- Volume 1 - CAAD curriculum
introduce students to the interlinked usage o DIVA(Jakubiec and Reinhart, 2011), a daylight simulationplugin or Rhinoceros3d, DesignBuilder, an interaceor the simulation engine EnergyPlus, Rhinoceros3d,a NURBS modeler, and Grasshopper3d, a parametricgeometry tool.
PRECEDENTS IN DESIGN-SIMULATIONINTEGRATION
Various dierent models o building perormancesimulation classes are described in the literature, asare approaches that deal with integrating simula-tion into the architectural design process in general. The ollowing selection is not intended as a com-prehensive classication o previous studies, butinstead serves to position our own endeavor withinthis developing eld.Many simulation classes cater to architecturestudents and contain a design component, theanalysis o which can then also be related to tool useconsiderations (Palme, 2011). Alternatively, uncon-strained architectural design activity is requentlynot part o a class (Strand, Liesen and Witte, 2004;Madsen and Osterhaus, 2005). Epistemologicalworkow considerations are discussed rom variousangles, usually contrasting engineering and designworking methods, or attempt to establish interme-diate ground (Batty and Swann, 1997; Hetheringtonet al., 2011; Venancio et al., 2011). Most case studiesacknowledge the importance o early-stage archi-tectural energy optimization through design, yetour review indicates that it is the norm or only onesimulation domain to be detailedly taught per class,unlike in our own, which introduces both daylightand thermal simulations in an integrated manner.In this paper, we touch on tool use implications, butassume the chosen sotware applications to be reli-ably useable in the design process due to advancedinteraces, precise results display and their use o thevalidated simulation engines EnergyPlus and Radi-ance. In essence, we attempt to understand possiblemodes o simulation-assisted cross-domain deci-sion-making by architectural designers perormedrom the very rst creation steps to the end o theschematic design phase, since in this time rameundamental, difcult to reverse choices aectingorm and energy use are made (Brown and DeKay,2001). No normative workow recommendationswill be stated; instead, analyzing various processrepresentations in conjunction with describing deci-sion chains will lead us to an alternative integrateddesign process model.
The ollowing sections introduce the curriculum em-ployed by us, present two class results rom summer2011 and relate them to the challenge o integratingbuilding simulation into early-stage architecturaldesign. The guiding research questions are:1. Are simulation activities easily eective in de-creasing a design’s primary energy demand i they are to be positively correlated with mak-ing desired ormal decisions, in a process thatacknowledges unctional and geometric com-plexity?2. How are design decisions made in a multi-rep-resentational domain that includes parametricperormance models?3. What consequences might the results and themodes o their making have or architecturaleducation and design theory?
The seminar investigates design-simulation processinteraction by posing a “real-world” problem. Thereare no rules concerning the building shape, albeitwe ask students to consider the task realistic in thesense o a limited budget and apparent constructa-bility o the 804 m
community center. Spaces area mix o ofces, seminar rooms and a small audito-rium. By having students design in dierent climatezones, they experience how buildings that share thesame design brie are morphologically inuencedby adapting to the local climate.
CURRICULUM, ASSIGNMENTS ANDDESIGN OBSERVATIONS
The course assignments are modeled ater the hier-