC
fined limits (10 m towards the center of each rectangle)
10 m
xed
te
atrium roof height variable
10 m
Block orientation
The orientation of each block can individually change by rotating around their central axis, as described in
the following image. The range, however, is restricted by both site geometry constraints and ground floor
border geometry. The rotation angle ranges between 20 and -20 from the initial position. The variable is
set with integer intervals.
m3/s
xed spacing
20
98
center point of
scaling
m2
Windows opening
In the developed scenario, the windows geometry is set as dependent parameter, but their relative dimensions are design variables that need to be optimized. The range of their dimensions is given by a continuous definition of the percentage of the wall surface that they take. The variable has a continuous range
between 20 and 80%. Moreover, there is a distinction between the blocks faades, which are dependent
on different parameters. Thus, the results can lead to optimized configurations for specific faade orientations. Since the three blocks have rectangular shapes resulting in 4 sides, the total number of parameters
roof height variable
affecting the windows opening of the whole building is 12. Each atrium
faade
will have the same window configuration for all its windows.
The shape of the windows is a dependent parameter because it is derived by the blocks faade width,
which is also dependent of the ground floor shape variable. In this scenario, the windows were defined by
a fixed number of sub-surfaces dividing each storeys faade. Therefore, the shape will always be a rectangle, scaling around its center point. Furthermore, the position of the windows does always leave a bottom
space on a storeys faade, that will be used for ventilation openings. However, it is important to notice
here that ventilation openings were set as fixed parameters.
m3/s
xed spacing
center point of
scaling
U-value envelope
The U-value of the envelope is set as a discrete variables having different ranges, if considering the opaque
surfaces or the transparent ones. The opaque elements, the exterior walls, can have a U-values of 0.2, 0.3,
0.4, 0.5 W/m2K. The window glass can have U-values equals to 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 W/m2K, as most common
window glasses have.
SHGC windows
The Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of the windows was set as continuous variable with a range between 0.4
and 0.9.
Dependent parameters
A number of dependent parameters can be identified for this specific case study.
Ventilation openings
One of the design variables explained in chapter 3 was set as fixed parameter, not capable to parametrically change. This is the ventilation opening dimensions, set as 4 m2 per storey. The area set for the vents located in both the outer envelope and in the interior side of the atria is set as constant for each storey. However, this parameter is better defined as dependent, because by increasing the number of storeys, the
number of vents will follow along. The vents are located on the South-facing faades of the three blocks.
99
xed spacing
center point of
scaling
Number of storeys
Even though a maximum number of floors can be defined according to local legislation or other factors, in
this case the maximum number of storeys is dependent on the ground floor shape dimension, which will
result in different building shapes. This is due to the fact that each tower cannot exceed or have smaller
surface area that the one set as constraint.
Atrium shape and size
The three atria shapes and size are dependent on the main block shape and size, because they cover 40%
of the total usable floor area of each storey, without being defined by specific parameters. This value was
set as a good estimation of the ratio of atria area against usable floor area of the existing building.
m3/s
m/s
m2
In order to predict with a good level of approximation what the level of thermal comfort inside a space
is,
number of calculation models were developed by researchers in the last decades. According to the
xed a
spacing
research done, the most suitable model for naturally ventilated buildings is the Adaptive comfort model.
However, in order to explore different possibilities and because of its fast application, the Fangers Percentage of People Dissatisfied (PPD) was the model applied for Scenario 1, while for Scenario 2 the Adaptive
0.8% WWR (max)
model was investigated.
The retrieved result from Fangers method is a number representing the percent0.6% WWR
WWR (min)
age of people0.2%that
will probably be dissatisfied.
It is clear that the value retrieved by the PPD calculation (%) must be minimized. According to the literature,
objective function is then:
center point the
of
scaling
Minimize F(x1, , xn)
With F being the function resulting in the PPD, and x1, , xn the variables affecting it, such as Dry bulb
temperature, wind speed. The other parameters affecting PPD (Relative Humidity, Clothing level, Metabolic rate) are considered as constant. For Relative humidity, the value is retrieved from the EPW data file for
the average warmest day in summer. Clothing level and metabolic rate are fixed as typical values for an
office space in summer (0.7 clo and 1,2 met).
Visual comfort and related objective function
As already explained in previous chapters, visual comfort can be assessed by analyzing the illuminance
level and distribution within a space, on a surface lying at 1,0 meter from the ground level. The number
of points defined for a good estimation of the indoor lux distribution for this design is around 174 points.
101
However, due to changes in the blocks layout, this number can slightly change.
Especially, for the proposed hypothetical process, daylight is evaluated according to the UDI (Useful Daylight Illuminance) definition. However, UDI calculations can become time consuming, depending on the
complexity of the model, because they analyse the daytime illuminance levels over an entire year. Because
of the relative complexity of the Atrium design and the need of performing three calculations instead of
one (three detached building blocks), a simplified method is proposed, which brings a lower level of detail,
xed number of
test points
atrium roof height variable
1m
but a faster evaluation. The assessment of daylight levels will be done only for two snapshots of the entire
year: for January 21 at 12:00, and for June 21 at 12:00.
However, the principle of UDI is conserved. The objective function is built upon the idea of maximizing
the number of test points on which the lux value is above 500 lux (minimum comfortable level for office
buildings), but it does not exceed the 2000 lux (where glare problems could occur). Therefore the optimization algorithm will try to findm3/s
the solutions with them2higher number
of test points within this range. This
m/s
particular evaluation criterion will be indicated from now on as UDI*.
The related objective function is:
Minimize F(x1, , xn) > 2000 lux
F(x1, , xn) < 500 lux
xed spacing
Where F is the number of points resulting from the raytracing analysis. This fitness function is influenced
by many factors (specific for this scenario), such as orientation, floor depth, window geometry and sizes,
atrium geometry and size.
As explained within chapter 3 (in line with the concept of approximation), daylight analysis can be re0.8% WWR (max)
stricted to those
0.6% WWR critical spaces in which is expected a lower level of daylight. In this case, the first floor
0.2% WWR (min)
of the Atrium
building is defined as the test floor, because it is the level less exposed to sunlight, and
more likely to receive less illuminance levels. Since each storey has the same opening dimensions (for each
faade),
it is assumed that if the design is optimized for the first floors illuminance levels, also the daylight
center
point of
scaling
levels of the whole building will be improved.
Moreover, the reflectivity of the interior surfaces was set as 0.7, (clear surface), while the LTA of the glazing
was set as fixed throughout all the analysis, with a value of 0.6.
Heating and Cooling need and related objective function
In order to assess the performance of the overall building geometry, the evaluation criteria regarding operational energy (with a focus on heating and cooling loads) is the Heating and Cooling need. This value
indicates the amount of energy that is needed to be provided to or extracted from an indoor space, in order to deliver a comfortable temperature range. As defined in chapter 3, for an office building the comfort
range is generally set between 20C and 24C, according to Dutch standards.
Moreover, the ventilation rates play an important role for this evaluation, which can widely affect its results. The ventilation rates are partially (in June, July and August) calculated by the NaturalVentilation solver and for the rest of the year are defined by the Dutch national standard in matter of minimum ventilation
rates for healthy indoor air quality (0.65 l/s per person). The only months calculated for natural ventilation
are the summer ones, because it is the period (especially in the temperate climates such as the Netherlands) in which natural ventilation strategies can deliver thermal comfort without causing discomfort due
102
to over-cooling.
For the case study of the Atrium building, the evaluation will be done on the three blocks as separated
entities and the average of their energy need for both heating and cooling will determine their fitness.
Heating and Cooling need is evaluated on monthly basis, and can also be retrieved on annual basis (chapter 4). Therefore, the objective function must minimize the output result coming from the annual energy
need (average of the three blocks).
The objective function is then:
Minimize F(x1, , xn)
Where F is in this case the energy need (kWh/m2a) resulting from the Heating&Cooling calculation tool
developed within this thesis. This fitness is affected by many aspects, such as orientation, glazed elements
dimension, Envelope surface to Floor area ratio, ventilation rates, envelope U-value, SHGC of glazed elements, etc.
7.33 lux
14.38 lux
676.57 lux
23.08 lux
103
means that 43 points out of 174 are out of the defined range for visual comfort, which equals to almost
25% of the total floor area.
Heating and cooling
The following graphs show the annual need for heating and cooling of the base case, retrieved from the
developed calculation components.
Block
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Block
Block
Block
Block
Block
It is important to notice that these graphs show a relatively high need for heating also in summer months,
such as June, July and August. This is due to the calculation model, which considers the heat transfer by
ventilation beneficial in reducing cooling loads, but also its negative effects that might occur especially in
the early morning or late evening, when ventilation can actually increase the need for heating. However,
these results are considered not reliable, because it is very unlikely that heating loads in summer can ever
overcome those in winter months. More information on the changes adopted for the calculations is given
in 7.5.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Eventually, the calculations for heating and cooling were slightly modified, and the results are shown in
the next graphs.
As figure 7.14 shows, the cooling loads for the base case remain high even by introducing natual ventilation
in summer months. This is because embedding natural ventilation was not a design intent of the existing
building and its non-optimized design leads to small overall improvements.
PPD
The result retrieved by the thermal comfort analysis shows that PPD is 42.37%. The reason for such a low
score is because of the too high airflow rate and the relative low air dry bulb temperature.
104
WHOLE YEAR
SUMMER MONTHS
Heating calculation
Cooling calculation
For Scenario 1, the optimization studies were conducted with the previous calculation method, where the
natural ventilation rates were used also for the heating calculation. However, the improvement on the
calculation method was applied to the solutions found by the algorithm for the three performed analysis,
and the results shown partially within this chapter and in appendix C.
On the other hand, this improvement is applied since the beginning of Scenario 2, together with other
aspects not included within Scenario 1, as better explained in 7.8.
105
7.6.1 Methodology
The Atrium building is a mechanically ventilated building, whose Atria are only used as architectural and
daylight strategy. Since the three Atria are not used as natural ventilation strategy, the idea for the optimization studies was to set three different optimization analyses. The three performed tests have either
different objective functions or design variables. The stopping criterion for the computational process of
all the tests is the number of generations, which was set as 5. Moreover, the mutation rate and crossover
will be kept as fixed for all the tests. Mutation rate is set as 0.5 and mutation probability as 0.1. Crossover
rate is set as 0.8, in order to have better chances of achieving diversity in the results, with a wider set of
genomes evaluated.
The first study tries to optimize the building, without comprising any natural ventilation strategy. The building will be mechanically ventilated throughout the whole year. The parameters set are the ones related to
the main building geometry, as shown in paragraph 7.2, and the objective functions are Heating and Cooling need and UDI*. In order to be able to compare this analysis with the one comprising natural ventilation,
a further analysis of one solution belonging to the Pareto front will be presented.
The second study presents the same design variables as the first, but the evaluation comprises natural
ventilation and the fitness functions are calculated upon: Heating and Cooling need, PPD and UDI*. The
building is naturally ventilated in summer months (June, July and August).
The third study shares the same objective functions of the second case, but the design space is described
by a larger number of design variables, also the ones comprising basic envelope design parameters (SHGC
and U-values).
The selection of one optimal solution per each optimization study will be executed in order to be able to
compare the overall results, without the need of comparing all individuals. The selection criterion will be
the distance between the utopia point and the individuals belonging to the Pareto front. The individual
having the shortest distance will show a good fitness for all its objective functions, thus it will be selected
for comparisons. Moreover, in order to answer the initial three research questions of this research, three
comparisons will be presented.
Opt. analysis 1
Closest solution to
utopia point
Opt. analysis 3
Opt. analysis 2
Closest solution to
utopia point
Closest solution to
utopia point
Assessment of natural
ventilation strategy for
the selected individual
Comparison 2
Comparison 3
Comparison 1
Fitness solution x
Fitness solution x
Fitness solution x
Results
Specifically, a comparison between the optimization analysis 1 and 2 will be presented, in order to show to
what extent embedding natural ventilation can improve energy performance and thermal comfort in office
buildings. It is important to specify that the selected solution from analysis 1 will be further investigated by
106
introducing natural ventilation. In this way a more fair comparison can take place. This will also quantify
the benefits of introducing natural ventilation early in the optimization of office building performance.
A comparison between the base case and analysis 3 will be done, in order to estimate the potential of
integrating natural ventilation strategies within a design for an office building.
In order to assess to what extent a holistic approach can be beneficial in optimizing energy performance in
early stages of a design, a comparison between analysis 3 and analysis 2 will be presented.
7.6.2 Analysis 1
The first analysis focuses on the building layout and opening dimensions as design variables to be optimized. The objective functions applied in this case are heating and cooling need and UDI*, as described in
6.3. The goal is to reduce the energy need of the Atrium building for heating and cooling and to improve its
daylight levels. In this case, the building will be evaluated without any natural ventilation, but considering
mechanical ventilation as main supply of fresh air throughout the whole year, with a constant temperature
of 20C and flow rate of 0.65l/s per person.
For this analysis, the following parameters were set (explained in detail in 7.2.1) :
Blocks shape
Blocks orientations
Windows openings
The design variables that will be set as fixed are:
Walls U-value (0.4 W/m2K)
Windows U-value (3 W/m2K)
Windows SHGC (0.7)
Because natural ventilation will not be assessed, the parameters related to the natural ventilation strategy
(the atria roof height) are not considered.
The following image shows the results retrieved from the optimization algorithm.
13
9
3
4
6
8
11
1
2
9
14
Utopia point
5
10
12
107
The image represents the evaluations performed for this first analysis, during which hundreds of evaluation were performed (calculation time: 16 hours). The dashed red line represents the specific Pareto
front, which comprises 14 solutions. Above this line are all the dominated solutions of the search space.
By moving along the imaginary line of the Pareto front, the phenotypes belonging to the optimal set show
different morphologies and window dimensions.
The objective fitness of the Pareto front is shown in the following graph.
It is clear from this graph that energy need for heating and cooling increases when a better daylight distribution occurs. Therefore the Pareto front forms a set of trade-offs among which there is not one best
solution.
The phenotypes of solutions 13, 9, 10, 7 and 11 is shown in the following images. Solutions 13 and 9 have
the highest fitness in terms of heating and cooling, but the lowest in terms of UDI*, while solution 10 and
7 represent the highest fitness in terms of UDI*, and lowest in Heating and Cooling.
It can be observed that the solutions with highest fitness in terms of UDI* tend to have larger openings and
slender shapes. On the contrary, the solutions with better results in terms of heating and cooling need are
the ones with more compact shapes and relatively smaller openings.
108
109
The overall conclusion from this first analysis is that the three blocks tend always to be more detached
from each other (compared to the base case) in order to increase daylight and have better chances to get
passive solar heating in winter. On the other hand, this is not happening with the same magnitude for each
solution (solution 13).
As part of Analysis 1, one of the Pareto solutions is selected and analysed. For its short distance from the
utopia point of this optimization, solution number 11 is selected. The phenotype shows more balanced
window dimensions between the south and west facing faades.
kWh/m2
The need for heating and cooling for solution 11 are shown in the next graphs.
Block
kWh/m2
Block
Block
Block
Block
Block
As it can be observed, the energy need for cooling for block B is high compared to the others (with peaks
of almost 7kWh/m2 per month), while it has the lowest heating need among all. This is due to the shape of
the block, which appears to be the most compact among the three.
Solution 11 is further investigated by calculating heating and cooling need in case the building allows for
natural ventilation in summer months (June, July, August), not relying only on mechanical ventilation for
the whole year. In this case, the building will be passively cooled down in summer by using its atria as mean
of stack effect. The vents dimensions are the ones used for all the other analysis, as explained in 7.2.1. The
results, regarding energy need for heating and cooling are shown in the next graphs.
110
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2a
As expected, the overall energy need for heating and cooling is slightly decreased, compared to the previous results not involving natural ventilation. The overall reduction of energy need is due to the passive
cooling effects of natural ventilation in summer months. However, the only block having a good improvement in terms of cooling loads is block B. Moreover, the overall energy need decrease is not very high.
Fig. 7.32: Comparison of total energy need for heating and cooling
This can be due to the fact that natural ventilation was not optimized together with the other aspects,
resulting only in slightly better results for cooling loads.
In paragraph 7.6 solution 11 embedding natural ventilation strategy is used for comparison with the selected solution of analysis 2.
7.6.3 Analysis 2
The second analysis is carried by setting the same variables as the first one. The difference is on the selected objective functions, which in this case will be Heating and Cooling need, PPD and UDI*. In this case, the
building is naturally ventilated in summer months, such as June, July and August.
For this analysis, the following variables were used (explained in detail in 7.2.1):
Blocks shape
Blocks orientation
Atria roof height
Windows openings
The design parameters that will be set as fixed, the same as the base case:
Wall U-value (0.4 W/m2K)
Window U-value (3 W/m2K)
Window SHGC (0.7)
Ventilation openings (9 m2)
111
pia point
t
Regarding the ventilation openings, their number was set to follow the number of storeys, but without the
possibility of assuming larger configurations than the given values.
The following picture shows the results retrieved from the optimization algorithm.
12
12
1
3 2
4
1
3 2
4
11
18
10
17
11
18
13
13
9
16 15
13
18
12
7
5
14
8
11
1
3 2
4
11
18
13 6& Cooling
Fig. 7.34: Top view - PPD vs Heating
10
17
9
16 15
6
16
13
18
12
7
5
14
8
1
3 2
4
16
11
11
18
13
Utopia point
16
The search space in this case has three dimensions representing the three objective functions. Also in this
case the search was done among hundreds of individuals. The resulting Pareto front comprises 17 solutions. In the top view of this optimization analysis is interesting to notice how the PPD and Heating and
Cooling fitness of each individual move along the same path. The reason for this is because in most cases,
a solution having a good fitness for thermal comfort in the worst case scenario in summer is likely to have
also lower cooling demand in summer months.
112
16
The comparison of the fitness belonging to the Pareto front is shown in the following graph.
As expected from the comparison of the fitness of the Pareto front, the UDI* is still a conflicting objective
for an optimization comprising also natural ventilation, while we can observe how PPD and heating and
cooling move with the same pace. An overall improvement can already be observed compared to analysis
1.
The phenotypes of a few solutions belonging to the Pareto front (6, 13, 10, 17) are presented in the next
images. Solutions 6 and 13 show a high fitness for UDI* while lowest for heating and cooling and PPD. On
the other hand, solutions 10 and 17 have the highest fitness for PPD, Heating and Cooling and the lowest
for UDI*.
Solution 13 shows high window openings for all south-facing faades. The same goes for solution 6, which,
however, shows a block C more slender and aligned to north-south direction, trying to decrease the effect
of solar radiation for the south-facing facade. In general, these solution tend to have higher heights than
the others.
Solutions 10 and 17 share a similar layout for the single blocks, assuming more compact shapes and a
wider south-facing envelope area. Also, they are characterized by smaller windows dimensions especially
for the south-facing side. Moreover, solution 17 shows rotated blocks, which can be due to the effect of
wind on the buildings faades or resulting in a better energy performance in combination with the specific
window openings.
113
Compared to the overall impression from analysis 1, the blocks of one of the solution with highest fitness
for heating and cooling drastically rotate around their axis. This must be due to the wind direction, which
is acting on the building faades, assisting the stack effect of the atria for natural airflow.
114
For its distance from the utopia point, solution 16 is selected for further analysis (heating and cooling
loads are shown in Appendix C) and comparisons.
The phenotype shows a good balance of windows dimensions while its blocks tend to be more compact
than all the other solutions.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The heating and cooling loads show an overall reduction compared to analysis 1. Especially, blocks A and C
benefit from a relatively high reduction in cooling need over the whole year. This can be due to the smaller
window openings. Block B has also good reduction of cooling, which can be due to its height and also the
increased atrium roof height, taller than the other blocks.
7.6.4 Analysis 3
The third analysis has the same objective functions as the second analysis. Therefore they are heating and
cooling need, PPD and UDI*. Also in this case, the building will be naturally ventilated in summer months,
(June, July and August). The difference is in the selection of the design variables.
For this analysis, the parameters set as continuous variables were (explained in detail in 7.2.1):
Block shape
Block orientation
Atria roof height
Windows openings
Each block has its own set of parameters that needs to be optimized singularly. The design variables regarding the building envelope are:
115
Wall U-value
Window U-value
Window SHGC
The design variables kept fixed were the ventilation openings. As for the previous analysis, it is important
to consider that, even though the dimensions of the vents were not parametrically set, the number of
vents was set to follow the number of storeys. This was done to ensure a more realistic situation.
The results from the optimization analysis are shown with the following images
6
8
2
6
8
7
6
8
45 1
101
9 3 5
10
9 3
As expected, the distribution of the solutions within the search space shares similarities with the second
analysis. This is due to the use of the same objective functions. As for the second analysis, PPD and heating
and cooling are not considered conflicting criteria, while UDI* and heating cooling are evidently conflicting
criteria.
116
Important to notice is that the third analysis yields to a higher variety of results, with ranges of fitness from
25 to 47 kWh/m2a for heating and cooling, 32 to 39 UDI* and 25 to 40% for PPD.
The phenotypes belonging to solutions 6, 2, 9, 10 are shown in the following images. Solutions 6 and 2
scored the highest fitness for Heating and Cooling and for PPD, while solutions 9 and 10 have the highest
score for UDI*.
As it is presented in figure 7.55, solution 6 has slender blocks shape with emphasized atrium roof heights,
in order to counterbalance the need for cooling due to high transparency of the envelope. However, this
delicate balance does not result in good fitness for UDI*, which is elevated because of a high number of
points with lux values higher than 2000. Solution 2 has partially the same features, but smaller window
openings in every side, which results in slightly higher fitness for UDI*.
117
Solution 9 and 10 show the tallest sets of blocks of the three analysis. Also the blocks tend to be more
detached between each other. This results in a higher energy need because of a larger surface exposed to
outdoor environment. At the same time, as we can see in the objectives of solution 10, the score for UDI*
is one of the best among the Pareto front.
118
The solution selected for further discussion is number 4. The phenotype in this case is different from any
other individual retrieved so far. The buildings assume almost all the same height and the same disposition
but block C, which is slightly rotated. The main feature of the floor shapes is that their elongated configuration is perpendicular to South direction. The openings dimension is more balanced than the other solutions belonging to the Pareto front. Furthermore, the U-value of the walls for block A, B, C are: 0.2, 0.4, 0.3
W/m2K, while the SHGC are: 0.4, 0.5, 0.6. It seems that this solution is characterized by a balance between
solar heat gains and heat transfer by transmission. This is especially true because this solution has the best
PPD results retrieved from all the optimization analysis.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The low heating need, as shown in fig. 7.65, must be due to a low U-value of the blocks envelope, while
the reduction of cooling loads due to natural ventilation in summer is also effective. Moreover, the generally lower SHGC prevents high overheating in non-summer months. For block B the higher percentage of
window to wall ratio is requiring higher need for cooling, while heating loads are kept very low throughout
the whole year.
119
The first comparison is done between the selected solution from analysis 1 (number 11) and analysis 2
(number 16). Specifically, the solution with evaluation of the natural ventilation effects from analysis 1
is used. Therefore, an estimation of the potential of embedding natural ventilation within an integrated
approach can be estimated.
The comparison of the evaluation criteria of the two design solutions is here shown.
The graph shows a reduction of energy (cooling) need, a reduction in PPD and a small improvement in
terms of UDI*. The overall distance between the heating and cooling need between the compared solutions is 9 kWh/m2a. The reduction is small if compared to the total amount of energy still needed for
heating and cooling and also the overall improvement of UDI.
Comparison 2
The second comparison is done for the selected solution of the second analysis and the third. The individual compared are respectively number 16 and number 4. The comparison is shown in the next graph.
From the graph is possible to retrieve an improvement of 5 kWh/m2a for heating and cooling need with
the third approach. Also the overall Percentage of People Dissatisfied score is lower of about 5% than the
second approach. The results of the comparison lead to small improvements with the third approach.
120
Comparison 3
The third comparison is meant to show the distance between the performance of an optimized design with
an integrated approach versus the performance of a base case representing the current situation. The solution used for this comparison is the one retrieved and selected from analysis 3, where also the envelope
parameters were optimized.
The graph shows an important decrease on the overall need for heating and cooling of about 20 kWh/m2a.
Also, an improvement of thermal comfort can be observed. 15% is the reduction in PPD.
Conclusions
In comparison 1 it appears clear that a design optimized by integrating natural ventilation evaluation can
yield to better results in terms of energy performance and thermal comfort than a design optimized without comprising natural ventilation. The same conclusions derived in the first analysis can be derived here.
When a design comprises a strategy of natural ventilation, if the specific strategy is not optimized together
with other design aspects, the overall potential in energy need reduction and future passive thermal comfort can be compromised.
From comparison 2 it is possible to conclude that an integrated approach comprising also variables for the
building envelope can be beneficial in improving the overall energy performance and thermal comfort of a
design. The small differences in the results can be due to the highly constrained search space.
Comparison 3 shows the potential of an integrated approach for optimization compared to the base case
design (involving natural ventilation strategy). The potential, which can differs depending on the design
typology, dimensions, climate, defined variables can be high.
The general conclusion is that natural ventilation seems to lead to better energy and thermal comfort
performance when integrated within the optimization process. Therefore it is likely to say that the building
having its natural ventilation strategy early in the design process has more chances to have better energy
and thermal comfort performances.
7.8 Recommendations
The optimization studies done on Scenario 1 can be seen as a work in progress optimization scenario.
It helped in spotting defections and defining limitations of the developed process. These defections are
of two types: one related to the evaluation criteria and one related to the developed calculations. As ex121
plained in paragraph 7.5, the calculations that needed to be changed are the ones for heating and cooling
and the way the natural ventilation calculations are integrated with them. Moreover, the approach that
needs to be changed is the assessment of thermal comfort in summer. Since the office building is naturally
ventilated, the best practice is to use the adaptive comfort model, which in this case would output more
reliable results than the PPD calculation.
Therefore, as an improvement of these aspects, Scenario 2 will be provided of the new calculations and
adaptive comfort assessment, as described in the following chapter. Moreover, its smaller scale intervention makes possible introducing also new types of parameters for optimization, such as shading geometry.
A possible further step for the re-design of the Atrium building is also presented.
Since this building is located in a temperate climate region such as the Netherlands, the temperature
range, also in summer, can lead to discomfort due to cold outdoor temperature. A bioclimatic solution for
this problem can be the application of glazed buffer zones, also called sunspaces. This architectural and
technological element can also passively extend the range of use of natural ventilation, by supplying the
incoming fresh air of heat gained through passive solar exposure. However, also in this case the size and
location of the buffer zones could be optimized in an integrated approach. Important, in this case, would
be the overheating of this buffer-zones, which would cause too warm air to flow inside the building, thus
causing discomfort.
122
45
spacing
0
-45
124
depth
a)
Fig. 8.4 (a, b): Lamellas configurations
b)
125
Moreover, the faade width suggested a maximum value to give to the top ventilation opening area of
the natural ventilation strategy. The same constraint was given to the ventilation openings of the exterior
envelope of block A.
Ventilated storeys
Even though the main focus of Scenario 2 of the case study is the optimization of the atrium design, the
storeys belonging to block A were modelled and their steady-state situation in summer calculated for the
worst temperature ranges. In this way it is possible to improve the atrium design also according to its effects on the existing storeys. In order to foresee how the new design for natural ventilation would work, a
study was done on the possible behaviour of the neutral plane of the atrium, according to different openings configurations.
The ventilation openings of each storey are located at a height of 3,5 meters from the floor level. As it can
be seen in figure 8.5a, the neutral plane lies at a height of about 19 meters when the top openings have
the highest values of the selected range (18 m2 for the top openings and 10 m2 for the interior openings
of the atrium). In this case the fifth and sixth floors would receive an inflow from the atrium, resulting in
an increase of air pollutants and internal heat. As shown in figure 8.5b, when the openings are decreased
proportionally (11 m2 for the top and 10 m2 for the interior openings), the neutral plane is still lying at a
level which might cause an inflow for the top storeys. A safe solution is when the top openings are larger
than the interior ones (5m2 to 18m2), as shown in 8.5c.
In order to naturally ventilate all the storeys, another option would be to increase the height of the atrium,
which would push the neutral plane at a higher level than the sixth floors openings. However, this is not
included in the strategies for this optimization study. Therefore, the chosen solution is to not consider the
fifth and sixth floors for the optimization of the atrium design. This is mainly due to the fact that the optimization algorithm would find solutions having any kind of opening configurations, with a high proability
a)
b)
c)
In order to make an objective function describing how comfortable the atrium space and the building
storeys would be according to the adaptive model, it was necessary to make several assessments for different outdoor temperature situations. An analysis of the temperatures retrieved from the weather data
file (EPW) for the Netherlands was done for the three summer months (June, July, August), focusing on
the temperatures higher than 25C. Eventually, temperature ranges and number of hours in which those
outdoor temperatures occur are defined.
The temperature ranges are set as: 25-26C, 26-27C, 27-28C, 28-29C, 29-30C, >30C. The related number of hours are: 19, 16, 12, 11, 13, 9. The total is 80 hours during which there could be uncomfortable
indoor climate even by supplying fresh air for passive cooling (outdoor temperature higher than 25C). For
these analysis the monthly average peak solar radiation falling onto the atrium envelope was used in order
to calculate natural airflow and indoor air temperature.
Therefore, the objective function would be:
Minimize F(x1, , xn)
With F being the number of hours in which no thermal comfort achieved. In this way, the algorithm will
search for the design solutions able to provide the widest period of time with a comfortable indoor environment, and lowest number of hours with an uncomfortable climate.
Important to underline is that the overheating in summer could affect not only the bottom part of the
atrium, but especially its top levels, where overhangs can be used by people as walking zones. Since the
results retrieved by the natural ventilation solver is a good estimation of the top level temperature of a calculated space, these calculations will give the comfort level of the top level of the atrium, and the average
comfort level of the building storeys.
Moreover, the air velocity in the atrium sapce was calculated with the same method used in Scenario 1.
Visual comfort and related objective function
Visual comfort is assessed by using the principle of UDI for natural daylight, therefore thresholds defining a
visual comfort range was set. A good estimation of the range in which there should be visual comfort in an
atrium space is between 300 and 2000 lux. Compared to Scenario 1 the minimum lux level is lower because
of no presence of any specific task for which a sufficient level of lux must be provided. A grid of points
lying at 1,0 meter from the ground level is used to assess the lux distribution inside the atrium space. The
UDI* will be expressed as a percentage describing the ratio of total number of points and points receiving
a comfortable lux level.
The related objective function is:
Maximize F(x1, , xn) < 2000 lux
F(x1, , xn) > 300 lux
Where F is the percentage of points belonging to the test grid. In order to overcome time issues, daylight
analysis is performed not for the whole year but for specific critical moments. The identified moments are:
January 21 at 12.00; July 21 at 9.00, July 21 at 12.00, July 21 at 15.00. These specific snapshots of the whole
year are selected because of the good practice principle of assessing a day-lit space in both summer and
winter time. Moreover, the evaluation performed for July 21 at 9.00 and 15.00 are done in order to account
for the neighbouring building and self-shading effects of the Atrium building itself.
Finally, the reflectivity of the interior surfaces of the atrium and the LTA of the glazing were set as for Scenario 1, with values of 0.7 and 0.6 respectively.
Heating and Cooling need and related objective function
As for the first scenario, heating and cooling need is used as main measure of future energy performance
of the building. The calculated space is the atrium, and no effects due to heat transfer by transmission or
ventilation of the existing surrounding storeys are considered. However, ventilation is calculated within the
127
atrium, with mechanical means for the whole year but summer months and natural means during summer
months. The calculation of natural ventilation is performed by the Airflow&Temperature component, and
the ventilation temperature used to feed the component Heating&Cooling need is the outdoor temperature. This is a simplification of the more complex interaction between atrium and surrounding floors.
The related objective function is:
Minimize F(x1, , xn)
Where F is the heating and cooling need expressed in kWh/m2. The temperature range used to define thermal comfort is 20-25C, which is a good estimation of a comfortable temperature range within an atrium
in case of mechanically controlled indoor environment. The lower temperature is used as heating set-point
and the upper one as cooling set-point. The cooling set-point is actually parametrically defined after the
adaptive comfort model calculations. Therefore it is adjusted according to the ability of a design individual
of providing thermal comfort by natural ventilation means.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
is provided for the critical hours in summer, discomfort could occur in winter, where the lower elevation
angle of the sun can result in too high lux levels.
Heating and Cooling
This scenario shows a reduction of total energy need down to 403.45 kWh/m2a. It is possible to deduct that
for this case the shading device is slightly more influential in energy saving than the introduction of natural
ventilation within the current design of the atrium. The graphs showing the heating and cooling need can
be found in appendix C.
Adaptive comfort model
As for the 1st scenario, the adaptive comfort is not applicable, since natural ventilation is not introduced.
4th scenario
Daylight
As for the 3rd scenario, the results retrieved from the UDI* analysis is 49.04% of points receiving an acceptable level of lux for the analysed snapshots.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
8.4.1 Analysis 1
The objective functions for this analysis were minimization of heating and cooling need, decrease of the
number of hours with thermal discomfort in summer and maximization of the percentage of points receiving a good level of lux. The parameters described in 7.1.1 were all set as variables, within the defined boundaries. After 5 generations (13 hours of calculation time), the optimization algorithm provided
9 non-dominated solutions, out of more than 500 individuals evaluated. The results of the search process
are shown in the following figures.
57
90
53
28 264
17
47 6
Utopia point
Fig. 8.13: Top view, Adaptive comfort level vs Heating and Cooling
57
47
6
90
17
28
26
53 4
It can be observed in figures 8.11 and 8.12 that the search space is characterized by strips-like distributions of individuals. This is due to the thermal comfort assessment, which is done for specific temperature
ranges, as explained in 8.2. These calculations result in solutions belonging to specific temperature ranges,
above which comfort is not achieved. In 8.12, the solutions of the right side of the figure are the ones experiencing the highest comfort level in the atrium space and building storeys.
131
As for Scenario 1, the conflicting criteria are the UDI* and the heating and cooling or thermal comfort
level. This is clearly due to the overheating occurring when a solution allows for well-lit indoor conditions.
The balance between visual and thermal comfort is the balance that the optimization algorithm tries to
achieve.
kWh/m2a
The fitness of the pareto front solutions for each objective function are shown in the following figures.
Number of hours
Compared to Scenario 1, the optimization seems to have achieved an overall higher balance between
conflicting criteria, as we can observe for solutions 4, 26, 28, 53. However, it is important to highlight that
while solutions 6 and 47 show the best fit in terms of adaptive comforts, they also have the worst scores
for heating and cooling need and UDI*.
Moreover, even though the highest reduction of uncomfortable hours (improvement of thermal comfort)
is more than 50% (from 80 to 39 hours) compared to the 1st scenario of the base case, the average score
is not as good as expected (with 53 hours).
Fig. 8.19: Solution 47, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
132
The overall reduction of heating and cooling need is high, since the best fit is of 80% (from 527.80 down
to 105 kWh/m2a).
The following figures show a few selected solutions belonging to the Pareto front (47, 6, 57, 17).
Solution 47 shows the best fit for thermal comfort, while one of the worst in terms of UDI*. Figure 8.19
shows that high lux levels are distributed along the whole atrium space for a snapshot in January. This is
due to the angle assumed by the shadings (13 upwards), as shown in figure 8.20, which allow for direct
daylight especially in winter months. Moreover, the distance between the lamellas (0,9m) and their depth
(0,4m) are resulting in too high level of daylight, causing a reduction of the UDI* score. The balance found
between SHGC (0.2 for the roof and 0.4 for the facade) and the solar exposure resulted in a reduced need
for heating, and a higher cooling need in average.
Solution 6 has a good fit for thermal comfort, while one of the worst score for heating and cooling need.
Also the UDI* has a good percentage, with 85% of points reached by comfortable lux levels in the calculated snapshots. The high need for cooling is confirmed by the ventilation schedules, which are found to be
5, 1 and 6 hours for June, July and August accordingly.
Fig. 8.23: Solution 57, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
A peculiar solution is number 57, which has the best energy need score and average thermal comfort,
while experiencing the worst UDI* value of the whole Pareto front. As we can see in figure 8.23, the lux
distribution is poor and it is confirmed by the image showing the facade highly shaded by the lamellas.
This also results in a higher need for heating than cooling, as it can be seen in figures 8.25 and 8.26.
133
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The solution selected for further investigation and comparison is number 26, since it is one of the solutions
with shortest distance from the utopia point. In figure 8.27 we can observe the good daylight distribution
within the atrium space due to optimized geometry parameters for the shading devices. The lamellas are
rotated downwards (14), but their spacing is sufficient in providing a good indirect daylighting.
Fig. 8.27: Solution 26, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Compared to solution 57, the facade is more exposed, resulting in lower need for heating. However, this
is balanced by greater need for cooling, as figure 8.30 shows. The cooling need in summer months is almost 0, and this is in line with the retrieved ventilation schedules, which are 7, 5, 6 hours for June, July
and August. Also in this case the SHGC of facade and roof are kept with low values, to avoid overheating
during the other months. The SHGC for the roof was found to be 0.2 and the one for the facade 0.3, while
the U-value of the envelope was set as 0.6, drastically reducing the heat flows in cold months, (when the
difference between indoor and outdoor environments can be high).
134
8.4.2 Analysis 2
Analysis 2 was done in order to understand the potential of considering only aspects related to the envelope combined with the parameters affecting the shading geometry. The parameters directly affecting
natural ventilation were set as fixed, while the ones set as variables were set as described in 8.1.1.
Variables:
Shading geometry
U-value of the atrium envelope
SHGC of the atrium envelope
U-value of block A envelope
SHGC of block A glazing
Fixed parameters:
Ventilation openings (18 m2 for top and exterior openings, 10 m2 for interior openings of the atrium)
Ventilation schedule (8 hours per day for the three summer months)
The applied objective functions were the same as for the first analysis: minimization of heating and cooling
need, minimization of the number of hours with thermal discomfort in summer and maximization of the
percentage of points receiving a good level of lux.
The results are shown in the following graphs.
Fig. 8.32: Top view, Adaptive comfort level vs Heating and Cooling
16
6
13
12
15
utopia point
135
kWh/m2a
It is possible to find similarities between the graphs retrieved from the second analysis and the first. The
strip-like distribution on the side view (Fig. 8.31) are also occurring in the first analysis, because of the
adopted method for estimating the adaptive comfort level inside the atrium space in summer months.
The optimization algorithm found 16 solutions among hundreds of individuals (total calculation time: 10
hours).
The following graphs show the comparison between the pareto individuals objectives.
Number of hours
For their interesting performances, the individuals selected for analysis are: 3, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16. The specific
heating and cooling need graphs for the selected solutions can be found in appendix C.
Solution 3 has the lowest score for heating and cooling among the set of non-dominated solutions. Its
136
phenotype is shown in fig. 8.38 and 8.39. As the figures show, the shadings are rotated downwards, preventing direct solar gains. However, their short depth, their relatively large spacing and high SHGC for the
atrium glazing (0.6) result in high need in cooling for non-summer months. Interesting to see is the ability
of this individual in providing thermal comfort in summer months, with a number of discomfort hours of
32/80. This score must be due to balanced heat gains of the atrium in summer, resulting in an increase
of natural ventilation rates. The ventilation in summer, on the other hands, is beneficial in decreasing the
energy need for cooling.
Solution 15 shows one of the highest value for UDI, with 98% of the points reached by a good level of lux
for the tested snapshots. Its shading geometry is more inclined than solution 3 (24 downwards), resulting
in a more shaded facade. This shows that most of the visual discomfort occurring in the atrium is due to
Fig. 8.40: Solution 15, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
overexposure to sunlight. Moreover, the distance between lamellas is sufficient to let indirect daylight to
filter within the indoor space. The average score for heating and cooling is due to the higher need for heating, which must be due to the lower SHGC of the envelope (0.4) and higher U-value (1.1 W/m2K) compared
to other solutions.
Fig. 8.42: Solution 13, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
137
Because of its distance from the utopia point (figure 8.34), solution 13 is selected for further comparisons. This individual features a good value for UDI* (82%), very low energy need (30 kWh/m2) and a good
Adaptive model score (38/80 hours). As shown in figures 8.42, 8.43, the lamellas assume a slightly higher
angle than solution 15 (14 Downwards), while the distance and depth are the same (0.5m and 0.9m).
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The heating and cooling need for solution 13 are as shwon in the next figures.
Both energy need for heating and cooling appear to be lower than any other solutions belonging to the
Pareto front. Especially low is the need for cooling. In summer, the need is equal to 0, meaning that natural
ventilation is decreasing the need for cooling and also improving comfort with good results for the adaptive model.
A lower value for SHGC of the atrium envelope was found (0.2), with a low U-value (0.6 W/m2K). This decrease the need for cooling throughout the year and the lower U-value prevent the atrium to large heat
loss in winter months.
kWh/m2a
Number of hours
As the heat gains increase within the atrium, the airflow increases, resulting in higher thermal comfort.
However, finding balance between these two aspects is not as easy as just supplying fresh air to the linked
building storeys. Therefore, when the increased airflow sometimes result in a better comfort inside the
atrium, it might also result in overheating in the other months of the year.
The importance of an integrated approach is here confirmed once again, as for Scenario 1, however with
some differences. Even though for Scenario 2 the results show that great improvements can be found with
an integrated approach, the best performances are found when the parameters affecting directly natural
ventilation, such as ventilation schedule and openings. This can be explained by looking at the specific
design of the atrium A of the Atrium Building. The height and general configurations of this space was not
intended to be a natural ventilation strategy. This is also confirmed by the neutral plane, which cannot
be easily influenced to be at a higher height than the top storey of the building. Therefore, the winning
strategy in this case was to set as maximum the values belonging to natural ventilation parameters. In this
way, the highest ventilation rates can be achieved without avoiding excessive overheating in other months
of the year.
Finally, it must be considered the potential of design decisions. As shown in the 4th base case, the decision
of using shadings plays a big role in the overall energy need and Daylight performances, especially because
the current atrium is south-facing. By taking the decision of applying sunshadings, the designer is already
ensuring a large improvements of performances. However, specifying the exact geometry of the shadings
and envelope features that would lead to the largest benefits is a complex engineering problem, that can
be solved by only using an integrated approach for optimization.
139
140
One of the goals of this research was to assess if the developed process might have chances to be applied
on real projects and how it could help in their developments. Therefore an important step was retrieving
feedback from the same architectural and engineering firms contacted for the first questionnaire shown
in chapter 2.
Attention was given on the possibilities of involving the developed process as a support and trigger of
design expression and sustainability. In order to retrieve this information a video was shown. In the video,
the optimization of Scenario 1 is shown in a dynamic series of images, in which the main parameters to be
optimized are shown and also their effects on the objectives of the optimization.
142
143
9.3 Conclusions
Generally, the reactions from the two firms are positive. Both the engineering and the architectural sides
foresee applications on real projects and possibilities for the early design stages.
The answers received from UNStudio show an overall positive reaction to the video and the optimization
process. A point of interest seems to be the parametric potential of handling any kind of 3d model and
building geometry. As a matter of fact, the case study and thus the video are not showing a complex geometry building, but rather a simple buildings group. However, the tools developed within this thesis can be
able to handle more complex models, but always within the limits of a simplified set of equations used to
calculate heating and cooling and natural ventilation. Therefore simplified models of the complex design
intention should be defined for the early stages.
The answers received from Arup highlight the possibilities and current limitations of such a developed
process. The possibilities in using it in the early stages of the design are given by its fast use and its visual
approach. However, because of the current lack of detailed outputs, it must be considered as a starting
point for further design development and optimization. Its potential is to help designers and engineer in
take informed decisions, and therefore moving towards sustainability already in the first steps of the design process.
The main conclusions is that the use of such an integrated approach can have its highest results when the
architectural aspects are well combined with the engineering side.
144
The overall conclusions of this research are presented in this chapter. The aim is to discuss the results from
the practical application of the developed computational process, which will serve as answers for the research questions defined in chapter 1.
Regarding the real application of the developed process, the question raising at the end of this research is:
Is this computational process more suitable for architecture or engineering practices?
An answer for this question is hard to be found. There are a number of aspects related to building design
that are normally considered by only the architecture side, while others only by consultancy firms. Therefore, it is not unlikely to foresee an integrated approach that has its best results only when both sides are
both cooperating for the same goal, with different approaches and experience.
The main conclusion that can be derived is that this approach has potential, but there are many problems
to be overcome in order to merge engineering with architecture. At the moment, the two practices have
different identities, interests and objectives. However, architectural design should not be detached by
engineering problems and vice-versa. Small steps will be needed in order to start new integrated ways
of dealing with building designs. Parametric modelling and programming can be a good asset for this goal,
because it can eventually become the perfect mean for joining different approaches and backgrounds,
without interference.
Finally, in order to answer the research questions formulated in the first chapter of this paper, the developed process was applied and its results retrieved and compared. The research questions and related
answers are as follows.
Research question
To what extent the optimization of natural ventilation strategies in the early design stage can improve energy performance and thermal comfort of a design for an office building?
According to the comparison of the performance of an optimized office building and its base case (surrogate design of the case study), it is clear that a design optimized by using an integrated approach in its
early stages has greater chances for energy savings. Moreover, this comparison shows the potential of
applying such a concept early in the design process, where important decisions that will affect the future
performance of the building are taken.
As previously observed, the strict constraints selected for this specific case study have eventually confined
the optimization potential. Therefore, it is important to underline that both design variables and design
constraints play a key role in defining the real optimization potential. Since these parameters are dependent on a number of design aspects and issues specific for a project, they cannot be categorized and either
their effect on building performance can be predicted with absolute certainty.
Sub-questions
To what extent embedding natural ventilation strategies into an optimization process affects its final outputs in terms of building performance and layout?
A comparison between an optimized design embedding the assessment of natural ventilation and its cooling potential with a design not optimized with the same objective functions was done in chapter 7. The results show that the design of this case study can have different performance and layouts if the optimization
process embeds or not natural ventilation. Moreover, the overall performances of the building are higher
in the integrated approach than in the one that is not integrated (not comprising natural ventilation). This
leads to the conclusions that the early stages of a design comprises a high number of variables that affect
each other and for which there should be found a balance in order to achieve better performing solutions.
It is important to underline that this balance cannot be easily achieved by dividing the problems and that
146
147
148
Possible future steps on the researched topic can be done, and a few of them regarding both the developed process and the application on the case study are presented here.
Case study
A possible further step of the redesign of this case study could be setting both parameters for ventilation
openings and shading geometry for a whole building optimization strategy. In this way, more balanced
solutions in terms of natural ventilation and solar gains could be found.
The atria dimensions and shape could also be set as a design variable, which might lead to higher fitness
for the three used objective functions.
150
Bibliography
Web pages
Bouwbesluit. (2012). Bouwbesluit onlin 2012. from http://www.bouwbesluitonline.nl/.
Chaudhuri, S. (2002). What is Raytracing? FuzzyPhoton, from http://fuzzyphoton.tripod.com/whatisrt.
htm.
Schorsch. (2011). Radiosity Method - Radiant Flux Transfer Method. Lighting Design Glossary, from
http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/radiosity.html.
Arbo Vakbase (2015). Richtlijnen algemene thermische behaaglijkheid. Handboek Ergonomie, from
http://www.arbovakbase.nl/artikel/richtlijnen-algemene-thermische-behaaglijkheid-11238.html.
Conference papers
Andr P., L. J., Temoveau A, (1999). Bringing simulation to application; some guidelines and practical reccomendations issued from IEA-BCS Annex 30. IBPSA conference. Kyoto, Japan.
Chrysanthi, K., S. Ava Fatah gen, T. Martha and C. Angelos (2013). Façade apertures optimization:
integrating cross-ventilation performance analysis in fluid dynamics simulation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture & Urban Design. San Diego, California, Society for Computer Simulation International.
Singh S., K. K. (2014). Early design analysis using optimization techniques in design/practice. Building Simulation Conference Atlanta.
Journal articles
Caldas, L. (2008). Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions applying GENE_ARCH: An evolution-based generative design system. Advanced Engineering Informatics 22(1): 59-70.
de Dear R.J., B., G.S. (2002). Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: Revisinos to ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy and Buildings 34(6): 549-561.
Evins, R. (2013). A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22(0): 230-245.
Granadeiro, V., J. P. Duarte, J. R. Correia and V. M. S. Leal (2013). Building envelope shape design in early
stages of the design process: Integrating architectural design systems and energy simulation. Automation
in Construction 32(0): 196-209.
Humphreys, M., Nicol, J (2002). The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes in everyday thermal
environments. Energy and Buildings 34(6): 667-684.
Hunt GR, C. C. (2010). Emptying boxes - classifying transient natural ventilation flows. J Fluid Mech.
Jin, J.-T. and J.-W. Jeong (2014). Optimization of a free-form building shape to minimize external thermal
load using genetic algorithm. Energy and Buildings 85(0): 473-482.
Jin, Y. (2002). A Comprehensive Survey of Fitness Approximation in Evolutionary Computation. Soft Computing 9(1): 3-12.
Li, Y., A. Delsante and J. Symons (2000). Prediction of natural ventilation in buildings with large openings.
Building and Environment 35(3): 191-206.
Lin, S.-H. E. and D. J. Gerber (2014). Designing-in performance: A framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design. Automation in Construction 38(0): 59-73.
Liu, S., J. Liu, Q. Yang, J. Pei, D. Lai, X. Cao, J. Chao and C. Zhou (2014). Coupled simulation of natural ventilation and daylighting for a residential community design. The 2nd International Conference on Building
Energy and Environment (COBEE), 2012, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA 68, Part B(0): 686-695.
Moosavi L., M. N., Mahyuddin N., Ghafar N. A., Ismail M.A. (2014). Thermal performance of atria: An overview of natural ventilation effective designs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews(34): 654-670.
Nabil A., M. J. (2005). Useful Daylight Illuminance: A New Paradigm to Access Daylight in Buildings. Lighting Research & Technology 37(1): 41-59.
152
Nguyen, A.-T., S. Reiter and P. Rigo (2014). A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to
building performance analysis. Applied Energy 113(0): 1043-1058.
Orme, M. (2011). Estimates of the energy impact of ventilation and associated financial expenditures.
Energy and Buildings 33(2001): 199-205.
Prez-Lombard, L., J. Ortiz and C. Pout (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information.
Energy and Buildings 40(3): 394-398.
Reinhart C.F., M., Ij., Rogers, Z. (2006). Dynamic Daylight Performance Metrics for Sustainable Building
Design. Leukos 3(1): 7-31.
Stephan, L., A. Bastide and E. Wurtz (2011). Optimizing opening dimensions for naturally ventilated buildings. Applied Energy 88(8): 2791-2801.
Vasileios Machairas, A. T., Kleo Axarli (2014). Algorithms for optimization of building design: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31: 101-112.
Wyon (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 14(7): 195201.
Standards
ASHRAE (2009). ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, Georgia, American Society of Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers.
CIBSE (2005). Natural ventilation in non-domestic buildings. CIBSE Application Manual AM10.
ISO (2005). Ergonomics of the thermal environment: Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. ISO 7730.
Geneva, International Standards Organisation.
TC89/WG4/N284, C. (2006). Energy performance of buildings - Calculation of energy use for space heating
and cooling, CEN TC89/WG4/N284.
Books
A. Eugene Kohn, P. K. (2002). Office buildings. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Commission, E. (1999). A Green Vitruvius: Principles and Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design,
James & James.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms.
Hegger M., F. M., Stark T., Zeumer M. (2008). Energy Manual, Sustainable Architecture. Munich.
Nicol F., H. M., Roaf S. (2012). Adaptive Thermal Comfort: Principles and Practice. New York, Routledge.
Santamouris, M., F. Allard, E. C. D.-G. f. Energy and A. Programme (1998). Natural Ventilation in Buildings:
A Design Handbook, James and James (Science Publishers) Limited.
Reports
ECN (2012). Energy Efficiency Policies and Measures in The Netherlands. Monitoring of EU and national
energy efficiency targets. O.-M. 2012. Petten, ECN.
Griffith, I. (1990). Thermal comfort studies in buildings with passive solar features Field studies: Report to
the Commission of the European Community. UK.
Swami M., C. S. (1987). Procedures for Calculating Natural Ventilation Airflow Rates in Buildings. Cape
Canaveral, Florida, Florida Solar Energy Center.
Thesis
Kokogiannakis, G. (2008). Support for the Integration of Simulation in the European Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Strathclyde.
Velds, M. (1999). Assessment of lighting quality in office rooms with daylighting systems, TU Delft.
153
154
Table of Images
Chapter 1
13
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
20
23
24
26
35
40
49
50
54
60
61
66
69
70
72
73
74
77
77
78
78
79
80
80
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
85
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93
156
Chapter 7
157
97
97
98
98
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
107
108
108
108
109
109
109
109
109
109
110
110
110
110
111
111
111
112
112
112
112
113
113
113
114
114
114
114
114
114
115
115
115
115
116
116
116
116
117
117
117
118
118
118
118
118
118
119
119
119
119
120
120
121
Chapter 8
158
124
124
124
125
126
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
131
131
132
132
132
132
132
133
133
133
133
134
134
134
134
135
135
135
135
136
136
136
136
136
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
138
138
Ff = 0.5
hr = 5 * (k)
Qr = Rse * Uk * AreaWindows * hr * DTesky
print(Qr = & Qr)
x = (AreaWindows * SHGC * MonthlySolarRadiation) - (Qr * Ff)
SolarHeatGains = x
End If
If WallorRoof = False Then
Ff = 1
hr = 5 * (k)
Qr = Rse * Uk * AreaWindows * hr * DTesky
print(Qr = & Qr)
x = (AreaWindows * SHGC * MonthlySolarRadiation) - (Qr * Ff)
SolarHeatGains = x
End If
End Sub
162
Do
Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, T1p, T2p, Qs1, Qs2, Qint1, Qint2, Qinta, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtra, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, QAtrium, T1n, T2n, TemperatureAtrium)
T1p = T1n
T2p = T2n
Q1p = Q1n
Q2p = Q2n
Loop While Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, T1p, T2p, Qs1, Qs2, Qint1, Qint2, Qinta, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtra, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, QAtrium, T1n, T2n, TemperatureAtrium) = True
164
TempreatureZone1 = T1n
TempreatureZone2 = T2n
QZone1 = Q1n
QZone2 = Q2n
End Sub
165
Toutput = False
End If
End Function
166
167
Do
Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, Q3p, Q4p, Q5p, Q6p, Q7p, Q8p, Q9p, Qpp, T1p, T2p, T3p, T4p, T5p, T6p, T7p, T8p, T9p, Tpp, Qs1, Qs2, Qs3, Qs4, Qs5, Qs6, Qs7, Qs8, Qs9, Qsp, Qint1,
Qint2, Qint3, Qint4, Qint5, Qint6, Qint7, Qint8, Qint9, Qinta, Qintp, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtr3, Qtr4, Qtr5, Qtr6, Qtr7, Qtr8, Qtr9, Qtra, Qtrp, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, Q3n, Q4n, Q5n,
Q6n, Q7n, Q8n, Q9n, QAtrium, Qpn, T1n, T2n, T3n, T4n, T5n, T6n, T7n, T8n, T9n, Tpn, TAtrium)
Tpp = Tpn
T1p = T1n
T2p = T2n
T3p = T3n
T4p = T4n
T5p = T5n
T6p = T6n
T7p = T7n
T8p = T8n
T9p = T9n
Qpp = Qpn
Q1p = Q1n
Q2p = Q2n
Q3p = Q3n
Q4p = Q4n
Q5p = Q5n
Q6p = Q6n
Q7p = Q7n
Q8p = Q8n
Q9p = Q9n
Loop While Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, Q3p, Q4p, Q5p, Q6p, Q7p, Q8p, Q9p, Qpp, T1p, T2p, T3p, T4p, T5p, T6p, T7p, T8p, T9p, Tpp, Qs1, Qs2, Qs3, Qs4, Qs5, Qs6, Qs7, Qs8, Qs9,
Qsp, Qint1, Qint2, Qint3, Qint4, Qint5, Qint6, Qint7, Qint8, Qint9, Qinta, Qintp, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtr3, Qtr4, Qtr5, Qtr6, Qtr7, Qtr8, Qtr9, Qtra, Qtrp, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, Q3n,
Q4n, Q5n, Q6n, Q7n, Q8n, Q9n, QAtrium, Qpn, T1n, T2n, T3n, T4n, T5n, T6n, T7n, T8n, T9n, Tpn, TAtrium) = True
TempreatureZone1 = T1n
TempreatureZone2 = T2n
TempreatureZone3 = T3n
TempreatureZone4 = T4n
TempreatureZone5 = T5n
TempreatureZone6 = T6n
168
TempreatureZone7 = T7n
TempreatureZone8 = T8n
TempreatureZone9 = T9n
TemperatureD = Tpn
QZone1 = Q1n
QZone2 = Q2n
QZone3 = Q3n
QZone4 = Q4n
QZone5 = Q5n
QZone6 = Q6n
QZone7 = Q7n
QZone8 = Q8n
QZone9 = Q9n
QD = Qpn
End Sub
169
Tpn = (Qsp + Qintp + (Qtrp * Te) + (Qpn * * ca * Te))/ ((Qpn * * ca) + Qtrp)
print(Tpn = & Tpn)
T1n = (Qs1 + Qint1 + (Qtr1 * Te) + (Q1n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q1n * * ca) + Qtr1)
T2n = (Qs2 + Qint2 + (Qtr2 * Te) + (Q2n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q2n * * ca) + Qtr2)
T3n = (Qs3 + Qint3 + (Qtr3 * Te) + (Q3n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q3n * * ca) + Qtr3)
T4n = (Qs4 + Qint4 + (Qtr4 * Te) + (Q4n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q4n * * ca) + Qtr4)
170
T5n = (Qs5 + Qint5 + (Qtr5 * Te) + (Q5n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q5n * * ca) + Qtr5)
T6n = (Qs6 + Qint6 + (Qtr6 * Te) + (Q6n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q6n * * ca) + Qtr6)
T7n = (Qs7 + Qint7 + (Qtr7 * Te) + (Q7n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q7n * * ca) + Qtr7)
T8n = (Qs8 + Qint8 + (Qtr8 * Te) + (Q8n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q8n * * ca) + Qtr8)
T9n = (Qs9 + Qint9 + (Qtr9 * Te) + (Q9n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q9n * * ca) + Qtr9)
print(T1n = & T1n)
print(T2n = & T2n)
print(T3n = & T3n)
print(T4n = & T4n)
print(T5n = & T5n)
print(T6n = & T6n)
print(T7n = & T7n)
print(T8n = & T8n)
print(T9n = & T9n)
If (T1n - T1) > 0.1 Or (T1n - T1) < -0.1 Then
Toutput = True
Else
Toutput = False
End If
End Function
</Custom additional code>
End Class
Dim A As Double
Dim A1 As Double = OpeningArea1Zone1, A12 As Double = OpeningArea2Zone1
Dim A2 As Double = OpeningArea1Zone2, A22 As Double = OpeningArea2Zone2
Dim AT As Double = OpeningAreaAtrium
A = 1 / ((1 / ((A1 + A2) ^ 2)) + (1 / (A12 + A22) ^ 2)) + (1 / (AT ^ 2))
EffectiveOpeningArea = A ^ 0.5
End Sub
End If
173
End Sub
174
GH Defintion - Scenario 2
176
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
1 - Second scenario
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
2 - Third scenario
Analysis 1
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 6
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 17
177
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 47
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 57
Analysis 2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 3
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 6
178
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 7
Solution 1
Solution 15
179