iii i

Konferenzraum
Hochsaal

Workshop s

Toilett en

Ga

Auss te

Toil

ett

be

llun

Lag

rd

er

g

er

é

en

Foy

er

Dipl.-Ing. Max Dölling 1 Technische Universität Berlin, Germany

Foy

er

Ballsaa

Auss

l

tell

ung

Ballsaal

Auss

tell

ung

0
Auss tell ung

ii
Hörsaal

ge r ett e Garder n obe Pumi

La

Toil

Lager Toilet ten Pum i

Auss tell ung

Sustainable Design Classes 2011 - 2013

temperatur
Pe

Lager Pum i

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
rs
er ag kl mi ne Pu trä Ge

on al ob Gare e ro

Caf
Sho p

Workshop s

i

BELICHTUNG

o Sh p

obe rder . Ga er Pers nelag rä Get

ii
Lager Toilet ten Pum i

0
Tee kü Pum che i Toilet ten Lager

Hörsaal
Auss
Workshop s

Workshop
Toilett en Lager Pum i

s

tell

ung

ro

s
g llun

Thermal Conditioning & BESUCHER Daylight Zoning Diagram >

Workshops

Teeküch Toilette e Lager

Auss

tell ung

Auss te

iii

BESUCHER

Konferenzraum

Occupancy Hours & BELICHTUNG Intensity Sketch > Foyer
Foyer Cafe ‘Robust’ studio: Cafe shop Karen Kröger Philip Winkler shop austellung Philip Rust
Caf é
Foy er

Workshop

0 0
Sh op

2 2

i

4 4

6 6
ung

8 8

10 10

12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18

iii

20 20

22 22

BESUCHER BESUCHER
Foyer Foyer Cafe

Workshop

s

Büro

0 0

s

Auss

Cafe shop shop austellung austellung toilette

Ballsaal austellung toilette

Auss

tell

ung

kü ch e i Toilet ten Lager

In cooperation with:

0
2

toilette lager lager garderobe garderobe konferenz konferenz workshop

ge r Toil ett e Garder n obe Pumi

La

Lager Toilet ten Pum i

tell

obe rder . Ga er Pers nelag rä Get

ii
Lager Toilet ten Pum i

Hörsaal
Auss
Workshop s

toilette lager lager garderobe garderobe konferenz konferenz workshop workshop hörsaal

1 2

Workshop

Büro

Digital Processing for Academics (Prof. Schwandt)workshop hörsaal FG Gebäudetechnik und Entwerfen (Prof. Steffan) hörsaal büro
büro

Auss

tell ung

Dr. Farshad Nasrollahi Jeffrey Tietze, Cand. BSc 1

Pum

Tee

tell

ung

hörsaal büro

s

iii

büro

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)

Fassade Fassade

DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

Fassade Fassade

01 Teaching & Research Goals
Building simulation is commonly taught as a specialty class instead of in a • design-centric but still research-oriented framework • Common doubts about simulation in design: • simulation usability, feasibility of analysis results to positively (if at all) impact widescope design decisions; conflict over contents of core studios • Initial Thesis: • “Design changes everything” • (or does it?) Our classes attempt the • integration of thermal and daylight simulation into the early stages of architectural design • Throughout the last two years, we held • three seminar types, all concerned with architectural performance optimization •

Main goals: investigate • process, building form & performance impact, design representations • teaching of energy literacy to architecture students to facilitate interdisciplinary processes •
Design research: • reflect on the means, methods and procedures of design in-process; analyse artefacts from a rational, formal and phenomenological perspective •
Students discussing sintered shading geometry prototypes, summer 2012

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

02 Class Iterations (chronological)
A : Parametric Design Climates : 1, 2, 4 • Community Center & Offices • (mechanical conditioning) B : Performative Design 1, 3, 4 • Housing Units & Urban Design • (passive & mech. conditioning) C : ‘Robust’ Studio Integration 5 • Multi - Use Exhibition & Office building • (mech. cond.)

R. Canihuante, M. El-Soudani Office Bldg. (FL site)

O. A. Pearl, D. Gkougkoudi Housing units (SWE site)

B. Suazo, M. Silva (Berlin site)

• Geometric optimization • Fixed materials & setpoints • Balance thermal & daylight
Hashtgerd, Hashtgerd, Iran Iran

• Geometric & material optimization • Fixed setpoints & U-Val., custom mat. • Thermal performance focus
35.962012° 35.962012° N ,50.679533° N ,50.679533° E E

26.047771° N , 80.113513° W 52.498067° 52.498067° N ,13.460864° N ,13.460864° E E 0828° 7° N,14.610828° E E

Hollywood , FL, USA Berlin, Germany Berlin, Germany nd den , Sweden

Yazd , Iran Yazd , Iran

31.912609° 31.912609° N ,54.316458° N ,54.316458° E E

Östersund , Sweden 63.176837° N,14.610828° E Östersund Hollywood Hollywood , FL, USA , FL, USA, Sweden

• Geometric & material optimization • Custom setpoints, mat. & behavior • Individualized performance tests
Berlin, Germany 52.498067° N Germany ,13.460864° E Berlin,
52.498067° N ,13.460864° E

63.176837° N,14.610828° E 26.047771° 26.047771° N , 80.113513° N , 80.113513° W W

Hashtgerd, 35.962012° N Hashtg

35.9620

1 Hollywod, FL, USA

Climate.: Am (Köppen class)

Climate: BSk

2 Hashtgerd, Iran

Climate: BWk

3 Yazd, Iran

Climate: Dfc

4 Östersund, Sweden

Climate: Dfb

5 Berlin, Germany

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

03 Metrics & Design / Simulation Tools
Design decisions are guided by energy and comfort metrics, created by DIVA (Daysim, Radiance) & DesignBuilder (E+)

• Total and primary energy demand • of idealized, bestpractice cooling, heating & lighting systems

• Discomfort Hours • Operative Temperature • UDI 100 - 2000 lux Climate-Based Daylight Metrics • • for all spaces (seasonal & yearly occupancy schedules) • Daylight Availability • (DAv) 300 lux (office spaces) • Irradiance images • grid calculations (seasonal, yearly) • Point-in-time luminance metrics • Evalglare calculations •
Yet in an unconstrained design process, technical validity of metrics only does not by default provide good design outcomes: • metrics have to be seen in conjunction with design intent & other (architectural) representations •

• The interpretation of technically invariant metrics shifts depending on typology, climate & design goals •
Student Ralitsa Georgieva presenting daylight simulations, winter 201 1/12

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

04 Performance Representations (excerpts) a Office / Multi - use building
(Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA)
Daylight metrics model (UDI, DAv)

C. 103 H. 2 UDI 66 % C. 64 H. .1 L. 4

UDI 90 %

L. 6

DAv 20 %

DAv 84 %

Initial Variant 275 kWh/m2

Final Variant 170 kWh/m2

DAv 300 lux, UDI 100 - 2000 lux Heating, cooling, lighting energy use development (kWh/m2) Primary energy demand

Design concepts, Irradiation metrics

Overhang study

Glare without louvers

Final performance section with horizontal louvers
INNENPERSPEKTIVE

b Housing development (Yazd, Iran)
C. Kollmeyer, R. Kölmel

HAUS

HAUS

BLICK IN DEN HOF

Early massing stage

Cellular strategy

Housing Units

UDI 100 - 2k axonometric

Final state (RP irrad. model)

Yard perspective (hello, glare... )

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)
FLOORPLAN +2 | 1:100

DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA
TOP VIEW | 1:100

05 Performative Design: Sweden Site
a Design & Simulations:
O. A. Pearl, D. Gkougkoudi
Variant A 461 1 14 Variant B 495 1 17

> 2k 43 % 100 - 2k 38 %

> 2k 25 % 100 - 2k 48 % H. 34 27 % Final Variant

Final Var. 467 1 16

Summer Winter

H. 89 19 % Baseline (~A) Unequal unit performance! “Shaping” Test glazing areas, materials, U-values, and unit overshadowing (conditioned & passive)

Avrg. irradiation (exposed surfaces): kWh/m2 “Versioning” Compare two site design variants; pick “best” one. Metrics: average irradiance, H/C energy demand (VIPER)

UDI 100 - 2000, > 2000 & < 100 lux comparison; Heating energy use development (kWh/m2)

In parallel to systematic tests, designs continue to develop in a heuristic & design-driven fashion, on multiple levels

b Design & Simulations:
T. Merickova, P. Jardzioch
Variant B Variant A 529 135 606 140

> 2k 42 % 100 - 2k 40 %

> 2k 23 % 100 - 2k 45 % H. 18 32 % Final Variant

Final Var. 630 154

Summer Winter

H. 37 18 % Baseline (~B)

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

06 Performative Design: Sweden Site
O. A. Pearl, D. Gkougkoudi
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

a Design & Simulations:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Unit perspective section
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Site perspective (looking East)

b Design & Simulations:
T. Merickova, P. Jardzioch

Unit section

Site perspective (looking West)

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

07 Detailed Design / Simulation Narrative (Florida Site)
Heating (natural gas) Chiller (electricity) Lighting (electricity) Glass Sol. Gains (/occ. area) kWh/m²; Primary Glazing Solar Gains (kWh) Useful Daylight Illuminance, 100 - 2000 lux UDI > 2000, < 100 lux Daylight Availability, offices, 300 lux % of occupied hours

Annual H/C/L energy demand, UDI 100-2000, DAv 300
339

100 80

Monthly H/C/L energy demand (final building only), glazing solar gains (all variants)

25 20 15 10 5 0 kWh (/m2)

238

223

204
153 Nat. Vent.

60 40 20 0% occ. hrs.

kWh/m

2

kWh/m

2

NORTH

A

B

C

D

SOUTH

C. 103 H. 2

Space Use
Offices Meeting & Media Halls Auxiliary Spaces

Form Finding: Volumes

L. 6

Facade Concepts: Diffusion

Courtyard ventilation

Foyer Circulation (exterior)

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) Annual H/C/L energy demand, UDI 100-2000, DAv 300 Heating (natural gas)
Chiller (electricity) 385

• Design: I. V. Crego, D. Cepeda del Toro •
DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA Monthly H/C/L energy demand (final building only), glazing solar gains (all variants)
80

100

08 Design / Simulation Process Observations & Models • Knowledge of architectural design processes (and the
implications of full “integration”) advances only slowly in the BPS community, compared to technological innovation • Instead of aiming to standardize processes, attention is given to recurring patterns in design - specific workflows:

“The basic procedures involved in the design of a commodity are the same whether it be a toaster, supersonic passenger aircraft or a building.”
W. J. Batty & B. Swann (‘97): Integration of Computer Based Modelling and an Inter-Disciplinary Based Approach to Building Design [...], (Building Simulation ‘97)

• Processes are not linear • but concurrently erratic, iterative,
case-specific and linked to performance / design intent

Miscellaneous

Lighting

Thermal M in/M ax   Tem p   range diurnal Tem perature   variation HDD/CDD Balance  point  tem perature Incident  Solar  radiation Room   Tem perature Heat  storage/rem oval  capacity Occupancy   gains Conduction   gain Direct  Solar  gain Lighting   gain Heat  gain  avoidance   by  Daylighting Tim elag   in   heat  transfer Heat  gain/Loss Heating  load Cooling   Load reduction   in   Heating/Cooling  load air  change   rate Infiltration  gain

Energy base  case   end  use   energy  breakdown proposed  end ‐ use   energy   breakdown energy   conservation   m easures DL   supplem ented  Lighting   energy Heating  energy Cooling   energy savings   in   Lighting   energy reduction   in   Heating   energy reduction   in   cooling  energy overall energy   consum ption energy   generated   by   PV o o o

• Simulation scope • improves through time, usually in phases: • a Heuristic design-seed generation • b Partial / explorative simulations (single / multi-domain) • c Whole-building multi-domain interdependent simulations
- 1313 -

Process Steps A Programming Stage

Type of analysis Climate analysis Benchmarking Parametric analysis

Cloud  cover   analysis Daylight  analysis Illum inance  level  analysis Daylight  autonom y Glare  index

Overshadowing  analysis

Psychom etric   analysis

W ind  Rose   analysis

Sunpath   Analysis

Shading   M ask

Architectural design parameters

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o o

Schematic Design  B Stage 1 BUILDING VLV

Orientation Massing Site form Massing Space Zoning

o

o o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o o o

optimum orientation aspet ratio, volume

o

o

2 SPACE LVL optimize envelope

• Form / Performance knowledge • steadily accretes
throughout individual design steps taken by students

Insulation Materials ‐ opaque Materials ‐ glazed Green/Cool roof

o o o

o o o o o

o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

optimum U, R values, thickness U, R values, thickness SHGC, VT, U value, optimum WWR U,R values, thickness

3 Passive heating

Thermal Mass Direct heat gain Indirect heat gain Cross Ventilation Stack ventilation Mass+night cooling Shading Daylighting Light shelves Daylight zoning Skylights Daylight dimming Occupancy sensors

o o

o

o o o o o o o

o o o

o

o o o o

o o o o o o o o

o

o o

Area, location, thickness, heat storage capacity WWR, SHGC thickness, heat storage capacity Inlet/outlet opening area, location stack height, location, opening area area of thermal mass & openings geometry, location optimum DF, WWR Glare control optimum DF

4 Passive cooling

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

5 Shading

o

o o o o

o o

o

• Individual / tacit knowledge constructed through designerly making • coexists with • quantified, multi-domain
performance behaviours (which are objective within their evaluatory scope and, in the case studies, geometrically defined) •

6 Daylighting

o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o

o

o o o o o

sensor location

7 Renewables

Solar power Wind Power Geothermal power Solar DHW

o

o o panel sizing

o

o o panel sizing

S. Bambardekar & U. Poerschke (‘09): The Architect as Performer of Energy Simulation in the Early Design Stage, (Building Simulation ‘09)

Figure1 : The framework

“The performance parameters related to the design inquiries are extracted from guidebooks due to their clarity, familiarity and popularity amongst architects. The simulation tasks [...] are then defined with respect to each design stage.”

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

09 Results : Adapted Model / A Field of Influences • Hence, linear descriptions of design/simulation processes
obfuscate their real inherent complexity - but awareness of this problem is increasing in the literature • Elements of an adapted process model (Doelling & 04 Multi-Domain Decision-Making & Representability Nasrollahi, Building Simulation 2013): encapsulates (performance) domains (A - D plus models? many more) domain that includes parametric performance

instance, the quantification of the insulation impact on heating loads should be compromised if the geometry of the building is completely unknown.

acceptable solutions. During this process, designers ‘shortcuts’ to facilitate the constraints. In design practi “The focus of simulation often related to is previous expe to solve design dilemmas. and is rarely based on quantita [...] The identification In designerly simulation, i of three main design ‘shortcut’ should allow the The concern of using m stages is inputs. not neccessarily minimized as they can imp a reproduction of the Two types of [design] process. ” information are ¥

• Design intent decisions • is intersubjectively constructed and How are design made in a multi-representational • Design Synthesis • is achieved byof continuously overlapping Individual domain-specific types knowledge (An etc.) are

domain states through “multivalent” representations) synthesized by(e.g., utilizing the semiotic flexibility their multivalent representations (e.g. derived from digital models) enable, and Domain crosstalk update influences design intent; intent thus continuously global design intent (N).modifies In return, domains resulting a non-linear process • the field • of intent, in newly enriched with field additional crossdomain knowledge, permanently influences the originally What are the benefits of thinking such a model? contributing domains, forming a in nonlinear knowledge flow framework that relies less on direct hybridization of design and engineering methods,design but instead drawsfrom potential from • The model unburdens processes constant the synergistic possibilities rooted in the multivalence of their rational analysis synchronicity demands • respective models’ representability. • It supports holistic knowledge achieved through complex, Multivalent representations encode quantitative descriptors physically accurate, output-flexible tools (e.g., DIVA) • spatially, relate form to projected performance and should be regarded as articulating one possible state of synthesis among many. The shown sections, daylight plans, radiation Building Simulation (not) in the Studio images and printed daylight models all partially fulfill these Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 requirements. Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor
Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)

¥ Precedent solutions: the R. Venancio, n features extracted from p A. Pedrini, A.C. be useful in the process o n van der Linden, E. van intentions into pragmatic den Ham & R. Stouffs (‘1 1): The process of transferring Figure 2 Representation of designerly simulation. n sources to the model depen Think Designerly! Using Multiple Simulation Tools to The simulation of a design dilemma should adopt intended by the designer an Solve Architectural Dilemmas, (Building ‘1 1) of design nthat information is used in the Simulation formulation Design Problem Interlinks Chermayeff & Alexander (‘63): represents used as a ‘shortcut’ problems. This information is strictly related to (Chermayeff / Alexander) Design Interdependencies Of course, the process of desi design constraints (Lawson, 2006) that can be strong human component. Th Domains of Inquisition pragmatic or abstract (Figure 2). Both types of “ An integrated process cognitive processes and ass and Representation in is dilemma constraints are intended to reduce the scope inherent part of any design act ......a dynamic field of Design Synthesis of the analysis.

Design principles: the reduce considerably the s information can be used design strategies.

A

B

D

C

N

........related design states OF DESIG Information generated by pragmatic constraints is EXAMPLES ...........and should not be PRO easier to implementOin models as it can be PE simulation The proposed concept was ..............represented directly input in the model. dilemmas extracted from dif ...................linearly. ” we present two exa The use of abstract constraints, on the other hand, is this paper, indirectly transferred to the model. This information were investigated using simul SE L B I designer and translated to N TA should be processed by the The case studies presented a be used in the model. Some examples of this pragmatic constraints, as both translation process can be mentioned: goals. Processes with mor ¥ Cost constraints related to a given dilemma M. should C. Doelling &....................... in futur be approached Design allows the elimination of solutions Intent that would be F. Nasrollahi (‘13) Example 1: residence in Zwo too expensive. In a similar way, the definition of Parametric Design : Thesection first case study was an on Florida design conceptual performance or design ambitions can lead Simulation’13) A Case - Study goals in Design-Simulation Integration, (Building performance goals. The reside showing known thermal and daylighting to a range of acceptable solutions. the Netherlands, was intende behavior of or overhangs shelves ¥ An abstract conjecture, concept design / light energy using PV panels conne and ventilated roof performance.DIVA Day 2013 intention, such as ‘transparency’, for double instance, solar collectors for water Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti heat can generate pragmatic Daylight inputs. Amap ‘transparent’ (UDIJuly 100 2000) York of City, NY, USA 15th, -2013, TheNew leading architect Jami wall would have a high final WWR design (window-to-wallvariant as multivalent architecten, Rotterdam) wa ratio). Similarly, the design of shading devices representation that clearly relates methods to simulation
SC

A

B

SS CE

D

IT

REPR

Y

C

E

10 Results : Building Simulation in the Studio • Continuing success in the stand-alone classes led to an
invitation to participate in the ‘Robust’ design studio held by the department of Prof. Regine Leibinger, TU Berlin •

• Goal • Perform design-driven simulations of individualized
scope, to aid realization of ‘robust’, heavy bldg. envelopes

• Studio benefits & possibilities • • Students have more time to work on design variants • Interest by design departments is a prerequisite to move • sustainability simulations into the mainstream of practice • More realistic test environment of conflicting influences • Results can be more representative of integrated design & • of high architectural quality (successful in this class!) • Studio difficulties & pitfalls • • Design staff and students must both be educated • Conflicts of interest can erode intensity benefits • Influencing whole-building morphology can cause friction • If the studio is not primarily sustainability-driven, • performance concerns might become mere addenda • Process, technology are “ready”. We need positive results!
Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA
Student Alan Patrick discussing simulations, ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

Exhibition
Section 1:200 Section East-West East-West 1:200
Section East-West 1:200
+24,00

Elevation Friedrichstraße 1:200

11 Results : Building Simulation in the Studio
Floor plan Floor plan
4
4,35

Floor plan

3

9,00

2

3,35

1

Exhibition

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

• Design / Sim.: • L. de Pedro, • C. Sitzler •
(Seasonal) UDI 100 - 2000 lux & DAv 300 lux daylight studies for alternating zones of light / dark
114 113 112 114 111 113 110 112 109 111 108 110 107 109 106 108 107 106 NORTH

+0,00

Section North-South 1:200

Section North-South 1:200

Elevation Puttkamerstraße 1:200
01.06.

Research Center
Event

Research Center

Elevation Puttkamerstraße 1:200
01.06.

01.12.
01.12.

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2] HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

NORTH

SOUTH

SOUTH

10

20

30

40

50

60

OPENINGS [%]

Multi-Purpose
SOUTH SOUTH

Multi-Purpose

114 113 112

NORTH

17 16 15 17 14 16 13 15 12 14 11 13 10 12 11 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

OPENINGS [%]

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2] HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

114 111 113 110 112 109 111 108 110 107 109 106 108 107 106

NORTH

SOUTH

SOUTH

Chiller [kWh/m2]

NORTH

Chiller [kWh/m2]

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

NORTH 50

60

OPENINGS [%]

OPENINGS [%]

17 16 15 17 14 16 13 15 12 14 11 13 10 12 11 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

SOUTH

10

20

30

40

50

60

OPENINGS [%]

OPENINGS [%]

Chiller [kWh/m2]

Section East-West 1:200 Light studies / Opening North and South
SOUTH NORTH

Chiller [kWh/m2]

Light studies / Opening North and South
10 20 30 40 NORTH 50 60 OPENINGS [%]

Light intent & Sim.
40 50 60

UDI 100-2000 Lux UDI 100-2000 Lux Elevation Friedrichstraße 1:200

Floor plan UDI 100-2000 Lux Sommer

UDI 100-2000 Lux Winter UDI 100-2000 Lux Winter

Daylight Avilability 500 Lux Daylight Avilability 500 Lux

Exhibition

Exhibition

UDI 100-2000 Lux Sommer

10

20

30

Elevation Friedrichstraße 1:200
4
+24,00
4,35

OPENINGS [%]

3

9,00

2

3,35

1

4
+20,00

4,35

3

9,00

2

3,35

1

Exhibition

+24,00

Exhibition

+20,00
+14,00

114
+10,00 113

NORTH

112

+14,00

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

+6,00

111 110
+10,00

SOUTH

+0,00 109

114 113 112

NORTH

+6,00

108 107 106

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

111 110 109 108 107 106

SOUTH

Section North-South 1:200
+0,00

Section North-South 1:200

Cross Sections
Section North-South 1:200

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

OPENINGS [%] 114 113 112 NORTH

OPENINGS [%]
SOUTH

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

NORTH
16 15 14 SOUTH

17

Section North-South 1:200
17 SOUTH

111 110 109 108 107 106

Chiller [kWh/m2]

13 12 11 10

NORTH

Event

16
10 20 30

HEAT GENERATION [kWh/m2]

SOUTH 40 50

60

OPENINGS [%]

OPENINGS [%]

15 14

17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

SOUTH

Chiller [kWh/m2]

13 12 11

Chiller [kWh/m2]

Light studies / Opening North and South
NORTH

UDI 100-2000 Lux

UDI 100-2000 Lux Sommer
NORTH

UDI 100-2000 Lux Winter

Daylight Avilability 500 Lux

Event

106

OPENINGS [%]

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

OPENINGS [%]

OPENINGS [%]

Section East-West 1:200
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 SOUTH

Floor plan

Lateral Section
UDI 100-2000 Lux Sommer
Floor plan

Chiller [kWh/m2]

Light studies / Opening North and South
NORTH

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
10 20 30 OPENINGS [%]

UDI 100-2000 Lux

UDI 100-2000 Lux

Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)
40 50 60

Section East-West 1:200

DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

A

B

C

D

E

F

25

G lightshelf

4,52

H

4,53

I
5,00 D1 D2

J
D3

K
5,00 D4 D5 D6

12 Results : Building Simulation in the Studio
büro büro
M M

6,75

Grundriss 4 1:200
büro büro
a a

M M

leiter leiter

M M

toilette toilette personal personal

Hochsaal Hochsaal

toilette toilette
pumi pumi
a a

a a

Schnitt West-Ost 1:200

i

sommer sommer

70

2,70

5,00

Detailschnitt & Fassadenansicht equinox 1:20
Wor Wor ksh ksh ops ops

13,895

5,42

8,955

5,30

8,07

equinox

besprecher besprecher

lager lager büro büro

workshop workshop toilette toilette
pumi pumi
a a

2,60

2,60

2,60

a a

2,60

workshop workshop

6,75

workshop workshop lager lager
a a

toilette toilette
pumi pumi

workshop workshop

lager lager
lager lager cafe cafe
a a

a a

toilette personal

Au Au ss ss te te ll ll un un gg

Hochsaal

Workshop

pumi pumi
a a

Ansicht Friedrichstraße 1:200
udi >2000 lux
Fo yer Foy er

Toilett

en Lager

Pumi

toilette toilette
garderobe garderobe personal personal

Multi-metric daylight study of different facade configurations for maximum daylight depth BELICHTUNG & uniformity (500 lux)
M M a a

hörsaal hörsaal

s ro os Bü ür B

Au Au ss ss te te ll ll un un gg

Daylight Autonomy workshop workshop
hörsaal hörsaal büro büro

18.00 Uhr

4,52

konferenz konferenz

25

lager lager

Ansicht Puttkamerstraße 1:200

Auss Au tell sste llun ung g

Workshops Wor kshops
Toi Toilet letten ten Lager La ger Pu Pumi mi

19%

garderobe garderobe

25

62%

4,53

51%

32%

UDI <100 Lux

21.09
2,70

5,00

M M

Tee Tee küc küc he he Toil Toil ette ette Lager Lager

konferenz konferenz

Workshops Workshops

a a

M M

lightshelf
9.00 Uhr

5,00

21.06

21.12

iii i

UDI < 100 lux
fassadenstudien
sommer sommer equinox equinox
ohne lightshelf mit fassadeneinschnitt

13,895

5,42

8,955

57% 65%

+8%
5,30 8,07

70

M M

M M

A

B

C

konferenz konferenz

udi 100-2000 lux

Konfere Konfere nzraum nzraum

Wo Wo rks rks hop hop ss

Grundriss 4 1:200

a a

12.00 Uhr

Grundriss 4 1:200
equinox equinox

sommer sommer

Initial Light Shelf Concepts
D E
69% 71%

5,00

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

2,60

• Design / Sim.: • K. Kröger • P. Winkler P. Rust •
M M M M

Toi Toi let let ten ten La La ge ge rr

temperatur

ohne lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt

Au Au ss ss te te ll ll un un gg

teeküche teeküche

a a

continous daylight autonomy
Foye Fo yer r

Pe P rs on Ga ers G al ard on a Lag rde -Gar erob l-G La er e ar er rob ge e e ro ob e Toil r be To ette ilet n ten

A

mit lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt
erer agag klkl mimi nene PuPu trtärä GeGe

mit lightshelf mit fassadeneinschnitt

Grundriss 3 1:200
op op Sh Sh

B

mit lightshelf 10% geneigt mit fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf 20% geneigt mit fassadeneinschnitt

Pu Pu mi mi

A

21.09

B

21.06

C

D

21.12

E

F

C

Nutzung
Foyer Foyer Cafe Cafe

0

D 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22
ohne lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt

9.00 Uhr

Grundriss 3 1:200

winter winter

57%

A

B

C

D
69%

E

F

M M

Ballsaal Bal lsaal

Auss Au tell sste ung llun g

shop shop

daylight autonomy

0

ii
Hörsaal Hörsaal

austellung austellung toilette toilette lager lager

12.00 Uhr
2,70 70 4,36

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D6

F

light

+2%

UDI 100 - 2k lux
büro
a

M

büro
a

M

winter M winter
leiter

a a

cafe cafe

Caf C afé é

toilette
pumi
a

i
s

winter winter
19% 20%

besprecher

op op Sh Sh

+1%

iii
ee ob ob er er rd rd Ga er . . Ga gr rs rs ae Pe Pe lg el ea än rn tä er Ge Gt
Auss Au sste llun tell g ung

lager
a

temperatur
M

18.00 Uhr
Pe r Ga son rd alLage erob Gar er e r o
la

Nutzung

Lager Lager To To ile ile tt tt en en Pu Pu mm ii

tellu

shop shop

a a

foyer foyer

Austellungsfläche Austellungsfläche Veranstaltungsfläche Veranstaltungsfläche Personalbereich Personalbereich Lager Lager Eingang Eingang

Au Au ss ss te te ll ll un un gg

Regular facade A 0 Schnitt Light shelf only B Shelf + plateNord-Süd cut C Shelf 10° rotated D
Frequentierung Frequentierung

Ballsaal Bal lsaal

La L ag ger Toil er T oile ett tte en n Ga rderob Gard erobe e Pumi Pumi

n

overlit

Aufenthaltsdauer Aufenthaltsdauer

Belichtung Belichtung

Lüftung Lüftung

automatisch utomatisch Manuell a Manuell

Interaktion Interaktion Temperatur Temperatur

lager
a

Teeküche Toilette Lager

konferenz

Workshops

1:200

Schnitt ii Daylight Süd-Nord Ausstellung Availability 1:200
Lager Lager Toile To tten ilett en Pum P umii
Hörsaal Hörsaal

UDI > 2k lux
ii

Auss

a a

büro

M

teeküche

a

Toil

ette

be

ng

Garderobe Garderobe

Ausstellung

Sommer Sommer

Foye
M

gebäudestruktur
Foyer Cafe
62% 69%

0

2
21.09

4

6

8
51% 51%

10
0%
21.06

12

14

16
32% 36%

18

20

22

mi nek Pu rä Get

+7%

+4%

ger

Shop

r

21.12

workshop
a

Ballsaal

Auss

shop
tellu ng

austellung
9.00 Uhr ii
Hörsaal

toilette
pumi
a

TeTe ek ek üc üc hh Pu Pu mm i i ee To To ile ile tt tt en en Lager Lager

Auss Au sste llun tell g ung

Workshop Wo rkshops s

0
Auss tellu ng
M a

toilette lager garderobe konferenz workshop

57% 65% 53%

- 4% -12%

lager
ro s
ng

Workshop
Toilett en Lager Pumi

s

a

mit lightshelf mit fassadeneinschnitt
tellu

workshop

hörsaal

M

workshop
a M

Winter Winter

12.00 Uhr

hörsaal büro

Auss

69% 71% 68%

-1% -3%

lightshelf

Wo Wo rks rks hop hop ss

Büro Büro

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme
Schnitt Nord-Süd 1:200

i

toilette

iii
M M

Schnitt Süd-Nord 1:200

iiiAusstellung

a

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme
workshop
a

pumi

konferenz

i
Konferenzraum
Workshops

fassadenstudien Konzeptskizzen/Daiagramme 18.00 Uhr

Seasonal Facade Overshadowing
sommer
62% 69% 64%

19% 20% 19%

0% -1%

BELICHTUNG

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme

lager
lager cafe
a a

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme
tell ung

point-in-glare

+2% - 5%

equinox

51% 51% 46%

-5% -5%

32% 36% 30%

-2% -6%

winter

Sh

a

op

toilette
pumi garderobe personal

cafe
Foye r

Café

slicetest
Final South Facade (configuration C)
Ansicht Puttkamerstraße 1:200

0
Ausstellung
a

a

Auss

Garderobe
a

Lager Toile tten Pum i

shop

a

foyer

Auss
Ballsaal

tell

ung

gebäudestruktur
Frequentierung Austellungsfläche Veranstaltungsfläche Personalbereich

Pumi

La ge r Toil ette Garder n obe

Sommer

gebä

obe rder . Ga er Pers nelag ä Getr

ii
Toile

0
Tee kü Pum che i Toile tten Lager

Lager tten Pum i

Hörsaal
Auss
Workshops

continous daylight autonomy

Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)

ohne lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf mit fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf 10% geneigt mit fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf 20% geneigt mit fassadeneinschnitt

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme
21.09 21.06

Büro

Schnitt West-Ost 1:200

Detailschnitt & Fassadenansicht 1:20

Workshops

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio

Raumprogramm

Lager Eingang

automatisch Manuell

South Facade Cutaway (conf. C)
Aufenthaltsdauer Belichtung Lüftung Interaktion Temperatur
21.12

tell

ung

tell

ung

Auss

Winter

iii
57%

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme

9.00 Uhr

ohne lightshelf ohne fassadeneinschnitt
69%

12.00 Uhr

DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

Konzeptskiz

daylight autonomy
19%

gebäudestruktur

13 Conclusion • Simulation, if used properly, has a massively positive influence on ‘integrated’ processes designers undertake; it also is craft • • ‘Designerly’ simulations do not weaken form and can be • applied even in a non-sustainability driven creative context • • Inclusive performance research must happen in a strongly • design-driven framework, to stay generally applicable • • In this context, individual domains should adapt: • Tools: complex & usable, not simple, to mirror design reasoning • Process: Fluid, adaptable, individual; with rational components • Representations, Metrics: Problem-specific, spatially defined • “Design changes everything” ...? •
Not quite.

Design changes simulation, which in turn influences design. Architects deal with early-stage unstructured information in a synthetic manner, which shapes design intent and is used to gauge the social and behavioural impacts of space; this gives BPS performed by designers great future potential.
Student Majd Murad discussing simulations, ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

Thank you, DIVA DAY!
Off-conference questions? max@spacesustainers.org
A special “Thank You!” to all the students who participated in our classes throughout the last 2.5 years. None of this would have been possible without you. With deep thanks to: Cecilia, Farshad Nasrollahi, Jeffrey Tietze, Alstan Jakubiec, Christoph Reinhart, Matthias Graf v. Ballestrem, Bogdan Strugar, Jan Kunze, Regine Leibinger (everyone I forgot, apologies)
References Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2012. Building Performance Simulation in Non-Simplified Architectural Design. Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe conference, Prague, Czech Republic. Doelling, M.C. 2012. Hybrid Daylight Models in Architectural Design Education. Proceedings of DIVA Day 2012, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston. Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2013. Architektur, Simulation und Intention. In: Claus Steffan (Hrsg.), Parameter des Entwerfens: Architektur und Nachhaltigkeit. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin. Doelling, M.C. & Jastram, B. 2013. Daylight Prototypes: From Simulation Data to Four-Dimensional Artefact. Proceedings of the 18th CAADRIA conference, National University of Singapore, Sing. Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2013. Parametric Design: a Case Study in Design-Simulation Integration. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2013, Lyon, France.

Student Philip Rust co-presenting, final crit of ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio
Sustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013 Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt) DIVA Day 2013 Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful