Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Automated approach for design generation and thermal assessment

of alternative floor plans
Eugénio Rodrigues a,b,∗ , Adélio Rodrigues Gaspar a , Álvaro Gomes b
a
ADAI-LAETA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, Pólo II, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
b
INESCC, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, Pólo II, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a prototype tool for the space planning phase, which automatically generates alter-
Received 9 November 2013 native floor plans, according to the architect’s preferences and desires, and assesses their thermal
Received in revised form 4 June 2014 performance by coupling it with dynamic simulation. A case study of a single-family house was car-
Accepted 10 June 2014
ried out, which comprehended two design sets. The first set correspond to a single-level house and the
Available online 19 June 2014
second set is a two level house served by one stair. Each set is made up of twelve alternative floor plans
that were automatically generated, assessed, and ranked according to their thermal performance. The
Keywords:
ranking function weights and factors variability is analyzed. The results demonstrate that two level design
Thermal comfort
Architectural floor plan
solutions have the best thermal performance and, within each set, the difference between the best and
Space planning the worst thermal performance individual may reach 17% in the first set and 35% in the second set.
Alternative design solutions © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Dynamic simulation
Building thermal performance simulation

1. Introduction
Architectural design is an iterative trial-and-error process,
which lasts until the final solution emerges. In the earlier phase
of this process, space planning consists in the data analysis and
synthesis of floor plans, which comply with the design program,
constraints, and objectives. A few design alternatives are usually
created for comparison and discussion and it is during this stage
that the most important building performance decisions are made.
Frequently, architects rely on past experience or known rule-of-
thumb solutions. However, these may have never been validated,
and their possible correctness may vary from location to location
as well as context.
One way for the architect to make valid thermal performance
design choices is to use dynamic simulation tools. Such tools
estimate the building thermal performance and produce energy
reports containing information that may assist the architect when
decisions are made [1]. Dynamic simulation tools may additionally
be used to improve a known design by changing different vari-
ables through optimization techniques [2]. Nonetheless, architects
∗ Corresponding author at: ADAI-LAETA, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, Pólo II, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal.
Tel.: +351 962719008.
E-mail address: eugenio.rodrigues@gmail.com (E. Rodrigues).
rarely use thermal analysis tools in their daily practice [1]. There
are several reasons that account for this but the most significant is
that such tools are neither user-friendly [3] nor do they completely
meet the architect’s needs.
According to an international survey, carried out by IEA- SHC
Task 41 – Solar Energy and Architecture, which assessed the need
to improve architectural tools for the design of low-energy build-
ings, more user-friendly tools must be developed which are able to
tackle the requirements and specifications of the different design
phases [4]. In addition, according to the conclusions of the study,
such tools should be able “to support comparisons between com-
peting design alternatives in relation to energy use and production
in order to support the architect” [4]. With this in mind, if an auto-
mated floor plan generation tool with the referred characteristics
combined with dynamic simulation existed, it would assist prac-
titioners in the specific phase of space planning and contribute to
helping them choose which designs would better perform accord-
ing to their preferences and desires while complying with thermal
behavior requirements.
Computerized space planning tasks, also known as automated
generation of floor plans, have been a computational problem since
the 1960s. Despite efforts, these generative tools are not used in
architectural practice. Such approaches usually treat rooms/spaces
as rectangles that must be allocated within a building boundary
[5] or determine the position and shape of each room by par-
titioning a building area [6]. Some optimization methods were

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.016
0378-7788/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181 171

Fig. 1. Example of detailed thermal information for the living room. Red line is the maximum air temperature, dark blue line is the minimum air temperature, cyan line is
the exterior daily mean air temperature, and gray lines are the adaptive operative temperature limits. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

used to improve known floor plan designs according to a given
performance criteria [7] or used a kind of hierarchical relation
between elements to construct the floor plan [8]. Due to the com-
plexity involved, researchers have predominantly focused on a
few aspects of the floor plan at a time [9,10], e.g. topological
combinations of space arrangements without dimensions. How-
ever, floor plan generation approaches have never been coupled
to dynamic simulation, even though the idea had been previously
proposed [11].
In the approach presented in this paper, alternative floor plan
designs are generated for a case study of a single-family house,
according to the architect’s preferences and requirements. It uses a
hybrid evolutionary technique that couples an evolutionary strat-
egy (ES) with a stochastic hill climbing (SHC) technique, named
Evolutionary Program for the Space Allocation Problem (EPSAP)
[12–16]. Due to the fact that alternative space arrangements limit
the envelope design, it is important for the architect to be able
to compare different floor plans from the early stages of design.
This extends their choices, allowing them to select which of
the solutions to be further developed, and helps them to make
informed decisions. Therefore, the generated designs are automat-
ically assessed and ranked according to their thermal performance.
The presented tool allows the architect to compare alternative floor
plans and to visualize the thermal behavior in each space of every
floor plan design.
The paper is divided into four sections. In Section 1, the
background on the subject is presented. Section 2 describes the
automated procedure of generating floor plan designs and how
dynamic simulation is used. Section 3 presents a case study of a
single-family house for which two sets of designs are generated.
Finally the conclusions are made in Section 4.
2. Generation of floor plan designs
Evolutionary algorithms mimic Charles Darwin theory of evolu-
tion, where the fittest individuals have higher probability of passing
their genetic material to the next generation. The individuals evolve
through random genetic mutations, recombination of the parents
genetic material, and selection.
The floor plans are generated by a hybrid evolutionary tech-
nique, which couples an ES and a SHC in a two-stage procedure [12].
The technique has been validated in several tests; among which one
was the replication of an architect floor plan design [13]. The space
allocation problem is a difficult and very computational intensive

Table 1
Case study specifications for spaces and openings (values in meters).

Level Space Ext. window Ext. door Int. door

Msn Mst Mfd Mfa (m2 ) Mfo Meww Mewh Mewr Mewa Mewo Medw Meda Medo Mids
Name t m a o w1 , w2 h1 , h2 a l d o1 w1 l d w1 w

L1 R1 Hall 0 1.40 5.0 1.20 1.80 3.00 0.90

R2 Kitchen 2 2.60 15.0 1.00 0.1 3.00 3.00 0.90
R3 Living room 1 4.00 20.0 5.00, 4.00 2.40, 2.40 3.00 3.00 1.40
R4 Bathroom 2 1.80 3.0 0.90
R5 Corridor 0 1.40 3.0 0.90
R6 Bedroom 1 3.50 18.0 1.00 0.1 3.00 3.00 0.90
R7 Bedroom 1 3.00 15.0 1.00 0.1 3.00 3.00 0.90
R8 Bedroom 1 2.70 12.0 1.00 0.1 3.00 3.00 0.90
R9 Priv. Bathroom 2 1.80 3.0 0.60 0.60 3.00 3.00 0.90

tew = 0.32, tiw = 0.11, ac = 200 m2 , and ag = 200 m2 , North = RND[−45, 45], Location = Coimbra, Weather = Coimbra PT.
172 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Table 2
Specifications for constructive system.

Element U value Layer T C D SP TA SA VA

(cm) (W/m K) (kg/m3 ) (J/kg K)

Ceiling/Slab 3.28 High weight concrete 20.0 1.73 2242.6 836.8 0.90 0.65 0.65
Exterior door 5.00 Hardwood 4.0 0.20 825.0 2385.0 0.90 0.78 0.78

Exterior wall 0.43 Plaster 2.0 0.43 1250.0 1088.0 0.90 0.60 0.60
Dense brick 11.0 1.25 2082.4 920.5 0.90 0.93 0.93
Insulation 8.0 0.04 32.0 836.8 0.90 0.50 0.50
Concrete block 15.0 1.73 2242.6 836.8 0.90 0.65 0.65
Plaster (gypsum) 2.0 0.22 950.0 840.0 0.90 0.60 0.60

Floor 0.43 High weight concrete 20.0 1.73 2242.6 836.8 0.90 0.65 0.65
Insulation 8.0 0.04 32.0 836.8 0.90 0.50 0.50
Lime plaster 2.0 0.80 1600.0 840.0 0.90 0.50 0.50
Hardwood 1.5 0.20 825.0 2385.0 0.90 0.78 0.78

Interior door 2.00 Hardwood 0.5 0.16 720.8 1255.2 0.90 0.78 0.78
Chipboard 3.0 0.07 430.0 1260.0 0.90 0.78 0.78
Hardwood 0.5 0.16 720.8 1255.2 0.90 0.78 0.78

Interior wall 2.69 Plaster (gypsum) 2.0 0.22 950.0 840.0 0.90 0.60 0.60
Concrete block 7.0 1.73 2242.6 836.8 0.90 0.65 0.65
Plaster (gypsum) 2.0 0.22 950.0 840.0 0.90 0.60 0.60

Roof 0.36 Slag 1.5 1.44 881.0 1673.6 0.90 0.55 0.55
Felt and membrane 1.0 0.19 1121.3 1673.6 0.90 0.75 0.75
Dense insulation 10.0 0.04 91.3 836.8 0.90 0.50 0.50
High weight concrete 20.0 1.73 2242.6 836.8 0.90 0.65 0.65
Plaster (gypsum) 2.0 0.22 950.0 840.0 0.90 0.60 0.60

Element U value Type g value VT

Window 2.60 Double Glazed Window 0.63 0.70

T, layer thickness; C, conductivity; D, density; SH, specific heat; TA, thermal absorptance; SA, solar absorptance; VA, visible absorptance; VT, visible transmittance.

task. For this reason, adaptive operators were used to increase the be gathered into ten groups, each corresponding to an evaluator and
efficiency of the algorithm and reduce computational time. Such two area functions:
operators also contribute to a wider exploration and a deeper and
faster exploitation of the search space [16].
1. Connectivity/Adjacency Evaluator
The generation process consists in allocating spaces according
2. Overlap Evaluator objectives
to the user’s geometric and topological requirements. This input
3. Space Location Evaluator
may be the dimensions of each object (spaces, exterior windows,
4. Opening Overlap Evaluator
exterior doors, and interior doors), building boundary, adjacent
5. Opening Orientation Evaluator
buildings, gross area, the orientation of openings, openings clear
6. Dimensions Evaluator
area, and preferable space location. The user may also have the
7. Compactness Evaluator
design program distributed on several levels, which are served by
8. Overflow Evaluator
vertical circulation objects such as stairs and elevators [14]. It is also
9. Construction Area Function
possible for the user to specify the compactness level of the gen-
10. Gross Area Function
erated floor plans [15]. EPSAP uses a clustering technique to group
spaces according to their connectivity/adjacency matrices and level
of compactness. These evaluators and functions are weighted according to the
Each individual (I) in the population is a candidate floor plan user preferences (see Rodrigues et al. [14–16] for EPSAP details).
design that must comprise a set of objectives. These objectives may For example, the user may attribute higher weight value in

Table 3
Space occupancy schedule, activity and people.

Space Time

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Act (W) Pp

Hall 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 190 2

Kitchen 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 190 2
Living room 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 110 5
Bathroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 207 1
Corridor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 190 2
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 72 2
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 72 2
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 72 1
Priv. bathroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 207 1
Stair 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 190 2

Act, activity; Pp, people.

 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181 173

Table 4
Space artificial lighting/equipment schedule.

Space Time

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CM (W/m2 )

Hall 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0

Kitchen 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0
Living room 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0
Bathroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Corridor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Bedroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Priv. bathroom 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0
Stair 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0

CM, calculation method (W/m2 ).

Fig. 2. Connectivity Matrices for each level and Level Height, Building Boundary,
and Adjacent Buildings Matrices for the case study specifications.

Connectivity/Adjacency Evaluator objectives than in the Opening

Orientation Evaluator objectives.
If any floor plan design fulfills these objectives it signifies that
the architect’s requirements have been satisfied. After the floor
plans are generated, the thermal assessment is carried out using
dynamic simulation program, which is coupled with the EPSAP
algorithm.
2.1. Thermal performance assessment
To assess the thermal performance of the generated floor plans
the EPSAP was linked to EnergyPlus (version 8.0.0). To compute
the thermal performance of each floor plan information about the
physical properties of the materials, the thicknesses of the layers,
occupancy data, lighting/equipment data, schedules, and the con-
structive system for each element such as ceilings, roofs, floors,
exterior walls, interior walls, and opening types is required. This
information is stored in a database organized by space functions.
The results of hourly indoor air temperature for each room and
exterior air temperature may be displayed on screen when the
user asks for it by clicking on each space (see Fig. 1). The user may
verify/analyze the detailed space thermal behavior for the space
throughout the whole year. According to the space function and
occupancy, the user may decide to implement design changes or
simply to opt for a different floor plan solution.
The floor plan designs may be sorted according to a cost func-
Fig. 3. Second set specifications for Connectivity/Adjacency of spaces and stairs.
the American Standard ASHRAE 55:2004 [18], or to static opera-
tive temperature limits set by the user. In the former case, when
the outdoor mean temperature is below 10 ◦ C or above 30 ◦ C, the
algorithm will use those values to calculate the adaptive operative
temperature limits.
According to the cost function (Eq. (1)), the higher the amount
of penalties, the worse thermal performance the floor plan design
has. Eq. (1) calculates the penalties for every design (I). In Eq. (1),
the Nr is the number of rooms on the floor plan, the Nt is the number
of hours in the year, Ti (t) is the air temperature at the time t for the
space i, and fdf is the function that calculates the difference between
the hourly air temperature Ti (t) and the thermal comfort limits (T1
and T2 , lower and upper limit respectively) according to Eq. (2). The
weight difference will allow the user to specify their preferences for
future cooling or heating systems, if necessary.
 
Nr Nt

f (I) = (fdf (Ti (t), T1 , T2 ) × foc (i, t)) (1)

tion of thermal discomfort (see Eq. (1)), which corresponds to
a weighted sum of differences between the interior hourly air
temperature in each space and the operative comfort temper-
ature limits. These limits of thermal comfort may conform to
operative temperatures for buildings without mechanical cooling
systems, such as the European Standard EN 15251:2007 [17] and
i=1 t=1
At a certain time t in the space i, if the indoor temperature is out-
side the comfort interval, the cost function will penalize the design
with the difference from those limits (T1 and T2 ). Such penalty is
then multiplied by a corresponding weighting value (see Eq. (2)),
174 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Fig. 4. Floor plan design results for the case study, first set. All designs satisfy the architect’s requirements and ranked by thermal performance. North orientation is represented
on the top-right position in each design.
 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181 175

Fig. 5. Floor plan design results for the case study second set (1–6 designs). Designs are ranked by thermal performance. North orientation is represented on the top-right
position in each design.
176 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Fig. 6. Floor plan design results for the case study second set (7–12 designs). Designs are ranked by thermal performance. North orientation is represented on the top-right
position in each design.
 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181 177

Penalties

Set 1
Set 2

32000 34000 36000 38000 40000 42000 44000 46000 48000

penalties (°C)

Average penalties per space

Set 1
Set 2

3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800

penalties (°C space)

Penalties per space

Set 1
Set 2

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

penalties (°C)

Total degree−hours
Set 1
Set 2

65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000 1e+05

TDH (°C)

Fig. 7. Penalties (Eq. (1), f(I), ◦ C), average penalties per space (f(I)/Nr , ◦ C/space), penalties per space (◦ C), and total degree-hours (TDH, ◦ C) for each of the design sets.

w1 for the lower limit and w2 for the upper limit. These weights are specified by the practitioner according to their confidence in the
can be adjusted by the user to give more importance to cooling or representativeness of the occupancy schedules.
heating systems.

f1 if space i occupied at time t
⎧ foc (i, t) = (3)
⎪ w (T − T ) if T1 > T
⎨ 1 1 f2 otherwise
fdf (T, T1 , T2 ) = w2 (T − T2 ) if T > T2 (2)
⎪
⎩
0 otherwise By default, the value used for weights w1 and w2 is 1.0. For occu-
pancy factors f1 and f2 , the values were 1.0 and 0.3, respectively.
The thermal assessment of the alternative floor plans helps practi-
The function foc returns the occupancy factor (Eq. (3)). If the tioners to rank them in a way that includes their preferences and
space i is occupied at time t the factor is f1 , if not it is f2 . These factors expectations of how the building will be used.
178 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Design Set 1
20% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17%

204

1
151

2
184

3
4 171

192
5

179
6
Rank

188
7

166
8

186
9
10

160
11

158
12

167

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Occupancy factor (f2)

Design Set 2
33% 34% 34% 35% 35% 36% 36% 36% 36% 37% 37%

203
1

119
2

181
3

122
4

227
5

56
6
Rank

30
7

168
8

113
9
10

132
11

80
12

60

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Occupancy factor (f2)

Fig. 8. Designs ranking according to occupancy factor variation (f2 ). Left axis indicates ranking order, bottom axis the occupancy factor variation, and top values represent
the relative difference between the best and worst solution.

3. Case study
Alternative space arrangements produce different floor plan
shapes and consequently, limit the envelope design, especially the
size and position of the windows. Therefore, it is important for
the practitioner to compare and assess those alternatives in order
to make informed decisions. The purpose of this case study is to
demonstrate that the presented approach is capable of helping the
architect to make decisions on the space planning phase of archi-
tectural design.
This case study was considered in city of Coimbra, Portugal, at
140 m of altitude with a latitude of 40.20 N and longitude of 8.42 W.
The weather data is provided by the US Department of Energy from
its website. EPSAP will generate two sets of floor plans, with 12
alternative designs each (Ndg ), for a single-family house. Both sets
are evaluated according to operative temperatures, for buildings
without mechanical cooling systems, stipulated in the European
Standard EN 15251:2007 [17].
3.1. Design program
Two sets of floor plans were generated for this case study,
with 12 alternative designs each, for a three bedroom house.
In the first set, the design program is for a single level house
while in the second set the same program is distributed on two
levels.
 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181 179

Design Set 1
64% 44% 32% 27% 24% 21% 20% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 23% 24% 26%

151
1

204
2

184
3

171
4

179
5

192
6
Rank

186
7

166
8

188
9
10

167
11

158
12

160

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (w1)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 (w2)

Design Set 2
76% 53% 34% 26% 25% 25% 27% 30% 32% 33% 35% 37% 38% 40% 42% 45% 47% 49% 52% 56% 59%

227
1

119
2

181
3

122
4

203
5

168
6
Rank

56
7

30
8

113
9
10

132
11

80
12

60

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (w1)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 (w2)

Fig. 9. Designs ranking according to weights variation (w1 and w2 ). Left axis indicates ranking order, bottom axis the weights’ variation, and top values represent the relative
difference between the best and worst solution.

A three bedroom single-family house was used for the design
program. In addition to bedrooms, the program also has a hall, a
kitchen, a living room, a corridor, and two bathrooms. Topologi-
cally, all spaces have connection to the horizontal circulation spaces
(hall and corridor). The kitchen also has an interior door connecting
to the living room. One of the bathrooms serves the public area of
the house and the other is connected to the corridor, which links
to all bedrooms. All interior doors are 90 cm wide except the living
room doors, which are 140 cm. With the exception of the horizontal
circulation space and one of the bathrooms, all remaining spaces
have at least one window (living room has two). The hall has one
exterior door. No other topological requirements were added, such
as opening orientation or space location. Each floor plan design
alternative has the north orientation randomly selected in the inter-
val −45◦ and 45◦ . The complete description of the design program
for the first set, in its geometric and topological requirements, is
presented in Table 1 and in Fig. 2. The second design set has the
addition of a stair that serves the two levels. All other specifications
are exactly the same. The specifications are presented in Fig. 3.
The constructive system, materials, and layer thicknesses were
set to meet the recent Portuguese housing regulation, Decree-Law
118/2013 and Ordinance 349-B/2013, which are transposed from
European Directive 2010/31/EU related to building’s energy per-
formance. Exterior walls are double brick with 8 cm of insulation
covered with 2 cm of plaster. Windows are double glazed with clear
glass. The complete description of the constructive system may be
found in Table 2. The infiltration rate was set to 0.6 air changes per
hour (ACH) for spaces with exterior windows or doors. In order to
simulate natural ventilation that occurs from users opening win-
dows and doors, 1.5 ACH was added during time periods when
the interior air temperature of a space was greater or equal than
22 ◦ C and the outside air temperature was at least 1◦ lower. The
ground temperature was a constant 18 ◦ C. The building tenancy
was for a five person family, whom occupied each room according
to common residential use. The internal gains were set according to
a typical residential occupancy, considering the presence of people,
their activity level, and the use of artificial lighting and equipment
(Tables 3 and 4). The simulation run period was one complete year.
3.2. Results and discussion
All algorithm runs were conducted on a 2012 3.2 GHz 6 Core
computer with 32 GB of RAM. The algorithm was built in JAVA and
parallel computing with twelve threads was used. For both sets
the evaluators weights were 8 for Connectivity/Adjacency, 8 for
Objects Overlapping, 1 for Space Location, 4 for Openings Overlap-
ping, 1 for Openings Orientation, 1 for Objects Dimensions, 1 for
Compactness, and 2 for Overflow (see Rodrigues et al. [14,16] for
more information on the mathematical model).
180 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181

Table 5
Results for each design set ranked by thermal performance.

Set FPD Ori Pen PenSp Upen Open HDH CDH Carea Garea V
(◦ C) (◦ C/space) (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C) (m2 ) (m2 ) (m3 )

1 204 333 34500.53 3833.39 29968.42 4532.11 60563.76 7547.09 161.47 161.47 435.98
184 23 34849.55 3872.17 30002.49 4847.06 62241.36 9018.22 145.75 145.75 393.52
151 8 35312.14 3923.57 26222.07 9090.07 53135.68 16731.62 138.65 138.65 374.36
192 318 36678.03 4075.34 30570.48 6107.55 64326.90 11471.35 154.26 154.26 416.51
171 22 36875.19 4097.24 30144.29 6730.89 60614.13 12330.96 161.64 161.64 436.44
160 28 38847.00 4316.33 35529.16 3317.84 74052.51 5542.82 149.60 149.60 403.92
179 44 38851.64 4316.85 30496.81 8354.83 61398.86 15267.73 153.50 153.50 414.46
188 340 39589.26 4398.81 33443.26 6146.00 67792.47 10849.31 148.24 148.24 400.25
186 26 39644.68 4404.96 31317.77 8326.91 62548.76 16705.89 156.24 156.24 421.84
166 37 40685.81 4520.65 31659.05 9026.76 61908.72 17244.77 156.71 156.71 423.12
158 332 40889.46 4543.27 34663.66 6225.80 69080.28 12304.88 164.10 164.10 443.06
167 19 41469.26 4607.70 34321.26 7148.00 49212.16 13312.14 156.08 156.08 421.41

2 203 7 31989.47 3198.95 22083.07 9906.39 45619.79 17798.81 86.95 173.90 473.01
119 348 32902.10 3290.21 19572.34 13329.76 41787.03 25104.69 81.05 162.11 466.87
181 329 33014.14 3301.41 20513.04 12501.10 43912.53 22987.24 94.58 189.15 514.49
122 339 33737.49 3373.75 20996.42 12741.08 44591.21 23062.05 79.08 158.16 430.18
227 42 34616.91 3461.69 18794.35 15822.56 40033.92 28944.98 85.56 171.12 492.82
56 36 39578.58 3957.86 29986.78 9591.81 61455.12 17738.07 81.85 163.71 589.34
30 4 41521.10 4152.11 32691.56 8829.53 69269.54 13602.20 86.92 173.83 469.34
168 324 42484.48 4248.45 28953.90 13530.58 61129.98 23982.69 81.56 163.12 440.43
113 7 43057.92 4305.79 32839.03 10218.89 67908.74 17535.34 89.61 179.22 537.67
132 1 45204.72 4520.47 37969.44 7235.28 79137.76 11982.66 86.24 172.48 465.70
80 18 49086.42 4908.64 43600.91 5485.51 90203.74 9283.66 91.73 183.46 550.37
60 341 49247.92 4924.79 45434.39 3813.53 94118.15 6123.79 88.29 176.58 476.75

Set, designs set; FPD, design number; Ori, orientation; Pen, total penalties (f(I), Eq. (1)); PenSp, average penalties per space (f(I)/Nr ); Upen, under-heating penalties; Open,
over-heating penalties; HDH, indoor heating degree-hours; CDH, indoor cooling degree-hours; Carea, construction area; Garea, gross area; V, volume.

For the thermal assessment of each solution, the over- and
under-heating weights (w1 and w2 ) were both set to 1. The occu-
pancy factors were set to 1.0 and 0.3, respectively f1 and f2 .
In the first generated set, the algorithm run took a total of
15 s with a population of 204 individuals (Np ). From those, the
twelve fittest were subject to thermal assessment and subsequently
ranked. The compactness level was 1 (see Rodrigues et al. [15]).
Fig. 4 presents the floor plan design results. As may be observed, the
floor plan designs have fully satisfied all of the architect’s require-
ments (no penalties). They are also diverse in their configuration,
orientation, and shape.
In the two level floor plan set, the algorithm took 34 s to com-
plete the generation of the floor plans with a population of 228
individuals (Np ). In this case, the compactness level was 5, resulting
in more compact and rectangular floor plan shapes.
Fig. 5 and 6 show the floor plan design results for this set. Due
to the higher compactness level, the floor plans are shaped as rec-
tangles. The algorithm was unable to satisfy all design program
requirements for the worst solution and a few dimensional penal-
ties were attributed. However, the design results are satisfactory
as all objects were allocated without overlapping or omitting any
interior or exterior openings. Despite having similar morphologi-
cal shapes, the generated floor plans are diverse in their interior
configuration, orientation, stair type, and in the orientation of the
openings.
Table 5 ranks, within each design set, the floor plan designs
according to their thermal performance (Eq. (1), f(I), Pen column,
◦ C) and presents other data, such as design average penalties per
space (PenSp column, f(I)/Nr , ◦ C/space), penalties for under- and
over-heating (Open and Upen columns respectively, ◦ C), indoor
heating and cooling degree-hours (HDH and CDH columns, ◦ C),
construction area (Carea column, m2 ), gross area (Garea column, m2 ),
and volume (V column, m3 ). As observable, the penalties for under-
heating represent the most significant part of the total penalties. In
the second set, the over-heating penalties are much higher due to
the more compact building shape. On average, the second set has
higher gross area and volume than the first set. This is the conse-
quence of a higher compactness level that obliges the empty spaces
on each floor level to be occupied with stretched spaces, and also
the second set design program has one more space for the stair. As
expected, the construction area in the first set is almost the double
of the second set.
It is possible to observe that, despite satisfying the same require-
ments, the floor plan designs have significant thermal performance
differences. Fig. 7 depicts floor plans penalties (Eq. 1, f(I)), average
penalties per space (f(I)/Nr ), penalties per space, and total degree-
hours (TDH) for both sets. The amplitude between the best and the
worst design is significantly higher (35%) in the second set than in
the first set (17%). Second design set has the best and worst indi-
viduals of both sets. If the average penalties per space is considered
(the second set has one more space, the stair), the first set has their
best thermal performance comparable to solution in 6th position
of the second set (see Table 5). If consider the exact penalties per
space, first set is slightly worst. This may be because the second set
has a more balanced distribution of over- and under-heating penal-
ties (see Table 5). According to the total amount of degree-hours of
discomfort (ignoring the people occupancy of spaces criteria), the
results show that the second set has the best and worst design
solutions.
Due to two oversized windows, the living room is the space
in both sets with higher temperature amplitude, which may vary
between between 10 and 42 ◦ C. Despite such amplitude between
minimum and maximum temperatures, the maximum tempera-
ture corresponds to climate heat picks during some short periods
of time, the temperature frequency shows that temperatures vary
mainly between 14 and 28 ◦ C around the year.
Two reasons may be inferred for the second design set to have
better performance solutions and worst solutions. The first rea-
son is the fact that it has a smaller exterior surface area (the sum
of exterior walls and roof area), which minimizes the heat losses
through the envelope reducing significantly the heating needs. The
second reason is that if exterior windows are over-dimensioned, or
positioned in a less favorable orientation, the cooling requirements
increase due to higher solar gains.
From a decision making point of view, the ranking of the
floor plans allows to determine the best solution from both sets.
 E. Rodrigues et al. / Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 170–181
However, different weights and occupancy factors may alter the
order of solutions.
The occupancy factor f2 in Eq. (3) may be interpreted as the
user’s confidence over the occupancy schedules, i.e. the lower the
value, the higher the confidence in its representativeness of the
future building use. On the one hand, it means that higher f2 , higher
robustness of the floor plan in accommodating other periods of
use. On the other hand, this also means increasing difficulty for the
architect in satisfying all thermal comfort requirements. Fig. 8 illus-
trates both design sets (vertical dashed line indicates the value used
in case study). A colored line and number represent each design. The
y-axis represents the ranking position (12 to 1) and the x-axis the
f2 factor (0 to 1). On the top of each set the difference between the
best and the worst individual is presented. One may observe that
with the increase of the f2 the rank of floor plan designs changes,
especially in the first set. This signifies that certain designs are very
specific for this occupancy type and if they are different, other solu-
tions must be considered. An example is design solution 192 from
the first set.
Fig. 9 illustrates the ranking of the floor plans for each of the
design sets by changing the weights for under- and over-heating
penalties. If the weight w1 reduces, left side of each graphic, the
user is providing more importance to the over-heating penalties.
Due to the amount of penalties that derive from under-heating,
the ranking of design solutions is very sensible to change despite
the increase in the difference between the best and worst solution
(up to 64% in the first set and 76% in the second set). However,
if the value of weight w2 is altered right side of each graphic, the
floor plans are ranked according to under-heating penalties. Still,
the ranking variation is less frequent. In the case of the first design
set, design solutions 160 and 151 start ranked as best and worst
solution, respectively, when weight w1 is 0. However, their ranked
position changes to the opposite when weight w2 is 0, being 151
the best and 160 the worst of all design solutions. On the other
hand, solutions 204 and 184 of the same design set are very robust
to weights variation.
4. Conclusions
Space planning is the earliest and an important task in archi-
tecture design process. The interior configuration of spaces has a
significant role in the overall building design, limiting the archi-
tect’s envelope design decisions. Space arrangements are very hard
to change in later phases of the design process, therefore it is fun-
damental that practitioner can compare alternative solutions. To
help the decision making, the solutions’ thermal behavior may be
assessed using dynamic simulation.
To meet the needs of the architect, an automatic approach to
generate alternative floor plans (EPSAP) has been developed, which
assesses and ranks each solution according to their thermal behav-
ior using EnergyPlus. To demonstrate the approach capabilities, a
case study was conducted for a single-family house.
Satisfying the same architect’s requirements and preferences,
the thermal performance varied from 17% to 35%, for single-level
and two-level building design types respectively. This confirmed
that floor plan generative tools, which expand the range of design
solutions within architect’s desires, help to find potential designs
that would be missed otherwise. As demonstrated, the interior
space arrangement of floor plans is important as the position of each
space defines the overall building shape and limits the windows
position and size, thus contributing to the design thermal perfor-
mance. An important aspect is the fact that the expected occupancy
plays a significant role in the ranking of different floor plans. Some
of the solutions are more sensible to this and may perform worse
181
in comparison to other alternative designs, which are more robust
to occupancy changes.
Acknowledgements
The presented work is framed under the Energy for Sustaina-
bility Initiative of the University of Coimbra (UC) and has been
supported by the Energy and Mobility for Sustainable Region Project
(EMSURE) CENTRO-07-0224-FEDER-002004, the Energy Efficient
Schools Project (3Es), and by Automatic Generation of Architectural
Floor Plans with Energy Optimization (GerAPlanO) CENTRO-07-
0402-FEDER-038922.
References
[1] S. Attia, E. Gratia, A. De Herde, J.L. Hensen, Simulation-based decision
support tool for early stages of zero-energy building design, Energy and
Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.028
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037877881200045X
[2] S. Stevanovic, Optimization of passive solar design strategies: a review,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25 (2013) 177–196,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.028 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S1364032113002803
[3] K. Papamichael, V. Pal, Bridging the gap between building science
and design studios, in: CAADRIA 2002: Redefining Content. Cyberjaya,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Malaysia, 2002, pp. 123–130
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g74x44f.pdf
[4] J. Kanters, M. Horvat, M.C. Dubois, Tools and methods used by archi-
tects for solar design, Energy and Buildings (2012), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.05.031 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S03787788120003040
[5] J.J. Michalek, R. Choudhary, P.Y. Papalambros, Architectural layout design
optimization, Engineering Optimization 34 (2002) 461–484, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/03052150214016.
[6] M. Verma, M.K. Thakur, Architectural space planning using genetic algo-
rithms, in: The 2nd International Conference on Computer and Automation
Engineering (ICCAE), vol. 2, 26–28 February 2010, IEEE, 2010, pp. 268–275,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCAE.2010.5451497, ISBN: 978-1-4244-5569-0.
[7] R. Bausys, I Pankrasovaite, Optimization of architectural layout by the improved
genetic algorithm, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management XI (2005)
13–21.
[8] L. Virirakis, GENETIC.A: a computer language that supports general formal
expression with evolving data structures, IEEE Transactions on Evo-
lutionary Computation 7 (5) (2003) 456–481, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TEVC.2003.816581.
[9] B. Medjdoub, B. Yannou, Separating topology and geometry in space plan-
ning, Computer-Aided Design 32 (1) (2000) 39–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0010-4485(99)00084-6.
[10] S.S.Y. Wong, K.C.C. Chan, EvoArch. An evolutionary algorithm for archi-
tectural layout design, Computer-Aided Design 41 (9) (2009) 649–667,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2009.04.005.
[11] G. Zimmermann, From floor plan drafting to building simulation – an efficient
software supported process, in: I. Beausoleil-Morrison, M. Bernier (Eds.), Inter-
national IBPSA Conference Building Simulation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
2005, pp. 1441–1448.
[12] E. Rodrigues, A. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, An evolutionary strategy enhanced with
a local search technique for the space allocation problem in architec-
ture, part 1. Methodology, Computer Aided-Design 45 (5) (2013) 887–897,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.01.001.
[13] E. Rodrigues, A. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, An evolutionary strategy enhanced with a
local search technique for the space allocation problem in architecture, part
2. Validation and performance tests, Computer Aided-Design 45 (5) (2013)
898–910, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.01.003.
[14] E. Rodrigues, A. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, An approach to the multi-level space
allocation problem in architecture using a hybrid evolutionary technique,
Automation in Construction 35 (2013) 482–498, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2013.06.005.
[15] E. Rodrigues, A. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, Incorporating morphological preferences
using a compactness evaluator with a clustering technique for the automated
generation of floor plan designs, 2013 (manuscript).
[16] E. Rodrigues, A. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, The analysis of adaptive operators in a
hybrid evolutionary technique for the generation of floor plan designs, 2013
(manuscript).
[17] EN 15251, Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment
of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal envi-
ronment, lighting and acoustics, 2007.
[18] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal environmental conditions for
human occupancy, 2004.