Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems Performance and Energy Efficiency

Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems
Performance and Energy Efficiency

Simulation Modeling and Genetic Algorithm
Analysis in the Early Design Phase
By
Radwa Abouelseoud

Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe
University of Applied Sciences
2018
Blank for the cover

Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems
Performance and Energy Efficiency
Simulation Modeling and Genetic Algorithm Analysis

in the Early Design Phase
Presented By
Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Architecture and Interior Design in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Engineering
International Façade Design and Construction
Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe, University of Applied Sciences

Detmold, Germany
June 2018
Supervisors: Prof. Ing. Daniel Arztmann

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Winfried Heusler

Statement
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented
in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required
by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results
that are not original to this work.
Name: Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud
Signature:
Date/Place: Detmold, 26.06.2018

Certificate
This is to certify that Radwa Abouelseoud has been allotted the thesis topic
“Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems Performance and Energy Efficiency:
Simulation Modeling and Genetic Algorithm Analysis in the Early Design Phase” for
her master thesis project as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Engineering in International Façade Design and Construction program at
Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe, University of Applied Sciences Detmold, Germany.
This is further certified that she has completed this project work in one semester
under my guidance and supervision.
Prof. Ing. Daniel Arztmann

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Winfried Heusler
This thesis project has been accepted.
1st Supervisor________________________
2nd Supervisor________________________

“God is the Light of the heavens and the earth”

Acknowledgment
First, I would like to thank God Almighty for accomplishing this work. I am indebted
to many people who have directly and indirectly influenced and inspired me through
the different phases of this research. Without their guidance, enthusiasm, and support
this work wouldn’t have been successfully achieved.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors,

Prof. Dr. Winfried Heusler and Prof. Ing. Daniel Arztmann, for their valuable time,
constant support, constructive discussions and considerate supervision. I would also
like to thank Priedemann Façade Experts for all the ideas feedback and inspirations
they gave me for the thesis.
And last but not least, I would also like to mention my gratefulness to my parents
for their generous support and encouragement, which helped me throughout this
study. This accomplishment would not have been done without them.
Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud

June 2018

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a design evaluation framework and find a
building performance simulation tool for building envelope systems that combines all
aspects in one platform, for architectural practice during the design phase. The first
part of the research identified design methods for high performance facades and
factors that affect energy performance and efficiency of building envelopes, according
to different climatic regions, and the important steps in ensuring that these factors and
strategies are integrated during the design phase. The second part discussed energy
and daylight performance metrics, and different BPS (Building Performance
Simulation) tools capabilities that are used in analyzing and evaluating building
performance were investigated.
The study revealed that architects and non-specialist users find it difficult to
integrate BPS tools in the design process, and indicated the lack of intelligence within
the compared tools. Honeybee, a plugin for Grasshopper, brings together parametric
modelling and environmental analysis within the same platform, which utilizes the
calculation engines of well known daylight and energy simulation software Radiance,
Daysim, Openstudio, and EnergyPlus, to reach accurate results. And also integrate
the results as a graphical representation instead of reports and graphs, which
facilitates the decision making for architects for further design modifications in an early
design phase.
The analytical study focused on daylight and lighting energy performance
evaluation for an office building in Cairo, Egypt, complied with LEED v4, and aimed to
explore the effect of WWR and façade shading elements on daylight and lighting
energy performance. The analysis was conducted in two phases; firstly, five studios
with WWR ranging from 20-100% and different façade shading treatment were
evaluated by using grasshopper. Secondly, a comparative analysis table was plotted
to show the different performance results of the case studies in order to show if the
standards were effectively met or further design modifications are required to optimize
building envelope performance, results were discussed and recommendations were
outlined.
Keywords: Building Envelope Performance, Energy Efficiency, Building Performance

Simulation (BPS), Window to Wall Ratio (WWR), Daylight Performance, Honyebee.
i
List of Contents
i
Abstract ii
List of Contents iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables x
List of Diagrams xi
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Research Problem Definition 2
1.3 Research Scope and Limitations 3
1.4 Research Goal 3
1.5 Research Objectives 3
2. Literature Survey 4
2.1 Design Methods for High Performance Facades 4
2.1.1 Façade Performance Attributes 4
2.1.2 Methods for Climate Based High Performance
Facades Design 5
2.2 Characteristics and Properties of High
Performance Facades 6
2.2.1 Form and Orientation 6
2.2.2 Fenestration 8
2.2.3 Material Selection 8
2.2.4 Heat and Moisture Barrier 9
2.2.5 Thermal Comfort 10
2.2.6 Daylight 12
2.2.7 Solar Shading 12
2.3 Building Envelope Energy Performance 14
2.3.1 Energy Performance Metrics 14
2.4 Building Envelope Daylight Performance 15
2.4.1 Daylight Benefits 15
2.4.2 Daylight Performance Metrics 15
2.4.3 CIE Sky Types 17
2.5 Building Envelope Performance and Solar Shading 19
2.5.1 Location Influence 19
2.5.2 Design Principles 20
2.6 Building Envelope Performance Effectiveness and Cost 20
2.7 Building Envelope Performance Analysis Procedures 21
2.8 Energy Modelling Simulation 23
2.8.1 Integration of BIM-Based Performance Analysis with Design 24
2.8.2 Simulation Process Framework and Workflow Challenges 25
2.8.3 Energy and Daylight Modelling Simulation Tools 26
2.9 Building Envelope and Parametric Design 30
2.9.1 Parametric Design Definition 30
ii
2.9.2 Parametric Design Advantages and Disadvantages 30
2.9.3 Parametric Design tools and Simulation 31
2.9.4 Parametric Design Performance Optimization 32
2.10 Genetic Algorithm 33
2.11 Review of Building Performance Evaluation and 34
Optimization Studies
2.11.1 Previous Studies and Application of Building Performance
Simulation to Envelope Design 34
2.11.2 Findings from Previous Studies 36
2.12 Summary of Literature Review 37
3. Building Envelope Performance Analysis 38

3.1 Analysis Framework 38
3.2 Evaluation Goals and Objectives 41
4. Methodology 42
4.1 Evaluation and Optimization Workflow Structure 42
4.2 Case Studies Designs 43
4.2.1 Models Parameters 43
4.2.2 Dependent Variables and Assumptions 45
4.2.3 Daylight Evaluation Criteria 45
4.3 Daylight Modelling and Simulation 47
4.3.1 Weather Data Analysis 47
4.3.2 Case Studies Modeling 47
4.3.3 Algorithm Development of Daylight Analysis 47
5. Results and Discussions 49
5.1 Run Simulation for location Weather Data 49
5.2 Run Daylight Simulation Analysis 50
5.2.1 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case Study A 51
5.2.2 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case Study B 54
5.2.3 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case Study C 57
5.2.4 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case Study D 59
5.2.5 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case Study E 62
5.3 Assessment and Decision Making 64
6. Conclusion and Recommendations 68
6.1 Conclusion 68
6.2 Recommendations 70
Bibliography 72
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Facades performance attributes…………………………………..………5
Figure 2.2 Optimum building form and orientation for different climate zones……7
Figure 2.3 More glazing to the east and more thermal mass to the west can
even out temperature swings from the sun heat………………………..9
Figure 2.4 Thermal analysis of a stack joint………………………………………….11
Figure 2.5 Different buildings orientations for daylight efficiency………………….12
Figure 2.6 Sun path diagram for different climate zones……………………………13
Figure 2.7 The CIE sky types…………………………………………………………..18
Figure 2.8 Direct and diffuse radiation and seasonal inclination……………………19
Figure 2.9 Basic solar shading systems………………………………………………20
Figure 2.10 Relationship between building performance and cost of

implementation……………………………………………………………...21
Figure 2.11 Framework for incorporating building performance analysis
procedure with design of high performance building envelopes………22
Figure 2.12 Building performance simulation tools used

between 1997 and 2010…………………………………………………...24
Figure 2.13 Relationship between Design Decisions

and Building Performance………………………………………………...24
Figure 2.14 The reviewed research types and their relation to different challenges
of performing building simulations in the early design stages…………26
Figure 2.15 Five selection criteria for BPS tools……………………………………....27
Figure 2.16 Ranking of the most important features of a BPS tool………………...…27
iv
Figure 2.17 Energy and environmental analysis software in relation to design
stages and BIM compatibility…………………………………………..….28
Figure 2.18 Parametric design example in Rhino and Grasshopper……………..…30
Figure 2.19 Ladybug weather data components…………………………………...….32
Figure 3.1 Ladybug and Honeybee work Scheme………………………………...…39
Figure 4.1 The office studio basic model used for simulations analysis, case
study A………………………………………………………….………….…..…..43
Figure 4.2 Office studio Case B drawings with different window to wall ratios……..……44
Figure 4.3 Office studio models with shading elements, case study B (Top left),
case study C (Top right), case study D (Bottom Left), and case study
E ( Bottom right)……………………………………………………………44
Figure 4.4 Daylight performance evaluation process definition

in Grasshopper……………………………………………………………..48
Figure 5.1 Visualization graph of annual dry bulb temperature

for Cairo, Egypt……………………………………………………….…….49
Figure 5.2 Visualization graph of the annual outdoor comfort

for Cairo, Egypt. ………………………………………………………..….49
Figure 5.3 Visualization graph of the annual global radiation range

for Cairo, Egypt…………………………………………………………….49
Figure 5.4 Visualization graph of the annual wind speed for Cairo, Egypt……….50
Figure 5.5 Visualization graph of the annual sky condition for Cairo, Egypt,
during cooling and heating periods………………………………………50
Figure 5.6 Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to lighting energy
consumption for case study A………………………………………...…..52
v
Figure 5.7 Daylight performance analysis generated by Radiance showing lux
values inside working space with 40% WWR for case study A……….53
Figure 5.8 Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to lighting energy
consumption for case study B………………………………………….…54
Figure 5.9 Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values of DA,
sDA, and ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case
study B……………………………………………………………………....55
Figure 5.10 Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance

showing lux values and DGP inside working space for different
WWR values for case study B……………………………………….…...56
Figure 5.11 Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing without shading
element, case study B……………………………………………………..57
Figure 5.12 Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values of

DA, sDA, and ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for
case study C..…………………….………………………………………...57
Figure 5.13 Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with vertical blinds
shading element, case study C……………………………………….…..58

showing lux values and DGP inside working space for different WWR
values for case study C……………………………………………………59
Figure 5.15 Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values of DA, sDA,
and ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case study D………..60

values for case study D……………………………………………….…...61
Figure 5.17 Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with horizontal
blinds shading element, case study D………………………………..….62
vi
Figure 5.18 Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values
of DA, sDA, and ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios
for case study E……………………………………………………….…...63

values for case study E…………………………………………………....63
Figure 5.20 Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with perforated
screen shading element, case study E………………………………… 64
Figure 5.21 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

and ASE for five case studies for 20% WWR…………………………...65

and ASE for five case studies for 40% WWR……………………….….65

and ASE for five case studies for 60% WWR…………………………...65

and ASE for five case studies for 80% WWR………………………...…66

and ASE for five case studies for 100% WWR………………………....66
vii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Facade design strategies for different climate types……..………..……6
Table 2.2 Standard requirement for WWR…………………………………………...8
Table 2.3 U.S. National Median EUI by Building Type……………………………..14
Table 2.4 ASHRAE 90.1 energy code recommended Illuminance per activity………….17
Table 2.5 LEED v4 - Points for daylit floor area: Spatial daylight autonomy……..17
Table 2.6 Comparison of softwares in terms of project phase usage,
complexity, file format and compatibility, and tools capabilities………..29
Table 2.7 Comparison of the existing environmental analysis
tools for Rhino/Grasshopper…………………………………………..….32
Table 4.1 Case studies parameters and material Information for Radiance…….45
Table 4.2 Radiance parameters set for Daylight Availability metric……………….47
Table 5.1 Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to lighting energy
consumption for case study A………………………………………….…51
Table 5.2 Optimized glazing ratios for low lighting energy consumption
Values………………………………………………………………………..51
Table 5.3 Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to
wall glazing ratios for case study A……………………………………....53
Table 5.4 Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to lighting
energy consumption for case study B………………………………..…..54
wall glazing ratios for case study B……………………………………….55
viii
wall glazing ratios for case study C…………………………………….58
Table 5.7 Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to wall
glazing ratios for case study D………………………………………….60
wall glazing ratios for case study E…………………………………….62
Table 5.9 Daylight performance simulation results comparison for case studies
A, B, C, D, and E………………………………………………………....67
ix
List of Diagrams
Diagram 3.1 Building Performance Evaluation and Optimization in

Architectural Design Process.…………………………………..…...….38
Diagram 3.2 Structure of Evaluation Tools……………………………………………40
Diagram 4.1 Research Evaluation and Optimization Workflow Structure………….42
Diagram 4.2 Illuminance explanation………………………………………………….46
Diagram 4.3 Work process of Daylight analysis in Ladybug and Honeybee………48
Diagram 6.1 Proposed research evaluation and optimization workflow structure

for daylight and energy performance………………………………………70
Diagram 6.2 Proposed Work process of Energy analysis in Ladybug and

Honeybee………………………………………………………………….71
x
List of Abbreviations
ASE Annual Sunlight Exposure (%)
DA Daylight autonomy (%)
DF Daylight factor (%)
E Illuminance (lux)
L Luminance (cd/m2)
sDA Spatial daylight autonomy (%)
UDI Useful daylight illuminance (%)
WWR Window to Wall Ratio (%)
VT Visible Transmittance (%)
DGP Daylight Glare Probability (%)
HDR image High Dynamic Range image
xi

1. Introduction
1.1 Background of Study
Building envelope is the physical shielding and screening of the building from
external environmental factors, such as solar heat, daylight, water, air, and noise. The
building envelope integrates about 80% of an environmental solution (Etman et al.
2013), and can be considered the most significant factors among the various energy
impact factors, creating an efficient building that interacts with its surrounding
environment. The building envelope design must strive to optimize the internal
environment for its occupant’s comfort, and using environmental analysis applications
combined with parametric design tools will provide architects and designers capability
to adopt a design process that can integrate the building envelopes’ performance
evaluation.
Digital design technologies and simulation softwares play a significant role in
assisting architects through conceptual architectural design, in generating various
images of the early design phase and can contribute to seeking alternative
architectural forms. The goal is to ease the building realization and create a degree of
comfort for its occupants. Office buildings are considered high energy consumers, as
they consume about 25% of the building energy consumption (Etman et al. 2013)
Using Building Energy Modeling (BEM), integrates energy analysis into the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of buildings. (Reeves 2015)
Architects are incorporating performance analysis during the early design phase,
which begins to provide a quantitative comparison of their design proposals where
design decisions have a major impact on final building performance and costs. (Monna
et al. 2010) There is a lack of tools available to adequate support architects in the
definition of the overall building energy performance strategies. The main goal is to
find the appropriate tool that supports the design team in energy efficiency and
performance evaluation that combines all aspects, like heat transfer analysis, daylight
analysis, etc. in one single medium and is also compatible with BIM. (Reeves 2015)
Using daylight as part of an integrated and controlled lighting strategy is a key
component of a sustainable, environmental approach to architectural design. Negative
consequences might occur due to the fact that the design in early stages does not
include a procedure of evaluating the levels of daylight performance. Furthermore, the
solution of daylight improvement is often to increase the size of windows that leads to
an increased solar heat load where excessive energy consumption might be the
consequence. Even more so, one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce energy
consumption in non-residential buildings is the replacement of electric light, which
contributes about one-third of the commercial building energy use with daylight.
(Erlendsson 2014)
1
1.2 Research Problem Definition
Building design is an iterative process from the conceptual design phase up to the
final process, and the use of computer-based tools in evaluating the building envelope
system and elements is vital, as it improves and facilitates the building design process,
and also the energy performance analysis in early design stages improves the lifecycle
cost analysis, and maintains more opportunities for monitoring actual building
performance during the operation phase. Failures of the building envelope can result
in safety and health problems, as well as structural damage, and that’s why proper
evaluation of the building envelope is often the first step toward stabilization and
rehabilitation of the building. (ASCE 2000)
Design team decisions during early project stages can have a big effect on the
energy performance of a building. During concept stage, design teams need to
investigate different façade options, so that they can chose solutions that address the
project constraints and requirements. The use of building performance simulation in
architectural design process is interfered by three obstacles (Donato 2017):
1. The Resources required to create building models for energy simulation
2. Time needed to run accurate simulations on different geometry options
3. The lack of simple and straightforward communication of results specially for
architects
There is a demand for software tools that help and support the whole design team
during early design processes, in order to develop true performance-driven solutions.
Reliability, flexibility, clarity and visual appeal are some of the key features of a
software solution for this purpose. These new tools should act as a platform on which
the different members of the design team such as architects, facade engineers,
mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and public health engineers can work
together, saving time and resources. (Ostergard 2016)
The effort to establish a single platform for building envelope performance
evaluation and simulation during different stages of the design has been a constant
subject of development for architects. The use of multiple platforms for design and
simulation not only slows down the process, but also introduces interoperability issues
which includes the use of multiple models and interfaces. The unfamiliar working
methods of building simulation software, the complexities in geometry creation and
demanding input data and the output results are other complications.
The research main problem is the lack of a single platform tool to support architects
in the evaluation of building energy performance strategies in general, and for daylight
and lighting energy performance, in specific, during the design phase, where energy
performance of buildings and daylighting studies are uncoupled and rarely studied
simultaneously in the same software. And also a simple graphical visualization of the
results to facilitate the decision making for further projects modifications, and also
compare the results between different design options.
2
1.3 Research Scope and Limitations
The scope of the research focused on building envelope systems daylight and
lighting energy performance in relation to window to wall ratio and shading elements,
of an office studio, in Cairo, Egypt. The study was limited by the extensive calculation
time which was required to obtain accurate results for daylight simulations. This had
an effect both on the size and complexity of the case studies models, as well as the
resolution of the results. The author also did not have prior knowledge of the simulation
and modelling tools used in the study, which means that much time was associated
with familiarizing with the process.
Further limitations have been made in regard to the simulation setup of the lighting
system and daylight performance metric, which are explained in the Methodology
section.
1.4 Research Goal

The research main goal is to find a tool that supports architects in projects early
stage to overcome the inefficiencies such as solar gains, daylight quality, and energy
consumption etc., and facilitates the decision making process for further design
modification. The goal also is to propose an evaluation framework for daylight and
energy performance, where studies are usually uncoupled and rarely studied
simultaneously in the same software.
The research goal is also to investigate the effect of different window to wall ratios,
and shading elements like blinds, and perforated screens, on daylight and lighting
energy performance, allowing for the exploration of the simulation tool with different
design options.
1.5 Research Objectives

To fulfill the research goals, the following objectives must be achieved:
1. Identify design methods for high performance facades and the factors affecting
daylight and energy performance of building envelopes, according to different
climatic regions.
2. Study different BPS tools capabilities used in building performance simulation
analysis by engineers and architects.
3. Study daylight and energy performance metrics.
4. Evaluate and analyze daylighting and lighting energy performance of an office
studio case studies using the developed evaluation framework.
3
2. Literature Review
The literature review consists of two parts, the first part will discuss high
performance building envelope characteristics and design methods, and the second
part will discuss various technologies supporting the building performance evaluation
process; simulation tools, parametric design, genetic algorithm, and daylight
performance simulation.
2.1 Design Methods for High-Performance Facades

High performance sustainable facades can be defined as exterior enclosures that
use the least possible amount of energy to maintain comfortable interior environment,
which promotes the health and productivity of buildings’ occupants. This means that
sustainable facades are not simply barriers between interior and exterior, they are
building systems that create comfortable spaces by actively responding to buildings’
external environment, and significantly reduce energy consumption.
2.1.1 Façade Performance Attributes
Building energy performance is significantly impacted by various attributes of the
facade. The building skin provides thermal insulation, mitigates air infiltration and
controls solar energy radiation, providing daylighting opportunities to reduce
electricity consumption and heating loads resulting from artificial lighting. Solar
energy harvesting technologies will contribute to net-zero and net-plus energy
buildings. Natural ventilation through the facade can play a significant role in building
energy efficiency, and can greatly enhance indoor air quality. Environmental impacts
of the building facade include energy consumption and resulting emissions over the
operations phase of the building lifecycle. Safety and security are provided to the
building occupant by the facade systems as a protection from weather extremes
includes impact resistant design practices. Cost benefit is an important performance
consideration, which takes into account at what cost performance attributes are being
amplified.
Human comfort, health and productivity are profoundly affected by the facade
system, which provides thermal and acoustical comfort, daylight, visual comfort and
glare control, as well as connection to the natural environment. Most of these issues
are fundamental sustainability issues. These considerations also include emergent
issues like resilience, and durability of a system, as shown in Fig. 2.1. (Patterson et
al. 2015)
4
Figure 2.1: Facades performance attributes. (Source: Patterson et al. 2015)
2.1.2 Methods for Climate Based High Performance Façades Design
Climate-specific guidelines must be considered during the design process of
high-performing building enclosures. Strategies that work best in hot and arid climates
are different from those that work in temperate or hot and humid regions. For most
buildings, the facade affects buildings energy budget and the comfort of its occupants
more than any other system. In order to provide occupants with a comfortable
environment, a facade must fulfil many functions, such as providing views to the
outside, resisting wind loads, supporting its own dead-load weight, allowing daylight
to interior spaces, blocking undesired solar heat gain, protecting occupants from
outside noise and temperature extremes, and resisting air and water penetration. As
shown in Table 2.1, basic methods for designing high-performance building facades
include orienting and developing geometry and massing of the building to respond to
solar position, providing solar shading to control cooling loads and improve thermal
comfort, using natural ventilation to enhance air quality and reduce cooling loads, and
minimizing energy used for artificial lighting and mechanical cooling and heating by
optimizing exterior wall insulation and the use of daylighting. (Aksamija, 2009)
5
Climate type Design strategies for sustainable facades
- Solar collection and passive heating: collection of solar heat through
Heating-dominated the building envelope
climates - Heat storage: storage of heat in the mass of the walls
- Heat conservation: preservation of heat within the building through
improved insulation
- Daylight: use of natural light sources and increased glazed areas of the
facade, use of high-performance glass, and use of light shelves to redirect
light into interior spaces
- Solar control: protection of the facade from direct solar radiation
Cooling-dominated through self-shading methods (building form) or shading devices
Climates - Reduction of external heat gains: protection from solar heat gain by
infiltration (by using well-insulated opaque facade elements) or conduction
(by using shading devices)
- Cooling: use of natural ventilation where environmental characteristics
and building function permit
- Daylight: use of natural light sources while minimizing solar heat gain
through use of shading devices and light shelves
Mixed climates - Solar control: protection of facade from direct solar radiation (shading)
during warm seasons
- Solar collection and passive heating: solar collection during cold
seasons
- Daylight: use of natural light sources and increased glazed areas of the
facade with shading devices
Table 2.1: Facade design strategies for different climate types (Source: Aksamija, 2009).
2.2 Characteristics and Properties of High Performance Facades

The properties of energy-efficient, sustainable building facades concern allowing
daylight into a building, preventing undesired solar heat from entering the building,
storing heat within the mass of the wall, preventing heat transfer through improved
insulation, preventing air or moisture from passing through the façade, minimizing
glare, and allowing natural ventilation to cool building interiors. These properties are
highly dependent on climate, as well as buildings function, occupancy patterns,
orientation, and equipment loads, as well as the facade type.
2.2.1 Form and Orientation
The orientation of the facade should be considered early in the design process
as the passive effects of solar orientation are significant. The environmental conditions
and solar radiation are different and require differing responses for facades facing. For
example, northern and southern exposures are beneficial for daylighting, on the north
because the light is indirect, and on the south because the sun is high enough in the
summer to allow shading of the direct sunlight. On the other hand, because the sun is
usually low in the east and west, facades along the eastern and western orientations
should be minimized. If specific site constraints do not allow this strategy, deep vertical
fins on those facades can be used to block most of the low morning and afternoon
sunlight. When a building is designed to take advantage of its orientation, comfortable
living and working conditions inside the building will be achieved at a relatively low
consumption of energy. (Aksamija, 2009)
6
As with massing for visual comfort, buildings should usually be oriented east-
west rather than north-south. This orientation lets consistently harness daylight and
control glare along the long faces of the building, and minimizes glare. If the building
has cutouts to maximize daylighting, the orientations of these cutouts should also be
chosen to maximize north and south walls. With good building massing, such cutouts
can also act as their own shading to prevent glare. Different faces of the building get
very different amounts of heat from the sun. As with massing, orientation for thermal
comfort is similar to orientation for daylighting, with some exceptions. First, the amount
of sunlight that is optimal for daylighting is often not optimal for solar heat
gain. Second, since the sun heat does not come from all directions like the sun light
can, walls facing away from the sun path get no heat gain, even though they can still
get large amounts of diffuse light. Third, the sun heat can be stored by thermal mass,
this can be useful for west-facing walls to store heat for the night.
Figure 2.2: Optimum building form and orientation for different climate zones. (Source: Attia,
2006)
7
Figure 2.2 shows the optimum building form for each climatic zone. Analysis of
these ratios shows that an elongated form to minimize east and west exposure is
needed at the lower latitudes. This form slowly transforms to a ratio of 1:1 (cylindrical)
at the higher latitudes. This is a direct response to the varying solar angles in the
various latitudes. The arrangement of the primary mass in the temperate zone is on
the north face, so as to leave the south face available for solar heat gain during the
winter. The cool zone requires the maximum perimeter of the building to be open to
the sun for heat penetration. Therefore, the primary mass is placed in the center of the
building so as not to block out sun rays and to retain heat within the building. (Autodesk
Knowledge Network, 2014)
2.2.2 Fenestration
Fenestration components are significant elements of facade design, from both
aesthetic and performance perspectives, allowing natural light to enter interior space,
but also allow heat transfer between the outside and inside. Fenestration elements
affect buildings overall energy consumption, as well as its occupants’ well-being,
health, comfort, and productivity. When choosing fenestration materials, specific
properties of glass should be considered, such as U-values, SHGC and visual
transmittance. The design of the fenestration framing system is also important.
A determinant factor of window design in the transmission of solar radiation into
interior space is window to wall ratio (WWR). A window to wall ratio is the measure of
the percentage area of a buildings’ exterior envelope that is made up of glazing, such
as windows. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 has established that Window to Wall Ratio (WWR)
of 0.24 is considered ideal to allow optimum indoor daylight and natural ventilation.
This does not mean that the higher of WWR, the better performance for the windows.
The larger a window, more heat or light will penetrate into the room which cause
overheating and glare. Windows with WWR more than 0.30 will create overheating
into the building. Table 2.2 shows the summary of standard requirement for WWR.
(Yee, 2011)
Table 2.2: Standard requirement for WWR (Source: ASHRAE 90.1-2007)

2.2.3 Material Selection
Material selection is an important factor in designing sustainable facades.
Improving thermal performance of building envelopes and minimizing thermal bridging
are extremely important design strategies for sustainable facades. Thermal bridging
within a wall occurs where a highly conductive material, such as a metal support,
penetrates facades insulation layer. This can significantly affect the thermal
performance of the wall, and lower its effective thermal resistance. Thermal bridging
can occur in all types of facades. Thermally unbroken aluminum mullions in curtain
8
walls are highly conductive and transfer heat from the exterior to the interior, reducing
the overall thermal performance of the facade.
Material selection also has an environmental impact, where it is becoming
increasingly important to select materials that have the least negative effect on the
environment. The life-cycle assessment approach can be used to determine
environmental impacts of material selection, where material contents, production
methods, energy requirements, and waste are analyzed to identify the real cost of a
material, reflecting the total amount of its environmental impact. Selecting materials
based on the embodied energy data is also an appropriate method for considering
environmental impacts. The embodied energy is the amount of energy required to
extract, process, transport, install, and recycle or dispose of a material, and is
commonly measured per mass or volume of the material. When comparing the
embodied energy of facade systems, the measurements should be based on area
instead of mass or volume, considering the embodied energy of individual components
and materials of the façade, as shown in Fig. 2.3. (Autodesk Knowledge Network
2014)
Figure 2.3: More glazing to the east and more thermal mass to the west can even out
temperature swings from the sun heat. (Source: Autodesk Knowledge Network 2014)
2.2.4 Heat and Moisture Barrier
Heat transfer through facades follows a basic principle of physics, heat flows from
higher to lower temperatures. This takes place through one or more of the following
processes:
• Conduction (heat flows between two facade materials in contact with each other);
• Convection (heat is conveyed by air currents within the facade); Radiation (heat flows
as electromagnetic energy through materials and air spaces within the facade);
• Radiation (heat flows as electromagnetic energy through materials and air spaces
within the facade)
• Air leakage (heat is conveyed by air passing through the facade).
9
The rate of heat transfer through the building skin depends on the difference
between the interior and exterior temperatures and the capacity of the facade to
control heat flow. Factors that influence heat flow within the facade include the overall
thermal resistance, material properties, and air leakage control. Design strategies for
controlling heat flow include using a continuous thermal barrier, filling air gaps between
material layers to prevent conduction, providing a continuous air barrier to prevent
heat loss through air leakage, and avoiding thermal bridging.
Air leakage can affect buildings overall energy consumption, since it permits
unwanted warm air to enter the building. Exterior air can also carry moisture into the
building envelope and the building itself, causing condensation and, potentially, mold
and damaged building materials. Air barriers control airflow between unconditioned
and conditioned spaces, and are intended to resist differences in air pressure between
interior and exterior.
Vapor infiltration and moisture movement through facades are also very important
design considerations for sustainable building envelopes. Since vapor is carried by
air, then it follows that some vapor is inevitably entering the exterior wall. The problem
occurs when the vapor-bearing air encounters a material that is colder than the air.
When the air cools, its capacity for carrying vapor is reduced. If the air cools off
enough, the vapor condenses into water. If the vapor condenses within the wall, the
resulting water can saturate materials. That water may create an environment that
promotes the growth of mold, which can have a serious effect on the buildings’
occupants and their health. Sustainable facades are designed so that when the vapor
condenses, it will happen in a location in the wall where the water can drain to the
outside. (Aksamija, 2009).
2.2.5 Thermal Comfort
Thermal comfort is defined as “that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction
with the thermal environment” (ASHRAE, 2004). Since it is a condition of mind, comfort
is inherently based on one’s experience and perception; there are large variations in
physiological and psychological responses for different individuals. Six primary
variables affect thermal comfort: air temperature, air movement, humidity, mean
radiant temperature, occupants’ metabolic rate, and occupants’ clothing. While each
of these variables can be separately measured, the human body responds to them
holistically.
For naturally ventilated spaces, ASHRAE standard provides an optional method for
determining thermally acceptable conditions (ASHRAE, 2004). Indoor operating
temperatures can be adjusted, depending on the mean monthly outdoor temperatures,
while still maintaining acceptable comfort conditions. Windows have the largest
thermal fluctuations, and are usually the coldest interior surfaces in cold weather and
the warmest interior surfaces in warm weather. This is the case even for windows with
high-performance glazing and thermally broken frames. As a result, facades with high
WWRs are more likely to affect the thermal comfort of occupants than those with low
10
WWRs. This effect increases as occupants get closer to the window, and also depends
on how active the occupants are. The choice of facade glazing materials also
influences occupants’ thermal comfort. The effects are different for summer and
winter. During winter, the thermal comfort effect is largely driven by inside window
surface temperature, which is usually colder than the room it faces. During the
summer, thermal comfort is driven by the combination of the inside surface
temperature of the glass and the transmitted solar radiation through the glass. These
in turn are significantly influenced by the construction of the glazing units, the material
properties of the glass, and the effectiveness of shading elements used with the
window, as shown in Fig. 2.4. (Aksamija, 2009).
Figure 2.4: Thermal analysis of a stack joint. (Source: Patterson et al. 2015)
Insulated glass units are highly engineered products of increasing diversity with
complex behavior and appearance attributes. The appropriate application of these
products in the building facade is an escalating challenge to the design profession, but
pivotal to the success of contemporary highly glazed buildings. For Thermal insulation
metric (U-Factor), lower is better. High-performance double-glazed IGUs are as low
as 0.30; triple-glazed as low as 0.13. As for Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), the
fraction of incident solar radiation transmitted and absorbed as solar heat gain (a
number between 0 and 1). The lower the number, the lower the solar heat gain —
typically in the range of 0.20-0.50. Commercial buildings characteristically have high
internal heat gain and consequently utilize low solar heat gain glazing even in colder
climates. If the building energy design incorporates a passive solar heating strategy,
higher SHGC values will be preferred. (Patterson et al. 2015)
11
2.2.6 Daylight
When considering daylight and visual comfort, designers need to consider
illumination levels, daylight distribution, and protection against direct sunlight and
glare. Integration of building systems is also important, since facades, lighting, shading
elements, HVAC systems, and building controls need to function together to have the
largest effect on building performance.
The orientation and WWR of a building affects the availability of natural light for
interior spaces. Analyzing daylight availability during the different seasons is an
important part of the design process for high-performance sustainable facades. The
primary energy-related design objective of a daylighting system is to provide as much
usable daylight as deeply into a building’s interior as possible. The secondary objective
of daylighting is energy conservation. Sustainable strategies for improving natural light
levels provide ways of increasing that depth without increasing the amount of glazing.
Fig. 2.5 shows different building orientations for daylight efficiency where number 1 is
considered to be the worst for daylighting, number 3 is good, and number 2 is the best.
(Autodesk Knowledge Network, 2014)
Figure 2.5: Different buildings orientations for daylight efficiency. (Source: Autodesk, 2014)
2.2.7 Solar Shading
There are many different reasons to control the amount of sunlight that is admitted
into a building. In warm, sunny climates excess solar gain may result in high cooling
energy consumption; in cold and temperate climates winter sun entering south-facing
windows can positively contribute to passive solar heating; and in nearly all climates
controlling and diffusing natural illumination will improve daylighting.
Well-designed sun control and shading devices can dramatically reduce building
peak heat gain and cooling requirements and improve the natural lighting quality of
building interiors. Depending on the amount and location of fenestration, reductions in
12
annual cooling energy consumption of 5% to 15% have been reported. Sun control
and shading devices can also improve user visual comfort by controlling glare and
reducing contrast ratios. This often leads to increased satisfaction and productivity.
Shading devices offer the opportunity of differentiating one building facade from
another. This can provide interest and human scale to an otherwise undistinguished
design. (Prowler 2016)
Figure 2.6 shows a study of the sun path diagram for each climatic zone, the shaded
areas represent the periods of overheating. In the lower latitudes there is total
overheating, whereas in the higher latitudes overheating only occurs during the
summer months. The Figure also shows the optimum location of vertical sun shading,
shielding the building from low sun angles in the morning and evening, and horizontal
sun shading blocking the high midday sun. Tropical regions need both vertical and
horizontal shading throughout the year. In higher latitudes, horizontal and vertical
shading is only needed during the summer on the south-facing sides of buildings. The
sun path becomes more southerly as we move north, changing from a 'bow-tie' pattern
near the equator to a heart-shape pattern in the temperate zones. There are obviously
seasonal variations near the equator. Solar heating becomes more important than in
the upper latitudes. Beginning at the equator and moving north, the need for solar
heating increases while the need for solar shading decreases. (Attia 2006)
Figure 2.6: Sun path diagram for different climate zones. (Source: Attia 2006)
13
2.3 Building Envelope Energy Performance
2.3.1 Energy Performance Metrics
Since the energy crisis in the 1970s, there are growing concerns for energy
conservation and the use of renewable energy resources. Buildings, industries and
transportation systems are the three major sectors in energy consumption. Energy
consumed in the buildings accounts for about 20% of the total energy consumed
worldwide. In the U.S., buildings sector accounts for about 41% of total energy
consumption in 2010, which is 44% more than the transportation sector and 36% more
than the industrial sector (Fang 2017).
According to Energy Information Administration 2016 EIA, energy consumption in
buildings is expected to increase by an average of 1.5% per year from 2012 to 2040.
In order to evaluate the energy performance of buildings, it is necessary to compare
the calculated or measured building performance metrics to some reference values,
which may represent the energy-related characteristics of the building components or
the energy consumption of building systems. It is increasingly common to evaluate
building performance based on normalized whole-building energy consumption
metrics, such as Energy Use Intensity (EUI). EUI is the energy per square foot per
year, and it is calculated by dividing the total yearly energy consumption of the building
by its total gross floor area. Table 2.3 summarizes U.S. national median EUI values
for some typical building types.
Generally, lower EUI indicates better energy performance of a building. Building
energy use can be influenced by numerous internal and external factors such as
weather, plug loads, and occupant schedules, and certain building types always have
higher EUI than others. In the listed examples in Table 2.3, restaurants and hospitals
have the largest EUI, whereas residence halls and dormitories have the least EUI. (1
british thermal unit/square foot = 0.003154 kilo watt hour / Square metre) (Lamberts
et al. 2016)
Primary Function Source EUI (kBtu/ft2) Site EUI (kBtu/ft2)

Restaurant 432 223.8
Hospital 389.8 196.9
College/University 262.6 130.7
Mall 235.6 93.7
Hotel 162.1 73.4
Office 148.1 67.3
K-12 School 141.4 58.2
Laboratory 123.1 78.8
Residence Hall/Dormitory 114.9 73.9
Table 2.3: U.S. National Median EUI by Building Type. (Source: Lamberts et al. 2016)
14
2.4 Building Envelope Daylight Performance
2.4.1 Daylight Benefits
Properly designed daylighting environment can significantly enhance the health and
productivity of occupants, and improve the energy efficiency of buildings. Daylighting
was found to be associated with higher productivity, lower absenteeism, improved
mood, reduced fatigue, and reduced eyestrain. Solar radiation on the skin is essential
for human body to produce vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential for the general health and
well-being of people, and vitamin D deficiency has been proven to increase the risks
of many common cancers, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and sclerosis. Full-
spectrum light from the sun is the best type of light for human eyes’ function, whereas
most artificial light is concentrated in certain portion of the spectrum, and may lead to
improper functioning of the eye. Many other functions, including nervous system,
circadian rhythms, and endocrine system are also influenced by different wavelengths
of light (Edwards 2002).
Another important benefit of daylighting is energy savings, artificial lighting systems
consume about 25%-40% of the total energy consumption of buildings, and daylighting
as an alternative to artificial lighting is considered to be one of the simplest method to
improve energy efficiency. Cost and energy savings are achieved through lighting
control strategies and photo sensors, when artificial lighting can be dimmed or switch
off when daylight is sufficient (Wong 2017).
In addition to the potential to reduce lighting energy, daylighting can also lower
buildings’ cooling load by reducing the heat released by the lighting fixtures. However,
excessive glazing area may contribute to great heat loss and heat gain, and increase
the heating and cooling energy consumption of the building. Therefore, daylighting
system need to be properly designed, so that the advantages of reduced lighting and
cooling energy can overcome the disadvantages of increased heat loss and heat gain.
(Fang 2017)
2.4.2 Daylight Performance Metrics
Various performance metrics were defined by researchers to evaluate the quantity
of natural light on task surfaces in the interior space. The most used metrics are
discussed below.
- Illuminance
Illuminance measures the amount of light on a surface per unit area, and its unit is
lux. Illuminance is the most commonly used metric to evaluate the brightness of the
indoor environment. Recommended levels of illuminance are defined by the
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) according to the space type, the type of visual
tasks, the age of occupants, etc. (Erlendsson 2014)
Table 2.4 shows some examples of the recommended illuminance values for different
building types and seeing tasks.
15
- Daylight factor (DF)
Daylight factor (DF) is a daylight availability metric that expresses the amount of
daylight available inside a room (on a work plane) compared to the amount of
unobstructed daylight available outside under overcast sky conditions.
The higher the DF, the more daylight is available in the room. Rooms with an
average DF of 2% or more can be considered daylit, but electric lighting may still be
needed to perform visual tasks. A room will appear strongly daylit when the average
DF is 5% or more, in which case electric lighting will most likely not be used during
daytime (VELUX).
- Daylight autonomy (DA)
Daylight autonomy is the ratio of the number of hours in the year when the
illuminance provided by daylighting is above the minimum illuminance requirement, to
the total number of hours occupied in a year. Daylighting design is a key aspect of
building rating systems such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
system (LEED). Two metrics in LEED v4 are codified for evaluating daylight autonomy
design, which allow a daylit space to be evaluated for a year period using two different
performance parameters: sufficiency of daylight Illuminance and the potential risk of
excessive sunlight penetration. (IES 2012) These two metrics are: Spatial Daylight
Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sun Exposure (ASE) metrics, which forms together a
clear picture of daylight performance that can help architects to make good design
decisions. (Elghazi et al. 2014)
In 2000, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) introduced the LEED rating
system to standardize metrics for several primary sustainable design characteristics,
including daylight. sDA, and ASE are intended to help designers limit excessive
sunlight in a space. (Wymelenberg et al. 2016)
- Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI)

Useful daylight illuminance (UDI) is the ratio of the number of hours in the year when
illuminance provided by daylighting is within a useful range, to the total number of
occupied hours in a year. UDI aims to determine the daylighting level that is neither
too dark nor too bright. UDI is usually presented by three metrics: UDI <100 lux, UDI
100-200 lux, and UDI >2000 lux. The illuminance range that considered useful is
between 100 lux to 2000 lux. Illuminance below 100 lux in considered as too dark, and
illuminance above 2000 lux is considered too bright. (Fang, 2017).
- Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA)
Spatial daylight autonomy describes how much of a space receives sufficient
daylight. Specifically, it describes the percentage of floor area that receives at least
300 lux for at least 50% of the annual occupied hours, for at least 55% of the floor
area, as shown in Table 2.5.
16
Table 2.4: ASHRAE 90.1 energy code recommended Illuminance per activity (Source: Fang
2017)
Table 2.5: LEED v4 - Points for daylit floor area: Spatial daylight autonomy (Source: Elghazi
et al. 2014)
- Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE)

Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) is the second metric used by LEED, which
searches for any potential source of visual discomfort or increase in cooling loads,
particularly because of the presence of direct sunlight. This metric calculates the
percentage of the analysis points that exceeds a specified illuminance level, 1000 lux,
for at least 250 hours of the occupied hours without any contribution from the sky. In
LEED v4 ASE measures the percentage of floor area that receives at least 1000 lux
for at least 250 occupied hours per year (Sterner, 2014), Spaces with ASE values
exceeding 10% of floor area will result in visual discomfort. (USGBC)
2.4.3 CIE Sky Types
The daylight which a building receives originates from the sky, either as direct
daylight from the sun or diff use daylight from the earths’ atmosphere. The light which
a building receives thus relies on the sky condition which is characterized through the
luminous distribution of the hemisphere.
The CIE (Commission Internationale De L’Eclairage) sky types are categorized into
groups of uniform, overcast, intermediate and clear sky conditions, as shown in Fig.
2.7. The chosen sky model for a given calculation depends on the type of daylight
simulation being implemented. For static simulations made with Radiance, either of
the two extreme CIE sky types, i.e. totally over cast or perfectly clear sky are most
17
likely used. For annual performance, all sky models must be included in the simulation,
which is what Daysim brings. Daysim uses EnergyPlus climate files for specific
geographic locations to automatically model all sky conditions of the year.
Figure 2.7: The CIE sky types. (Source: Erlendsson 2014)

Clear sky: Defined as a sky with 0–30% cloud cover. Clear skies generally have
higher radiation than other skies, and are generally brighter, i.e. have high luminance
and therefore create stronger shadows than other skies. The sky is brightest nearest
the sun, and away from the sun it is about three times brighter at the horizon than at
the zenith. The CIE standard clear sky has 0% cloud cover.
Overcast sky: A sky that has 70–100% cloud cover. Overcast skies generally have
lower luminance, lower radiation, and create weak shadows and more diffuse lighting,
relative to more clear conditions. The sky is about three times brighter at the zenith
than at the horizon. The CIE standard overcast sky is 100% covered in clouds.
Intermediate sky: This sky type varies from mostly cloudy with clear patches, to
mostly clear with few clouds, and is therefore very difficult to predict. The sky condition
is defined as a sky with 30–70% cloud cover, and is the condition between overcast
and clear sky.
Uniform sky: This standard sky type is a remains from the days when calculations
were done by hand or with tables. The sky is characterized by a uniform luminance
that does not change with altitude or azimuth. This sky is generally listed as the 16th
CIE sky type and is seldom used due to its uniform luminance distribution.
(Erlendsson, 2014)
18
2.5 Building Envelope Performance and Solar Shading
The proper design of sunshades will provide a balance between shading
performance and heating efficiency. This will be achieved simply by decreasing direct
beam penetration by projecting shadows on the window along the sunlight direction
and also decreasing sky diffuse radiation.
The use of shading devices could improve daylight quality control, improve indoor
thermal comfort, improve buildings general energy performance, and generate a
productive work environment.
Exterior shading devices decrease direct beam penetration by projecting shadow
on the window along the sunlit direction; sky diffuse radiation is also decreased
because a portion of sky cannot be seen by the window, as shown in Fig. 2.8.
Moreover, sunlight is not only blocked but also diffused, softening the glare and
temperature effects of direct and diffused sunlight in the working environment. (Lopez
2016)
In order for an architect to determine which is best option for a shading device that
suits a building regarding to the main objective of this project, many considerations
have to be taken into account. Such considerations embrace different sorts of
parameters related to the existing general typologies of shading devices, the use of a
typology according to orientation, the expected function of the building and a set of
indicators that can validate the design decision.
The process begins by the selection of the proper shading device according to the
orientation of the building and its interaction towards sunlight periods, this information
can be retrieved from resource such as sun-path diagrams.
Figure 2.8: Direct and diffuse radiation and seasonal inclination. (Source: Lopez 2016)
2.5.1 location Influence

In order to understand shading design basic concepts regarding location of an
object in relation to its position on a spherical coordinate system, and the use of tools
such as sun-path graph should be mentioned.
19
Latitude - is the angle which from 0° at the Equator to 90°, North or South towards
the poles. Lines of constant latitude, or parallels, run east-west as circles parallel to
the equator.
Altitude - is the angle between the object and the observer’s local horizon. For
visible objects it is an angle between 0 degrees to 90 degrees.
Azimuth - is the angle formed between a reference direction (North) and a line from
the observer to a point of interest, in this case the sun, projected on the same plane
as the reference direction orthogonal to the zenith.
2.5.2 Design Principles
Shading design principles have to take into account aspects related to the location
and orientation of the building. These two parameters will help to determine the
position, direction, size and geometry of the shading devices, as they are related to
the physical environment. The ones related to geometry and size can also be
applicable for very simple and generic situations (Sargent et al. 2011), since the
processes and tools for the size and optimized shape determination have drastically
improved over the last years with the incorporation of parametric design tools to the
process. Although, the so called 2D method will be also addressed later on for a
general understanding of the process. General guidelines for positioning and directing
shading devices according to the location of the building have not changed, although
northern and southern locations have obvious variations. The location will be
determined according to the relation of the location and orientation of the building. Fig.
2.9 shows different solar shading treatment according to façade orientation. (Lopez
2016)
Figure 2.9: Basic solar shading systems. (Source: Lopez 2016)
2.6 Building Envelope Performance Effectiveness and Cost

The schematic design phase is not only the first step of the architectural design, but
also a crucial decision-making phase that contains all the design requirements of the
designer and mobilizes all the design elements. In this phase, it will determine the
20
building shape, space, skin, and other parameters, which are expressive and
concerned by the designers on the one hand and essential factors for building energy
consumption on the other hand.
Many scholars discussed the necessity of incorporating the energy saving strategy
into the schematic phase in their researches. A research by a Dutch scholar shows
that 57% of the energy-saving technical measures should be considered in the
schematic phase, as with the constant development in the design progress, the
potential of energy saving becomes minor, while the cost becomes higher, as shown
in Fig. 2.10. (Qiong, 2012)

Figure 2.10: Relationship between building performance and cost of implementation.
(Source: Qiong 2012)
2.7 Building Envelope Performance Analysis Procedures

Building performance simulations are an integral part of the design process for
energy efficient and high-performance buildings, since they help in investigating
design options and assess the environmental and energy impacts of design decisions.
They are an essential part of the design process for sustainable, high-performance
building facades. Quantifiable predictions during the different stages of the design
process help establish metrics that can be used to measure improvements by using
different design strategies. In order to evaluate building performance, different
analysis cycles should be part of an integrated design process. (Aksamija 2013)
21
Figure 2.11: Framework for incorporating building performance analysis procedure with
design of high performance building envelopes. (Aksamija 2013)
Figure 2.11 shows the basic types of performance analysis in relation to the project
stages, particularly focusing on building envelope design. The top part shows the
impact of decisions on actual building performance, and relationships to project
stages. As can be seen, as early as programming phase the analysis should focus on
the contextual aspects, such as climate information, orientation, and building massing.
Then at conceptual and schematic phases, an iterative cycle of different design
options of sun shades should be analyzed, as well as daylighting studies. The
decisions here are of high impact on the design because they influence the exterior
design character of the project, potential energy use reduction, and affect the comfort
levels inside the spaces. What is important to highlight is that such type of analysis
takes place mostly during design development and less during construction
documentation phase.
It has become important that designers evaluate building energy performance at
early and schematic project phases before a detailed energy model is produced. This
saves the project from drastic changes due to misguided energy goals. However,
building performance assessment is a long process, and is often performed by two
primary methods. The first method is the energy analysis part, whereby it follows two
stages and each is utilizing the appropriate tools. Those are:
1. Understanding energy target goals: the aim is to establish early in the project some
meaningful energy performance targets in order to assess against the different design
schemes. With this, early design characteristics and decisions are understood such
as: the site, building orientation, climatic conditions, shadow ranges basic solar
exposure and its directionality, and passive strategies based on the location.
2. Design solutions and optimization: occur when the project progresses into design
development phase. For example, the building envelope undergoes cycles of
performance analysis based on the exterior skin configurations. In this approach,
different design options can be tested utilizing a more detailed 3D prototype model,
22
and these following analysis types can be performed: façade solar exposure analysis
to determine total solar radiation, shadow analysis, daylight simulations, and
breakdown of energy gains (direct solar, internal gains and exterior wall gains).
(Aksamija, 2013).
2.8 Energy Modelling Simulation

Building energy modeling and simulation is the process of predicting buildings’
energy performance prior to the building construction. It analyzes the energy
consumption of a building at the design stage and it can speed up the design process
and decision making, increase efficiency, enable the exploration of multiple design
variants, and finally lead to more optimal designs.
Before the prevalence of building simulation technologies, architects and
engineers relied heavily on manual calculations and often on the use of ‘rule-of-
thumb’ methods and extrapolations in making design decisions, and this approach
usually resulted in buildings with poor energy performance due to oversized plant and
system capacities. With the development of computers, there is a rapid proliferation of
building performance simulation tools in the past few decades. Those tools are
becoming more easily for designers to use because of the improved user interface,
reduced calculation time, easy data transfer between programs, and intuitive result
display. (Fang 2017)
Building simulation as a discipline can be traced back to the 1960’s when the US
government was involved in projects to evaluate the thermal environment in fallout
shelters. Since its inception, building simulation has been constantly evolving as a
vibrant discipline that produced a variety of BPS tools that are scientifically and
internationally validated. Realizing the increasing importance of the decisions made
early in the design process and their impact on energy performance and cost, several
BPS tools have been developed during the 80’s to help architects perform early energy
analysis, and create more energy efficient more sustainable buildings. It was not until
the 90’s, that architects and designers got more and more encouraged to join the
building simulation field. As shown in Fig. 2.12, the architecture discipline started to
integrate building simulation, despite the proliferation of many building
simulation/energy analysis tools in the last ten years, architects and designers are still
finding it difficult to use even basic tools. These BPS tools are not compatible with
architects’ working methods and needs, and from the perspective of many architects,
most BPS tools are judged as too complex and cumbersome. (Attia 2011)
23
Figure 2.12: Building performance simulation tools used between 1997 and 2010. (Attia
2011)
2.8.1 Integration of BIM-Based Performance Analysis with Design
In order to evaluate and optimize building performance, different analysis cycles
should be part of an integrated design process. This challenges the current traditional
design paradigm with a performance-based design method:
Traditional Method has some deficiencies because it may include simplified
assumptions based on rules-of-thumb, which can be inaccurate, and it may force an
aesthetic feature without considering performance impacts.
Building Performance-Based Design Method has an ability to estimate the impact
of a design solution since performance measures are investigated with actual
quantifiable data and not rules-of-thumb, and also it uses detailed building models to
simulate, analyze and predict behavior of the system. (Aksamija 2013)
Figure 2.13: Relationship between Design Decisions and Building Performance. (Aksamija
2012)
24
Figure 2.13 shows the basic types of performance analysis in relation to the project
stages, indicating what types of analysis should be performed, and when and how
they relate to the BIM development process. The top part of the diagram shows the
impact of decisions on actual building performance and relationships to project stages.
As early as conceptual phase, the analysis should focus on the bigger design aspects
such as climate information, orientation, passive strategies and building massing.
Then at the schematic stage, the analysis should explore the shading methods, solar
access and building envelope design options. During the design development stage,
optimization of shading devices, daylight and glare studies, detailed energy
performance studies, thermal analysis and optimization should take place. Design
decisions and effects on building performance uncertainties in relation to “BIM Design”
and “BIM Analysis” documentation, indicating recommended Level of Development
(LOD) to be embedded in the BIM models corresponding to each simulation/analysis.
The simulations and performance analysis tools can be grouped into BIM-based or
non- BIM based software programs. (Aksamija 2013)
2.8.2 Simulation Process Framework and Workflow Challenges
The following explains briefly different research types, targeting one or more specific
challenges of performing building simulations in an early design phase, as illustrated
in Fig. 2.14.
- Proactive building simulations refer to a proactive exploration of the design space
in order to guide the design rather than evaluate the design.
- Statistical methods include running large numbers of simulations and applying
statistical measures. As well as coping with uncertainties, a statistical approach may
facilitate exploration of a large design space and identify important inputs.
- Holistic design includes calculation of many interdependent performance objectives
and combining the results to support decision making. Examples of interdependent
objectives are energy demand, thermal comfort, and daylight.
- Optimization on performance objectives helps to automate the exploration of a large
design space and guide the design towards high performance.
- CAD-BPS interoperability could be achieved by integration of models, run-time
coupling, and shared schemas. A common ambition is to ensure fast and consistent
modeling.
- Knowledge based methods aim to re-use and share knowledge to reduce the time
spent modeling, and improve consistency and validity. Moreover, knowledge
databases may be used to set default values to enable simulations when the input
resolution is low.
The integration of a design knowledge-base in the tools is required to support
decision making under risk and uncertainty. Architects are looking for tools that can
25
support sustainability design decisions and make detailed comparisons between
different building design and equipment measures. (Ostergard et al. 2016)
In order to improve designs, designers have to increase the input in the design
phase with a higher level of knowledge and details. Therefore, it is essential that the
simulation tools include an interface that supports such a knowledge-base. A
knowledge-base that contains descriptive explanations, examples and procedural
methods for determining appropriate installation and systems, e.g. guidelines, case
studies, strategies etc. (Attia 2011)
Figure 2.14: The reviewed research types and their relation to different challenges of
performing building simulations in the early design stages. (Ostergard,et al 2016)
2.8.3 Energy and Daylight Modelling Simulation Tools
Energy modeling focuses primarily on sizing and selection of mechanical equipment
and prediction of annual energy consumption through the “whole building” approach.
EnergyPlus is one of the most popular building performance simulation programs, it is
an advanced whole-building energy simulation engine, and it can be used to model
energy consumption in buildings, resulting in highly accurate data.
BPS tools selection criteria can be defined as the classification and description of
tools’ capabilities, requirements, functionalities, specifications, features, factors, etc.
In the past, a number of comparative studies have been published and addressed the
selection criteria of BPS tools, mostly considering architects concerns about BPS tools
in design practice. The criteria was selected to classify the major tool capabilities that
can be listed as the criteria of ‘Architect Friendly’ tools. These five criteria are listed
below according to Attia’s research 2011, as shown in Fig. 2.15:
1. Usability & information management of interface.
2. Intelligence & integration of knowledge-base.
3. Accuracy of tools and ability to simulate detailed and Complex building
26
components.
4. Interoperability of building modelling.
5. Process adaptability.
Figure 2.15: Five selection criteria for BPS tools. (Attia, 2011)
A study conducted has shown that architects’ most important selection criteria for BPS
tools is intelligence, which provides the opportunity to inform the decision making and
allows decisions on building performance and cost, as sown in Fig. 2.16. Architects
indicated the lack of intelligence within the compared tools. The study also revealed
that architects and non-specialist users find it difficult to integrate BPS tools in the
design process. (Attia 2011)
Figure 2.16: Ranking of the most important features of a BPS tool. (Attia, 2010)
27
With the advancement of BPS tools and the recent announcements of direct links
between BIM or non-BIM modeling tools and BPS tools, it is important to compare the
existing programs. Based on an online survey, the following presents the results of
comparing ten major BPS tools: ECOTECT, HEED, Energy 10, Design Builder,
eQuest, DOE-2, Green Building Studio, IES VE, Energy Plus and Energy Plus-Sketch
Up Plugin OpenStudio, as shown in Fig. 2.17. (Attia et al. 2009)
Figure 2.17: Energy and Environmental analysis software in relation to design stages and
BIM compatibility. (Aksamija 2012)
The following presents a brief comparative study of BPS tools dedicated to early
design stages used in architectural practice. The comparison is based on five criteria
including usability, intelligence, interoperability, accuracy and design process
integration of the tools, summarized as shown in Table 2.6.
ECOTECT: Ecotect has one of the most user-friendly interfaces that allows
powerful visual analysis tool. Despite ECOTECT strength of visualizing output in the
3D-building model, the results of the thermal analyses are often difficult to interpret,
and an overwhelming amount of information is generated. ECOTECT can display and
animate complex shadows and reflections, generate interactive sun-path diagrams for
instant overshadowing analysis, calculate the incident solar radiation on any surface.
It can also calculate monthly heat loads and hourly temperature graphs for any zone.
Default materials and properties are automatically assigned to building elements,
strongly reducing inputs. A built-in 3D-modeller facilitates the construction of the
building geometry, but the geometry has to be remodeled from scratch. User can
import 3D computer models in 3DS or DXF formats from several widely used computer
aided design software such as AutoCAD, 3D Studio, Rhinoceros or Sketch up. The
tool is not adequate for detailed design, as it does not sufficiently support input from
general to detail and lacks accuracy. ECOTECT is lacking an energy analysis option.
ECOTECT thermal simulation results are not fully representative of reality.
IES VE-Ware: VE-Ware toolbar in Sketch-Up is simple with a restrained set of
options, facilitating data-input and navigation. The tool incorporates many quality
assurance features. The process of data-input is easy and quick, but the output results
are not very suitable to support the decision-making process. This is mainly due to
lack of visual presentation and too much textual and tabular information. In addition,
feedback into the design software (Sketch-Up) is not possible. The tool allows the
28
input for HVAC, solar gains, shading, natural ventilation and dimming strategies. Also
the tool allows the simulation of thermal comfort, comparisons of results and check
the compliance with LEED. The building geometry is modelled in Sketch-up, which is
a familiar modelling environment to architects. However, the building model has to be
imported to IES, interrupting the fluidity of the tool and enforcing the user to switch to
another environment. The tools allow direct connectivity to SketchUp, Revit and
ArchiCAD. gbXML and DXF models can be imported to VEWare. The tool is adapted
to different design phases and design users, allowing the flexibility in developing the
model from early design to detailed design stages.
OpenStudio: It is a collection of software tools which include the validated, detailed
applications of EnergyPlus and Radiance. The packages “parametric analysis tool”
(PAT) and “large scale analysis” extends OpenStudio capabilities by enabling large
parametric studies and cloud computing. A SketchUp plug-in facilitate use in early
design whereas gbXML compatibility allows for geometry import from e.g. detailed
Revit and CAD models for the late design stage. Through a SketchUp plug-in,
OpenStudio may access the online, searchable library of user-rated building blocks
and thereby include several features of the desired knowledge-based database. The
tool can be used by architects and allows the exchange of building models for more
detailed input by experts. The tool also allows the quick creation of building form and
massing. The program does not allow any exchange with BIM tools, and does not
allow alternatives comparison and ranking of design strategies for different parametric
and optimization analysis of energy efficiency measures. (Attia, 2011)
Table 2.6: Comparison of softwares in terms of project phase usage, complexity, file format
and compatibility, and tools capabilities. (Attia 2011)
29
2.9 Building Envelope and Parametric Design
In architectural design practice and research, parametric design approach is
becoming popular. Parametric design in architecture refers to the modeling process of
building geometry using parameters and functions, and adopts similar programming
technologies in computer science. It has the flexibility of programming, but its graphical
user interface and visual codes make it more user friendly than traditional
programming languages. (Fang 2017)
2.9.1 Parametric Design Definition
Parametric design is defined as “a process based on algorithmic thinking that
enables the expression of parameters and rules that, together, define, encode and
clarify the relationship between design intent and design response.” (ElMouled 2014)
2.9.2 Parametric Design Advantages and Disadvantages
The advantage of parametric design over traditional design method is the ability to
quickly generate design alternatives, and maintains dynamic links between
parameters and geometry defined by the parameters. The modification of parametric
values leads to simultaneous updates of the building geometry. Once a parametric
building model is developed, design alternatives can be rapidly generated through the
manipulation of parameters. Figure 2.18, presents a simple example of parametric
design, showing the three parameters control, width, depth, and height of the box,
where different box geometries can be generated by the change of parameters.
The disadvantage of parametric design is that the modeling of the initial parametric
model takes longer time than conventional methods. But as the number of design
alternatives grow, parametric modeling method will quickly show advantage. (Fang
2017)
Figure 2.18: Parametric design example in Rhino and Grasshopper. (Fang 2017)
30
2.9.3 Parametric Design tools and Simulation
Grasshopper is an open software for Rhino, which can be enhanced by plugins, the
plugins target various areas such as building geometry development, building
structure, environmental analysis, and mechanical engineering. Ladybug and
Honeybee (Roudsari et al. 2016), Geco, Diva and Archsim are building performance
analysis plugins for grasshopper. They create a link between parametric building
model and building performance through energy modeling and simulation. Honeybee
connects Grasshopper and Rhino with EnergyPlus, OpenStudio, Radiance and
DAYSIM, and thereby combines the strengths of these packages, allowing for building
performance evaluation. (Ostergard, T. et al. 2016)
Ladybug imports standard EnergyPlus weather files (.EPW) in Grasshopper and
provides a variety of 2D and 3D designer-friendly interactive graphics to support the
decision-making process during the initial stages of design. It also simplifies the
process of analysis, automates and expedites the calculations, and provides easy to
understand graphical visualizations in the 3D modeling interface of
Rhino/Grasshopper. It also allows users to work with validated energy and daylighting
engines such as EnergyPlus, Radiance and Daysim. Integration with the parametric
tools of grasshopper allows for almost instantaneous feedback on design
modifications, and as it runs within the design environment, the information and
analysis is interactive. The development is a free and open source; users can
customize the tool based on their needs and contribute to the source code. (Roudsari
2013)
There are currently four environmental analysis tools, for Rhino/Grasshopper,
available to the public (excluding Ladybug). Table 2.7 compares the existing
environmental analysis tools for Rhino/Grasshopper based on the analysis types that
they provide during the different stages of an environmental design process.
Ladybug is an effort to support the full range of environmental analysis in a single
parametric platform, as shown in Fig. 2.19. It creates interactive 2D and 3D graphics
for weather data visualization to support the decision making process during the initial
stages of design, and the components evaluate initial design options for implications
to the design from radiation and sunlight-hours analyses results. It also provides
energy and daylighting modeling by using validated simulation engines such as
EnergyPlus, RADIANCE, and DAYSIM. (Roudsari 2013)
31
Table 2.7: Comparison of the existing environmental analysis tools for Rhino/Grasshopper.
(Source: Roudsari 2013)
Figure 2.19: Ladybug weather data components. (Roudsari 2013)
2.9.4 Parametric Design Performance Optimization

Optimization is the process or methodology of making a design or decision as
functional or effective as possible. Mathematically, optimization is the process of
finding the minimum or maximum value of a function by choosing the best value of
variables. Optimization provides the possibility to explore a large number of design
solutions efficiently, and with the development of parametric design, building
performance simulation and optimization technologies in recent years, optimization of
building performance has become possible. The applications of mathematical
optimization started since the 1980s and 1990s, but most studies in building
performance optimization with building energy simulation and an algorithmic
optimization engine were published in the late 2000s. (Fang 2017)
Building performance optimization is usually considered as a process automated by
a building simulation program and an optimization engine, which consists of
optimization algorithms. Optimization process usually requires two types of inputs,
which are variables and objective functions. In building performance optimization,
variables are the values controlling the geometry or properties of the design, and
objective functions are the building performance metrics, and they are usually
calculated by simulation tools. Typical design variables explored in optimization
32
studies are the orientation of a building, the shape of a building, construction
dimensions, construction materials, window to wall ratio, lighting equipment, and
HVAC system sizes. Optimization methods were applied to a wide variety of building
design problems such as energy, cost, orientation, window to wall ratio, façade design,
thermal comfort, daylighting, massing, structure, and life cycle analysis. The most
investigated optimization objectives were energy performance, thermal comfort, and
environmental impacts. (Fang 2017)
A building optimization analysis typically consists of the following steps that may
be repeated in an iterative design process (Ostergard et al. 2016)
1. Identification of design variables and constraints.
2. Selection of simulation tool and creation of a baseline model.
3. Selection of objective function(s)
4. Selection of optimization algorithm.
5. Running simulations until optimization convergence is achieved.
6. Interpretation and presentation of data.
2.10 Genetic Algorithm

Genetic algorithm is the most popular optimization algorithm in building performance
studies. Genetic algorithm was first proposed by Holland in the 1970s as a heuristic
search method. It is based on the natural selection process in biological evolution.
Genetic algorithm randomly selects solutions of good performance from the current
population and uses them as parents to produce the next generation. It is suitable for
building performance optimization because it is suited to solve multi-objective
problems. (Nguyen et al. 2014).
Using this approach provides architects with a high ability to optimize buildings with
respect to various performance aspects. The impact of such a trend is yet to be seen
on building forms and envelopes and their behavior with respect to different climate.
In recent years, the design professions have begun experimenting with parametric
design tools such as Grasshopper which was developed by David Rutten at Robert
McNeel & Associates in 2007 as a parametric modelling plug-in for Rhinoceros 3D
modeling software. Grasshopper is a graphical algorithm editor that allows designers
with no formal scripting experience to quickly generate parametric forms from the
simple to the awe-inspiring. Since green building rating systems such as the US Green
Building Council’s LEED system encourage the use of simulations, designers are
increasingly reporting that they are using daylight simulations within their designs.
(Elghazi 2014)
There have been various plug-ins developed for Grasshopper that connect the Rhino
geometry to simulation softwares. DIVA, which stands for Design Iterate Validate
Adapt, for Rhinoceros 3D tools, and provides Grasshopper components to perform
33
daylight analysis on an existing architectural model via integration with Radiance and
DAYSIM. Parametric simulations can give an idea of the variation in daylighting
performance related to the variation of one or more parameters. (Fang 2017)
2.11 Review of Building Performance Evaluation and Optimization

Studies
There has been a significant increase in the number of papers on the subject of
building performance optimization in recent years. Evins 2013, in his study, provided
a brief summary of the papers written on this subject. Of the reviewed work, 38% were
focusing on the optimization of building envelope; 21% focused on building form; 17%
focused on HVAC systems; 16% focused on renewable energy generation, and the
others focused on control strategies and lighting systems. 53% of the studies
addressed single objective optimization; 8% of the studies used weighted sum
approach in multi-objective optimization, and 39% applied Pareto multi objective
optimization. Being found in 60% of the studies, the most common optimization
objective was energy consumption. Other important topics were related to cost,
comfort, daylight performance, and CO2 emission. (Fang 2017) In the following
review, precedent building performance optimization studies are categorized
according to their major area of optimization: building systems, building envelope, and
building geometry.
2.11.1 Previous Studies and Application of Building Performance Simulation
to Envelope Design
Labib (2015) studied the interaction between light shelves and complex ceiling forms
for optimized daylighting performance using Galapogas. Another study by Ercan and
Elias- Ozkan in 2015 also used Galapagos to optimize the design of shading devices
for daylighting performance. (Fang 2017)
Daylighting performance was also included in a few of the studies as an optimization
objective. (Lartigue et al. 2014), provided a methodology for optimizing the building
envelope with respect to minimum heating load, minimum cooling load and maximum
daylight. Window to wall ratio and the window type were the main variables to be
optimized. Energy performance simulation software was TRNSYS, daylighting
simulation software was Daysim, and optimization tool was GenOpt. Trade-off
solutions between different objectives were found using Pareto approach.
Trubiano et al. in 2013, developed an evolutionary optimization script, integrating
Grasshopper with Radiance and EnergyPlus through Matlab. They utilized the script
to show the potential of generating the optimal shape of atriums with the adoption of
GAs and a single objective function. (Gonzalez et al. 2015)
Some other research groups have worked on the topic of the optimization of
arrangement of façade modules for office buildings using integrated thermal and
lighting simulations. (Goia et al. 2016), carried out the optimization of the window-to-
34
wall ratio of a typical office using total energy consumption as optimization function. It
was found that for continental climates, the ideal solution could be obtained for a
glazing percentage between 35% and 45%, regardless of the façade orientation.
Earlier, in 2012, Ochoa et al. recognized four criteria for the optimization of windows
size in an office building. Along with the minimization of the aggregate yearly energy
consumption, they considered illuminance, uniformity, and glare criteria.
In 2011, a study performed by El Sheikh & Gerber focused on the parametric design
of external shading systems using evolutionary optimization principles. Galapagos
was used as the main GA solver, while the optimal solution was searched among the
ones able to maximize daylight performance of indoor space. Indicators such as
minimum levels of indoor illuminance and luminous distribution of light in the selected
space were used.
Gadelhak used a similar approach in the form-finding and shading optimization of
high performance façades. Just like the previous research, daylight indicators such as
the percentage of daylit area were used. Furthermore, the full potential of parametric
design integrating simulation tools and genetic optimization using Galapagos has
been studied by Shi and Yang. A customized computer script was written to integrate
three simulation software packages with Grasshopper. Ecotect was used to predict
the availability of solar radiation in complex roof geometry. Radiance was used to
determine the best window proportion from a given size (height and width) for
achieving a specific daylight factor; and EnergyPlus was utilized for determining the
optimal distribution of a given window area across the four façades orientations (N, S,
E and W), with the aim of reducing energy consumption. The research exhibited that
generic evolutionary solvers, such as Galapagos could successfully achieve specific
optimization goals.
In 2013, Brotas and Rusovan conducted a complete simulation of four different
envelope solutions taking the climate of London as an example. The simulations
included both lighting and energy calculations. Of the four envelopes, one presented
a shading screen previously designed to optimize the daylight performance of internal
spaces. The optimization was performed carrying out an evolutionary definition of the
shape of hexagonal shadings based on daylight indicators. They found that in such as
those climatic conditions, facades that adopted optimized shadings could accomplish
better results in terms of CO2 emissions than conventional solutions. (Gonzalez et al.
2015)
(Donato et al. 2017), worked on an innovative app for a parametric and holistic
approach in early design stages. They created an app called ARUP Solar tool to
investigate the relationships between envelope features and cooling strategies, as well
as identify potential opportunities for solar renewable energy production. The app is
built from the model geometry by means of Rhino/Grasshopper that allows the link
with Radiance and DAYSIM, Unity is used to post-process the whole set of results,
35
but it is not released to public use. ARUP Solar app validation with EnergyPlus,
Radiance and DAYSIM was identified.
(Wong 2017), reviewed various methods to evaluate daylighting performance of
buildings, including scale models with simulator, mathematical models, full scale
models for field measurement, and computer simulation software. This review
evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of each method, and found that computer
simulation method is the most commonly used in the building design stage because
of its capability of involving design variants and its accurate results. The study also
provided a broad survey of computer simulation tools for daylighting performance, and
it was found that the most frequently used programs are Radiance, Adeline, Ecotect,
DOE, Daysim, and EnergyPlus. The two most utilized illumination algorithms in
daylighting simulation programs are: ray-tracing (view-dependent algorithm) and
radiosity (scene-dependent algorithm), which can be respectively represented by
Radiance and Relux.
(Fang 2017), worked on a PhD research to develop and verify an optimization
process for high performance buildings design, which can help designers identify
designs with optimized daylight and energy consumption results, and understand how
design parameters influence building performance. Genetic Algorithm was used to
examine the relationship between design parameters and performance metrics, and
generate new design options for better performance goal.
2.11.2 Findings from Previous Studies
As the literature review indicates, further studies are needed in the area of
performance evaluation and optimization, especially in the development of tools and
methodologies that can be used by a wider range of architects in early design phase
and not by professional engineers only.
Explorations on new design methods for integrating parametric design with
evolutionary optimization and making use of the existing tools without the need of
specific programming knowledge is needed. In addition, the capabilities of generic
solvers, such as Galapagos, need to be tested in multi-objective design problems,
where the result of one variable has implications on others.
The effort to establish a single platform for design and simulation during different
stages of the design has been a constant subject of development for a few years. The
use of multiple platforms for design and simulation not only slows down the process,
but also introduces interoperability issues which includes the use of multiple models
and interfaces. The unfamiliar working methods of building simulation software, the
complexities in geometry creation and demanding input data are the other
complications.
36
Architects and non-specialist users find it difficult to integrate BPS tools in the
design process, and indicated the lack of intelligence within the compared tools. And
also, generating a graphical simulation results instead of reports and spreadsheets is
a critical matter, where architects find it difficult to be easily understood without the
help of professional engineers.
Honeybee, a plugin for Grasshopper, brings together parametric modelling and

environmental analysis within the same platform, which utilizes the calculation engines
of well known daylight and energy simulation software Radiance, Daysim, Openstudio,
and EnergyPlus, to reach accurate results. And also integrate the results as a
graphical representation instead of reports and graphs, which facilitates the decision
making for architects for further design modifications in an early design phase.
2.12 Summary of Literature Review

Design decisions made in the early design stage have significant impacts on the
buildings daylighting and energy performance. Great performance improvement was
found after implementing building performance evaluation and optimization. However,
there are not enough tools and methodologies for designer to easily evaluate their
designs in early design phase.
Daylighting is an essential part of interior environment for occupant’s health and
comfort, and it is also an effective sustainable strategy to improve buildings’ energy
performance. There are an increased number of studies on the optimization of building
performance, but daylighting performance was usually not considered as one of the
optimization objectives.
Parametric design is found to be a powerful approach in generating design
alternatives, and the combination of Rhino and Grasshopper was the most used
parametric design tools. Ladybug and Honeybee are energy and daylighting modeling
plugins for Grasshopper, and the developed energy and daylighting models are
simulated in EnergyPlus and Daysim, which are two of the most reliable simulation
engines in the industry. Galapagos is a genetic algorithm based optimization engine
in Grasshopper.
The workflow limitations of the past are no longer a barrier for today’s designers as
parametric tools provide designers an integrative design platform, and through the
collaborative mindset of the design community, the potentials for further development
is limitless. To encourage an environmentally-conscious design workflow, it is
becoming increasingly essential to bring the analysis tools to the designer’s
environment. The free and open nature of Ladybug and honeybee democratize
environmental analysis tools, fostering the advancement of environmentally-
conscious designs, giving designers an instantaneous feedback on the effects of
design modifications, which facilitates the decision making process.
37
3. Building Envelope Performance Analysis
3.1 Analysis Framework
The complexity of building design has evolved in accordance to the continuous
exploration and experimentation from the architectural world to achieve the ultimate
design and performance in buildings. Given the new development of tools for
integrated design workflows that are allowed within parametric design platforms such
as Grasshopper for Rhino, architects now have the opportunity to approach their
designs in a more holistic way and are offered the opportunity that allows them to have
better control of their decisions at an early design stage.
The proposed building performance evaluation process is integrated in the
schematic design phase, as shown in Diagram 3.1. After understanding the project
goals and requirements, architects develop preliminary building design concept.
Daylight performance evaluation process aims to provide designers with analyzed
design options without compromising original building design concept. If the proposed
design options are meeting the performance target and other design requirements,
then the design process will proceed into the next design stages. If it is not satisfactory,
initial design concept could be modified and this optimization process could be
repeated multiple times, until a desirable design is obtained.
Diagram 3.1: Building Performance Evaluation and Optimization in Architectural Design Process.
38
The main components inside the framework can be sorted to a parametric building
design, lighting energy and daylight modeling, simulation and building performance
evaluation and optimization. Parametric design is a method to define building
geometry with design parameters and functions. Design alternatives are generated
with the change of design parameters, and the tools for parametric modeling are Rhino
and Grasshopper.
Grasshopper and it’s plugins ladybug and honeybee were selected as the modelling
program to study the office studio case studies with simulation analysis and the use of
Galapagos to achieve the control of optimization. Grasshopper is a graphical algorithm
editor tightly integrated with Rhino 3D modeling tools. (Roudsari, 2014) Ladybug and
Honybee are two open source environmental plugins for grasshopper to help
designers create an environmentally conscious architectural design. Ladybug imports
standard Energyplus weather file (.EPW) into grasshopper and provides a variety of
2D and 3D interactive graphics to support the decision making process during the
early stages of the design. Honeybee connects Grasshopper 3D to Energyplus,
Radiance, Daysim and OpenStudio for building energy and daylight simulation, as
shown in Fig. 3.1. Galapagos is a module of grasshopper which provides a generic
platform for the application of evolutionary algorithms to be used on a wide variety of
problems by non-programmers. Galapagos has the advantages of simple operation,
and allows the search for one goal at once, producing a range of optimized solutions.
Integration with the parametric tools of grasshopper allows for almost instantaneous
feedback on design modifications, and as it runs within the design environment, the
information and analysis is interactive.
Figure 3.1: Ladybug and Honeybee work Scheme. (Source:

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug)
39
In daylight modeling process, detailed building information will be assigned to the
parametric models, such as weather location, geometry, building elements materials,
and occupancy time. Ladybug provides the main functions of energy and daylighting
modeling, while Honeybee is used for the manipulation and visualization of weather
data and simulation data.
The optimization process needs two type of input: variables and fitness function. In
building performance optimization, variables are the building design variables in
grasshopper that can control the building geometry, which in this case is the window
to wall glazing ratio. The fitness function is the daylight performance metrics calculated
by the simulation engine. For single objective optimization, the fitness function is the
minimum or maximum value of the performance metric, such as minimum lighting
energy load. Then genetic algorithm is used to examine the relationship between
design parameters and performance metrics, and generate new design options
towards better performance.
Each component requires different tools, and the structure of the tools is shown in
diagram 3.2. Rhino is a 3D NURBS modeling tool, and Grasshopper is a plug-in for
Rhino, and it provides parametric modeling platform that integrates the functions in
Rhino and other add-on programs. Ladybug and Honeybee are energy and daylighting
modeling tools, which are connected to energy and daylighting simulation engines
EnergyPlus and Radiance.
Diagram 3.2: Structure of evaluation tools.
40
3.2 Evaluation Goals and Objectives
The evaluation goal is to investigate and explore the effect of different window to
wall ratios, and shading elements like blinds, and perforated screens, on daylight and
lighting energy performance, allowing for the exploration of the simulation tool with
different design options.
To achieve the goal, objectives are specified as follows:
1. Define case study models, design variables, and evaluation criteria.
2. Develop the evaluation framework with a parametric design model, daylighting
modeling components and optimization engines.
3. Use this framework to evaluate and optimize daylighting and lighting energy
performance of the case studies.
4. Analyze the data from the evaluation process, and examine the relationship
between design variables and performance metrics. Compare results of case
studies, and make a decision of best design option.
5. Summarize the research findings. Identify the limitations in the evaluation process,
and propose future studies.
41
4. Methodology
4.1 Evaluation and Optimization Workflow Structure
The overall research workflow is shown in Diagram 4.1 and is divided into four
phases, which can be explained as follows:
1. Design: This phase is to identify design parameters and build a parametric design
model for the case studies. Analysis of Climatic data analysis for hot arid climatic zone
in Cairo, Egypt, in terms of orientation, sun path, solar shading and radiation, daylight,
and wind. The result of this phase will be modeling a basic office studio and four other
designs with different façade treatment.
2. Modelling and Simulation: This phase is where the energy and daylight modelling
takes place to start the evaluation simulations accordingly. Parametric models for both
indicators are elaborated, these models are based on a realistic representation of the
building in terms of geometry and properties of materials. The results of these
simulations are the input for the design goals of the evaluation and optimization
process. The purpose is to compare how the evaluation results are different, and how
the relationship between design variables and performance are different in the five
different designs, in the same climatic zones.
3. Evaluation: The evaluation and optimization phase take into account the resulting
parameterized window ratio and shading design and the daylight and energy
parametric models to generate optimized results that match the design objectives of
the project, which will vary according to the needs of each project. During this process,
highly valuable sets of statistical and graphical information (charts and graphs) for
comparative and conclusive purposes are created. These results will be later used to
support the assessment of the design.
4. Assessment: During this phase; based on the results, a performance comparison
will be executed, and a decision will take place in regards of which design meets the
project goals, and whether making a choice or a re-evaluation of the design is
expected through this phase.
Diagram 4.1: Research Evaluation and Optimization Workflow Structure.
42
4.2 Case Studies Designs
4.2.1 Models Parameters
The parametric model of the building will allow to develop different façade treatments
according the conceptual needs of the project. A simple building geometry is chosen
as the main case study model based on the climatic analysis of Cairo, Egypt, as shown
in Figure 4.1. The building is 100 square meter office studio, square in shape with a
single height flat roof 3.0 m, and in order to maximize daylight needs, the office space
is a typical of open-plan offices. The office will be oriented along east and west axis,
with one window on each facade of the building, achieving as an initial start 20% WWR
window to wall ratio. The model is decomposed into basic building components of a
building such as facades, windows, slabs, walls, and roof.
Case study A is the main standard design with one window on each facade, the
design is to find the optimum window area on each wall to maximize the useful daylight
illuminance, in relation to glazing transmittance value of 79%, as shown in Fig. 4.1.
Case study B (Top Left) Glazing was added to south façade only, the design
evaluation target was to find the impact of different glazing ratios in reducing energy
loads and also to find the optimum window area on each wall to maximize the useful
daylight illuminance.
In case study C (Top Right) Vertical shading louvers were added to south elevation
glazing, 15 fins with depth 0.5 m and 0.2 m spacing. The design evaluation target was
to find the impact of the shading element in reducing energy loads and also to find the
optimum window area on each wall to maximize the useful daylight illuminance in
relation to glazing transmittance value.
In case study D (Bottom Left) Horizontal shading louvers were added to south
elevation glazing, 7 fins with depth 0.5 m and 0.2 m spacing. The evaluation target
was to find the impact of different glazing ratios to daylight performance inside the
working space.
In case study E (Bottom Right) Perforated metal screen was added to south
elevation glazing with 0.2m openings size. The evaluation target was to find the impact
of different glazing ratios to daylight performance inside the working space, as shown
in Fig. 4.3.
Figure 4.1: The office studio basic model used for simulations analysis, case study A.
43
Figure 4.2: Office studio Case B drawings with different window to wall ratios.
Figure 4.3: Office studio models, case study B (Top left), case study C (Top right), case study
D (Bottom Left), and case study E (Bottom right).
44
4.2.2 Dependent Variables and Assumptions
Some building parameters are fixed throughout the evaluation and optimization. The
building area is fixed to 100 square m, and height is 3m. The parametric study was
carried out as a climate based annual analysis, located in Cairo, Egypt, with
coordinates 30°6'N, 31°24'E, and 75 m elevation, according to Koppen - Geiger
climatic zone classification, for occupancy time from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm. The
weather file for this location has been collected from the database of the United States
Department of Energy (DOE).
For simplification, placement of doors and interior partition are not considered in the
evaluation and optimization process. Radiance materials for daylighting simulation are
the same for all cases, and reflectance of the ceiling, floor, walls and shading
louver/screen are 0.8, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 respectively. The window is a transparent
material with visible transmittance of 0.79, and all the evaluation of the five case
studies will be held on WWR 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Case studies parameters and material Information for Radiance.
4.2.3 Daylighting Evaluation Criteria
The methodology implemented in this study focused on the analysis of daylighting
performance for base case and for different facade shading elements, to compare and
analyze which treatment achieve the near optimum daylighting adequacy. Honeybee
for Grasshopper was used in all analysis and evaluation, Honeybee uses RADIANCE
and DAYSIM as its basic daylight simulation engines. Radiance and DAYSIM employ
a reverse ray-tracing algorithm based on the physical behavior of light in a volumetric,
three dimensional model which should most accurately represent reality.
Based on the literature review, simulations were run to calculate four daylighting
metrics values, Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA 300/55%), Annual Sunlight Exposure
(ASE1000/250hr), as specified by LEED v4, and ASE by value not exceeding 10% of
floor area. (USGBC) Diagram 4.2 shows an explanation of illuminance. And also run
to calculate Daylight Factor (DF 2%-5%) and Daylight availability (DA 300 lux); based
on the newly approved method by the Illuminating Engineering Society.
45
Diagram 4.2: Illuminance explanation.
Simulation will run to all case studies with glazing ratios 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and
100%, with selected clear sky model. Grasshopper was used to collect and filter the
Illuminance values of each analysis point over 3650 hours, and present the final sDA,
ASE, DF, and DA percentages, on working plane set to 0.75 m above ground level,
with grid size 0.5 m, for occupied hours between 9AM and 5PM.
The accuracy of the results as in simulation process depend highly in the precision
of the configuration of the parameters in this case of the lighting simulation model, and
in order to achieve a good accuracy of daylight modelling results, the following input
values have been used for Radiance simulation parameters:
- Ambient bounces (-ab): This parameter represents the maximum number of diffuse
bounces considered, -ab values higher than 4 produce high accuracy in results. For
the scope of current research, the following previous studies carried out on similar
geometries an -ab value of 4 has been adopted.
- Ambient division (-ad): Represents the number of sampling rays projected from
each point into the sky for the calculation of indirect radiation. The higher the number,
the lower the error in predicting indirect solar radiation. An -ad value of 1000 has been
adopted.
- Ambient Accuracy (-aa): Represents the error in percentage of ambient
interpolations. An -aa value of 0.1, representative of an error not higher than 10%, has
been adopted.
- Ambient Resolution (-ar): Controls the density of ambient values. An -ar value of
300 has been adopted. (González et al. 2015) Table 4.2 shows the Radiance
parameters that were used to calculate the ASE.
46
Table 4.2: Radiance parameters set for Daylight Availability metric.
The energy simulation output in relation to glazing ratios values included annual
lighting energy loads. The main objective was to optimize glazing ratio that achieves
minimum lighting energy consumption and meeting daylight availability requirements
for better indoor quality. Glare was also calculated with target daylight glare
perceptible value 0.4 > DGP >= 0.35. (Wienold LIPID)
4.3 Daylight Modelling and Simulation

4.3.1 Weather Data Analysis
At this step, the selection of the corresponding EPW (Enegy Plus Weather) file for
the project location was made, the data retrieved from this file was helpful for the
environmental visualization such as sun path, Solar Radiation, yearly drybulb
temperature graph and thermal comfort, and also for a broader perspective of how the
building relates to its specific environmental conditions. Within Ladybug Tools, this
manifests itself in the form of components that have large numbers of inputs but only
a small number of them that are actually required to run the component. For example,
the Ladybug sunpath has over 15 inputs, which allow for a high degree of
customization, yet only a single input (the location) is necessary to produce the familiar
solar graphic.
4.3.2 Case Studies Modeling
For daylight simulation, separate components were used for geometry, materials,
sky types, recipes, and result-processing. This modularization ultimately allows for a
much higher degree of customization and potential integration with other tools that
would not be possible if these processes were wrapped in a single component.
The daylight simulation; which in this project mainly is focused on daylight
illuminance, will be based on the composition of the optical properties of materials.
Material properties for finishes for walls, floors, roofs, windows and shadings that can
be used in the analyzed space are basics for the setup of the simulation model in order
to create results as real as possible.
4.3.3 Algorithm Development of Daylight Analysis
The work process consisted of four main steps, modeling office studio case studies,
weather data and Radiance materials implementation, running daylight simulation,
and data collection of daylight performance, as shown in Diagram 4.3.
47
Diagram 4.3: Work process of Daylight analysis in Ladybug and Honeybee.
Figure 4.4: Daylight performance evaluation process definition in Grasshopper.
Figure 4.4 shows the detailed daylighting modeling process. The process begins in
Group A with parametric design variables and building geometry. Ladybug and
Honeybee provides the functions of daylight and energy modeling. In the daylighting
modeling process, Group A is connected to Group B for daylight modeling and
Radiance materials component, with the setting of material transparency, reflectance,
etc. Then honeybee surfaces and zones, glazing ratios and materials in Group B are
connected to daylighting simulation component, with the input of weather files,
daylighting sensor placement, and other simulation settings. A rad file is generated
and daylighting simulation is executed in Radiance, automatically through Honeybee.
After simulation, Ladybug imports simulation result file back to grasshopper, reads the
daylight performance metrics, as an image based output for visualization and
assessment.
48
5. Results and Discussions
5.1 Run Simulation for Location Weather Data
The main environmental data that were extracted and used from the EPW file (Cairo
International Airport) of the selected location are sun path, Solar Radiation, yearly
drybulb temperature graph and thermal comfort, wind speed, and sky dome. Cairo is
located at 30°6'N, 31°24'E, and 75 m above sea level, and the weather is
characterized by an arid, hot climate weather and the weather data file is showing that
the dry bulb temperature ranges from 22°C and can surpass 40°C in summer between
May and October. In winter, temperature ranges from 14 to 22 °C from November to
April during daytime, and drops during the night to 9.5°C. Solar radiation indication
exceeds 1000kw/h, and the average sun rays inclination angles varies between 40°
to 80° at 1:00 pm, as shown in figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, respectively.
Figure 5.1: Visualization graph of annual dry bulb temperature for Cairo, Egypt.
Figure 5.2: Visualization graph of the annual outdoor comfort for Cairo, Egypt.
Figure 5.3: Visualization graph of the annual global radiation range for Cairo, Egypt.
49
Figure 5.4: Visualization graph of the annual wind speed for Cairo, Egypt.
Figure 5.5: Visualization graph of the annual sky condition for Cairo, Egypt, during cooling
and heating periods
5.2 Run Daylight Simulation Analysis

The simulation process conducted in this research was complied with LEED V4
daylight requirements and Daylight availability (DA). LEED V4 concentrates on sDA
and ASE which were described in the literature review. The simulation parameters
were set to measure daylight Illuminance sufficiency for a working space that was
described in the methodology, Honeybee was set to calculate lux values and the
percentage of analysis points at 75mm plane that exceeds a specified Illuminance
level (300lux) for at least 50% of the total occupied hours from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
annually, while the percentage of sDA should be at least 55% or 75% to achieve 2 to
3 LEED points. Annual Sunlight Exposure ASE was the second metric used by LEED,
the aim was for potential source of visual discomfort caused by direct sunlight. This
metric calculated the percentage of the analysis points that exceeded an Illuminance
level of 1000 lux, for at least 250 hours of occupied hours.
50
Daylight Autonomy DA was also calculated to detect the areas that were not
receiving sufficient daylight at least half of the year round occupied time, for minimum
Illuminance level of 300lux.
A comparative analysis method was used for this study by examining the effect of
using and not using solar shading element, which allowed to analyze in detail the
impact of each variable individually and their overall integrated impact on the
daylighting performance inside the office space. The following explains the findings of
this study for the changes in DA, sDA and ASE in relation to the difference in Window-
to-Wall Ratios (WWRs).
5.2.1 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case study A.

The analysis was applied on the basic office case study, which comprises a clear
glazing with 79% visual transmittance on the four facades with different ratios varying
between 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, without any shading element. The target of the
evaluation and optimization analysis was to find the optimum configuration of glazing
ratio for each façade, to maximize the useful daylight Illuminance and minimizing the
energy consumption, during occupancy time from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Table 5.1 is
showing the energy consumption values for each glazing ratio, and Table 5.2 is
showing the result of glazing ratio configuration optimization that achieves lower
energy consumption.
Table 5.1: Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to energy consumption for case
study A.

Table 5.2: Optimized glazing ratios for low energy consumption values.
The lowest energy consumption values were achieved at glazing ratios of 10% and
20% at north, south, east and west elevations, and when the north elevation glazing
was increased from 10% to 100% with fixed glazing ratio of 20% at south, east and
west elevation, lighting energy consumed was increased by a low value from 127.8
Kwh to 145.95 Kwh, as the daylight is in direct, as shown in Fig. 5.6. The above
analysis showed lowest lighting energy consumption values.
51
Energy Consumption
300
250
Energy( kwh)
200
150
100
50
0
20% WWR 40% WWR 60% WWR 80% WWR 100% WWR
Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) - Case Study A

Energy Consumption
200
175
150
125
Energy (Kwh)
100
75
50
25
0
NSEW 20% N 60% SEW 20% N 100% SEW 20%
Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) - Case study A

Figure 5.6: Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to energy consumption for
case study A.
The next step was running an analysis to highlight the areas that fit in the desired
range of daylight Illuminance. This was helpful to visualize which areas are receiving
less than 300 lux, and more than 1000 lux, which assisted later in the decision making
phase. Followed then by measuring the total Illuminance of the working space, through
a color mesh which was part of the parametric daylight model, and is considered to be
an easy way to visualize the values according to a color code and deduct which areas
were meeting the desired Illuminance ranges.
The simulation results showed that 0% of the working spaces floor areas with
different glazing ratios configurations are achieving Illuminance less than 300lux, the
daylight performance is achieving the minimum daylight level sDA of 300 lux by 100%,
exceeding the minimum requirement of 55% or 75%, the values of Annual Sunlight
Exposure are exceeding the maximum requirement ASE 10% with illuminance values
more than 1000 lux, which means that the space is overlit, as shown in Table 5.3.
52
For Daylight Factor Analysis DF:
Daylight factor average values were ranging between 4.5 for 20% glazing, 7 for 40%
glazing, 8.2 for 60% glazing, 9 % for 80% and 10% for 100% glazing, which means
that the space is considered to be well lite and electric lighting will most likely not be
used during daytime but the space is subject to glare, as shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to wall glazing ratios
for case study A.
For Glare Analysis DGP:

Daylight glare perceptible values were ranging between 0.3 for 20% glazing, 0.39
for 40% glazing, 0.49 for 60% glazing, 0.59 for 80% glazing, and 0.65 for 100%
glazing, which means that the values are resulting in perceptible Glare for 40%
glazing, 0.4 > DGP >= 0.35, and Intolerable Glare for 60%, 80% and 100%, DGP >=
0.45.
Figure 5.7: Daylight performance analysis generated by Radiance showing lux values inside
working space with 40% WWR for case study A.
53
Figure 5.7 is showing the result of Radiance analysis as an image base simulation
inside grasshopper for glazing ratio 40% on all facades, and is indicating the daylight
performance values as a line contour, highlighting the overlit and partially lit areas.
5.2.2 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case study B
The lowest energy consumption value for case study B was achieved by glazing
ratio 20% for 93 Kwh, to 143 Kwh for 100% WWR, as shown in Table 5.4, and Figure
5.8.
Table 5.4: Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to energy consumption for case study
B.
Energy Consumption
200
175
150
Energy (Kwh)
125
100
75
50
25
0
Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) - Case Study B
Figure 5.8: Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to energy consumption for case
study B.
Based on simulations using LEED v4 methodology, daylight performance

simulation results showed that WWR 20% is not achieving the minimum requirement
of useful daylight illuminance, more than 70% of floor area is not meeting 300 lux, and
the work space would fail the daylight sufficiency criteria by missing the sDA 55%
mark. WWR 40% is meeting required values of sDA by 55% and ASE by 10.5%,
achieving 2 LEED points, as shown in Table 5.5, and Figure 5.9.
54
for case study B.
Daylight Performance Metric For

South Elevation Glazing
93.7 97.75
100
74 71.5
80
55
60 45 41.7
(%)
36.75
40 26 28.5 26.5
20 7.5 10.5 6.3 2.25
0
Window to Wall Ratio (WWR)
DA<300lux sDA>300lux ASE>1000lux
Figure 5.9: Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values of DA, sDA, and
ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case study B.
Figure 5.10 shows the simulation results images for Luminance glare metric
compared under clear sky conditions to predict the occurrence of discomfort glare.
Daylight glare perceptible values were ranging between 0.28 for 20% glazing, 0.29 for
40% glazing, 0.3 for 60% glazing, 0.31 for 80% glazing, and 0.32 for 100% glazing,
which means that the values are resulting in Imperceptible Glare, 0.35 > DGP.
55
And also is showing the result of Radiance analysis, indicating the daylight
performance values as a line contour, highlighting the overlit and partially lit areas for
different glazing ratios configurations, for further modification and design decision
making.
Figure 5.10: Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance showing lux
values and DGP inside working space for different WWR values for case study B.

Daylight factor average values were ranging between 4.97 for 40% glazing, 5.6% for
60% glazing, and 7.7% for 100% glazing, which means that only 40% ratio is meeting
the required value between 2% - 5%, while 60% and 100% are considered to be well
lite and electric lighting will most likely not be used during daytime but the space is
subject to glare, as shown in Fig. 5.11.
56
Daylight Factor DF
25
20
15
(%)
10
5
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Distance (m)
40%WWR 60%WWR 100%WWR
Figure 5.11: Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing without shading
element, case study B.
5.2.3 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case study C.
Daylight performance simulation results showed that WWR 20% and 40% are not
achieving daylight availability requirement, more than 50% of floor area is not meeting
300 lux, and also sDA is below 55%. WWR 60%, 80% and 100% are achieving more
than the sDA requirement 55% but ASE is exceeding by double the required value.
Case study C is not achieving any LEED points as it’s exceeding the required ASE
values but the overlit percentages values that were resulted in the previous case
studies were reduced by adding the vertical blinds, as shown in Table 5.6, and Figure
5.12.
Daylight Performance Metric for South Elevation

Glazing with Vertical Blinds Shading
100 87.75
79.8 76.5
80 62.5
56.3
60 44.7 47.5
36
(%)
40 30.9
20.2 22.5 23.5
12 12.25
20 5.7
0
20% WWR + 40% WWR + 60% WWR + 80% WWR + 100% WWR +
Vertical Blinds Vertical Blinds Vertical Blinds Vertical Blinds Vertical Blinds
ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case study C.
57
for case study C.

For Daylight factor analysis, average values were ranging between 5.06 for 40%
glazing, 5.9% for 60% glazing, and 8% for 100% glazing, which means that only 40%
ratio is meeting the required value between 2%-5%, while 60% and 100% are
considered to be well lite, and electric lighting will most likely not be used during
daytime but the space is subject to glare, as shown in Fig. 5.13.
Daylight Factor DF
25
20
15
(%)
10
5
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Distance (m)
40%WWR 60%WWR 100%WWR
Figure 5.13: Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with vertical blinds shading
element, case study C.
58
Daylight glare perceptibility values were ranging between 0.28 for 40% glazing, and
0.31 for 100% glazing, which means that the values are resulting in Imperceptible
Glare, 0.35 > DGP, as shown in Fig. 5.14.
values and DGP inside working space for different WWR values for case study C.
5.2.4 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case study D.

Daylight performance simulation results for case study D showed that WWR 20%
and 40% are not achieving daylight availability requirement, more than 70% of floor
area is not meeting 300 lux, and also sDA is below 55%. WWR 80% and 100% are
achieving more than the sDA and ASE requirements but the overlit percentages values
59
that were resulted in the previous case studies were reduced by adding the horizontal
blinds, as shown in Table 5.7, and Figure 5.15. WWR 60% is meeting the required
values of sDA by 56% and ASE 5.75%, achieving 2 LEED points.
for case study D.

Glazing with Horizontal Blinds Shading
93.5 87.5
100
73.75 68
80 55
60 47
(%)
26.25 32 25.2
40 16.2
6.5 0.25 5.75 12.5
20 0.5
0
Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal
Blinds Blinds Blinds Blinds Blinds
ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case study D.

60
values and DGP inside working space for different WWR values for case study D.

For Daylight factor analysis, average values were ranging between 4.8 for 40%
glazing, 6.1% for 60% glazing, and 7.5% for 100% glazing, which means that only
40% ratio is meeting the required value between 2% - 5%, while 60% and 100% are
considered to be well lite and electric lighting will most likely not be used during
daytime, as shown in Fig. 5.17.
61
Daylight Factor DF
25
20
15
(%)
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Distance (m)
40%WWR 60%WWR2 100%WWR
Figure 5.17: Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with horizontal blinds
shading element, case study D.
5.2.5 Daylight Simulation Analysis for Case study E.
Daylight performance simulation results for case study E showed that WWR 20%
and 40% are not achieving daylight availability requirement, more than 70% of floor
area is not meeting 300 lux, and also sDA is below 55%. WWR 80% and 100% are
achieving more than the sDA requirement 55% but ASE is exceeding by double the
required value. Case study C is not achieving any LEED points as it’s exceeding the
required ASE values but the overlit percentages values that were resulted in the
previous case studies were reduced by adding the vertical blinds, as shown in Table
5.8, and Figure 5.18. WWR 60% is achieving the best values of daylight performance
for this case study treatment compared to the other configurations.
for case study E.
62
Glazing with Perforated Screen Shading
91.75
100 78.5
80 61.5 68.5
54 50.5
60 38.5
(%)
31.5 29
40 21.5 23.2
8.25 2 4 11.5
20
0
Perforated Perforated Perforated Perforated Perforated
Screen Screen Screen Screen Screen
ASE for different window to wall glazing ratios for case study E.

values and DGP inside working space for different WWR values for case study E.

Daylight factor analysis showed that the average values were ranging between 3.6
for 40% glazing, 4.4% for 60% glazing, and 6.5% for 100% glazing, which means that
only 40% and 60% ratios are meeting the required value between 2% - 5%, while
100% are considered to be well lite and electric lighting will most likely not be used
during daytime but the space is subject to glare, as shown in Fig. 5.20.
63
Daylight Factor DF
12
10
8
(%)
6
4
2
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Distance (m)
40%WWR 60%WWR2 100%WWR
Figure 5.20: Daylight factor analysis for south elevation glazing with perforated screen
shading element, case study E.
5.3 Assessment and Decision Making

Firstly, Case A failed to achieve the minimum required value of ASE with values
more than 80% which resulted in overlit spaces exposed to intolerable glare., which
means high cooling loads. Case A with WWR more than 40% is the only case that the
glare was intolerable achieving values more than DGP>0.45, with ASE 100%. Thus,
to reduce the potential for glare designers should aim for low ASE values.
Secondly, the shading element impact differed according to the WWR, the larger
portion of the impact was observed in the ASE values, relative to the sDA.
The screen and the horizontal blind reduced the exceeded >2000lux illuminance in
the area close to the window from 41% down to 29% in the case of 100% WWR.
Overall, the daylight uniformity in the screen case E is the best since the ratio of the
maximum illuminance to the minimum value is lower.
The small WWR 20%, and 40% in Cases B, C, D, and E, did not allow sufficient
lighting to come inside the room and thus did not fulfil the sDA requirements.
Accordingly, the 60%, 80% and 100% WWR represented the only accepted solutions,
and it can be noted that sDA requirement was fulfilled for all cases with WWR of 60%
80% and 100%, but ASE was exceeding the minimum requirement of 10% by more
than double in cases with WWR 80% and 100%.
Figures from 5.21 to 5.25 summarize and compare the annual daylighting simulation
results, DA, sDA, and ASE respectively, of 25 scenarios for five designs.
64
Daylight Performance Metric for 20% WWR
120 100 92.5 91.75
100 80 74 79
80
(%)
60
40 26 21
0 7.5 6 7.5 0.75 8.25 2
20
0
20% WWR 20% WWR S 20% WWR + 20% WWR + 20% WWR +
NSEW Glazing Glazing only Vertical Blinds Horizontal Screen
only Blinds
Case Studies
Figure 5.21: Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA, and ASE for five case
studies for 20% WWR.

100 99
100 73.75 78.5
80 55 61.75
60 45 38.2539
(%)
40 19.5 26.25 21.5

20 0 2.25 6
0
NSEW Glazing Glazing only Vertical Horizontal Screen
only Blinds Blinds
Case Studies

100 100
100 77.5
80 65
49 51 54 46
60 45
35
(%)
40 22.5 21
9 12
20 0
0
only Blinds Blinds
Case Studies
65
Daylight Performance Metric for 80 % WWR
120 100 100 94.75
100 70 68
80 61.5
42.75 40 38.5
(%)
60 30 32 25
40 24
20 0 5.25
0
only Blinds Blinds
Case Studies
Figure 5.24: Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA sDA, and ASE for five case

100 100 97.75
100 87.75
73 78
80
60 45 43
(%)
27 30 30
40 18
12.25
20 0 2.25
0
NSEW Glazing Glazing only Vertical Blinds Horizontal Screen
only Blinds
Case Studies
Steps to make an assessment on how satisfactory a shading design is could be
determined as follows:
1. Daylight factor coping with the desired natural light distribution objective, while
aiming for the maximum levels of natural light.
2. The design that floor areas are meeting LEED v4 requirements for daylight
performance.
3. The design that contributes the most with achieving the best daylight quality and
good visual contact to the outside.
66
Daylight Performance Metric % Glare Perceptibility Daylight Availability LEED v4 Points
sDA>300 ASE>1000 DF Avg. DGP < 0.35 Imperceptible Daylit Partially lit Overlit sDA(55-75)/ASE (10%)
Case A 100 80 4.5 0.3 Inperceptible O -
WWR 20%
Case B 26 6.24 4 0.28 Inperceptible O -

Case C 20.2 5.7 3.9 0.27 Inperceptible O -
Case D 6.5 0.25 4 0.27 Inperceptible O
Case E 8.25 2 3 0.25 Inperceptible O -
Case A 100 99 7 0.39 Perceptible O -
WWR 40%
Case B 55 10.5 4.97 0.29 Inperceptible O 2

Case C 44.7 12 5 0.28 Inperceptible O -
Case D 26.25 0.5 4.8 0.28 Inperceptible O -
Case E 21.5 4 3.6 0.26 Inperceptible O -
Case A 100 100 8.2 0.49 Intolerable O -
WWR 60%
Case B 71.5 26.5 5.6 0.3 Inperceptible O -

Case D 56 5.75 6.1 0.29 Inperceptible O 2
Case E 50.5 11.5 4.4 0.27 Inperceptible O -
Case A 100 100 9 0.59 Intolerable O -
WWR 80%

Case D 68 16.2 7 0.3 Inperceptible O -
Case E 61.5 23.2 5 0.28 Inperceptible O -
Case A 100 100 10 0.65 Intolerable O -
WWR 100%

Case C 87.75 36 8 0.31 Inperceptible O -
Case D 87.5 25.2 7.5 0.31 Inperceptible O -
Case E 68.5 29 6.5 0.29 Inperceptible O -
Table 5.9: Daylight performance simulation results comparison for case studies A, B, C, D,
and E.
The best sDA and ASE values in this study were achieved by WWR 60% with
horizontal blinds, and WWR 60% with perforated screen, as shown in Table 5.9.
67
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
As the literature review indicated, further studies are needed in the area of
performance evaluation and optimization, especially in the development of tools and
methodologies that can be used by a wider range of architects in early design phase
and not by professional engineers only.
Design decisions made in the early design stage have significant impacts on
buildings daylighting and energy performance. Great performance improvement was
found after implementing building performance evaluation and optimization. However,
there are not enough tools and methodologies for designers to easily evaluate their
designs in early design phase.
The effort to establish a single platform for design and simulation during different
stages of the design has been a constant subject of development for a few years. The
use of multiple platforms for design and simulation not only slows down the process,
but also introduces interoperability issues which includes the use of multiple models
and interfaces. And the most important thing is finding a tool that is not demanding a
programming knowledge, which makes it difficult for architects to use.
Parametric design is found to be a powerful approach in generating design
alternatives, and the combination of Rhino and Grasshopper was the most used
parametric design tools.
Honeybee, a plugin for Grasshopper, brings together parametric modelling and
environmental analysis within the same platform, which utilizes the calculation engines
of well known daylight and energy simulation software Radiance, Daysim, openstudio,
and EnergyPlus, to reach accurate results. And also integrate the results as a
graphical representation instead of reports and graphs, which facilitates the decision
making for architects for further design modifications in an early design phase.
Honeybee is the only software that allows performing different building simulations in
the same platform without switching between different softwares.
The workflow limitations of the past are no longer a barrier for today’s designers as
parametric tools provide designers an integrative design platform, and through the
collaborative mindset of the design community, the potentials for further development
is limitless. To encourage an environmentally-conscious design workflow, it is
becoming increasingly essential to bring the analysis tools to the designer’s
environment. The free and open nature of Ladybug and honeybee democratize
environmental analysis tools, fostering the advancement of environmentally-
conscious designs, giving designers an instantaneous feedback on the effects of
design modifications, which facilitates the decision making process.
68
The literature demonstrated the benefits of daylighting for occupants’ health and
buildings energy efficiency, whereas the optimization of both daylighting and energy
performance was not properly considered in precedent studies. This research
integrated daylighting and lighting energy simulation process, and it was able to
evaluate lighting energy efficiency while considering the admission of daylight.
The research proposed a building performance evaluation process during the early
stages of design for daylight. For an office space in Cairo, it was demonstrated how to
integrate EnergyPlus and Radiance into the evaluation and optimization software tool
to find the optimum window ratio on each façade to minimize lighting energy
consumption and maximize the useful daylight illuminance inside the space.
Simulation results for different WWRs show that a comprehensive and integrated
analysis of daylight availability, occupant comfort and energy use may offer new
insight into longstanding assumptions such as that large WWRs necessarily constitute
an environmental liability. The shortcomings of such façade designs rather seem to
be related to occupant comfort. By using parametric design and genetic algorithm, the
designs were evaluated and the designer can select the design based on the project
objective if the results are satisfying, but the simulation process for energy loads
evaluation showed energy modeling for the case studies was an easy task but running
the simulation needed more advanced programing skills.
69
6.2 Recommendations
Further work is needed on expanded optimization objectives, including cost,
thermal comfort, visual comfort, energy generation, building life cycle performance,
etc. Multi-objective optimization is also needed to evaluate multiple performance
metrics simultaneously.
Future work also is required in the application of this evaluation process on real
architectural design projects, which could be design projects in architectural design
firms or student design works.
Finally, future research is proposed below for evaluating daylight and total energy
loads for cooling, heating, and lighting and not only lighting energy. Proposed work
process is explained below, as shown in Diagram 6.1.
6.2.1 Energy Consumption Evaluation
The evaluation and optimization objective is to achieve minimum energy required
for the building and maximum daylight performance with accordance to LEED
standards. Therefore, the fitness input for optimization is the total energy load for
heating, cooling, and lighting. Minimizing the G-Value with the use of shading devices
is almost certain, due to the fact that their effect by default is blocking the energy
coming through the glass in the room.
The two objectives are achieving ASE, and sDA LEED performance requirements,
and minimum total cooling, heating, and lighting loads. The target is to find design with
balanced performance between daylighting and energy as a multi-objective
optimization.
Diagram 6.1: Proposed research evaluation and optimization workflow structure for daylight
and energy performance.
70
6.2.2 Algorithm Development of Energy Analysis
The energy simulation will be also based on the material composition construction
elements provided through libraries based ASHRAE codes. Through this simulation it
is possible to know the influx of energy in a room or any construction element.
Although for the sake of the project it will be based on the infiltrating energy through
the glassed surface and how much of this energy can be absorbed by the use of
shading devices having a result and index for the reduction of G-Value.
The energy simulation output includes annual heating, cooling, equipment and
lighting energy loads. Since the equipment load stay the same for all the design
options, it is not considered in this research. Energy optimization objective is minimum
total energy load. The total energy load is the sum of heating, cooling, and lighting
loads. EUI (Energy Use Intensity) is also calculated by dividing the total energy load
by the floor area of the building.
The work process consisted of four main steps, modeling the office studio, weather
data and Radiance materials implementation, running daylight simulation, and data
collections of daylight autonomy, as shown in Diagram 6.2.
Diagram 6.2: Proposed Work process of Energy analysis in Ladybug and Honeybee.
Diagram 6.2, shows a proposed energy modeling process, the parametric case
studies geometry is connected to EnergyPlus materials, and connected to a Honeybee
thermal zone component. Honeybee automates the process of intersecting the
masses, and finding adjacent surfaces. Honeybee assigns construction set, schedules
and internal loads for each space based on the building type and climate zone. The
lighting schedule generated by daylighting simulation is also added to the energy
model. An idf file is generated and energy simulation is executed in EnergyPlus.
Ladybug brings the energy simulation result back to grasshopper, and reads the
energy performance metrics.
71
Bibliography
Aksamija, A., 2009. Context based design of double skin facades: climatic
consideration during the design process, Perkins+Will Research Journal, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp. 54-69.
Aksamija,A. 2012. BIM-Based Building Performance Analysis: Evaluation and

Simulation of Design Decisions. [Online]. Tech Lab (Perkins+Will). [Accessed
28 February 2018]. Available from:
https://www.perkinswill.com/files/TechLabAnnualReport2012_ForWebsite.pdf
Aksamija, A., 2013. Sustainable facades: design methods for high-performance

building envelopes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
ASHRAE, 2004. ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 Thermal environmental conditions for

human occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers. [Online]. Atlanta [Accessed 28 March 2018].
Available from: http://fh.almas-
hvac.ir/download/ASHRAE_Thermal_Comfort_Standard.pdf
Attia, Shady, 2006, Bioclimatic Design. [Online]. [Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available
from: http://www.sbd.ulg.ac.be/academic/BioclimaticDesign/index.html
Attia, S., Beltran, L., Herde, A. de & Hensen, J.L.M., 2009. "Architect Friendly": a
comparison of ten different building performance simulation tools. 11th IBPSA
Building Simulation Conference, 27-30 July, pp. 204-211. Glasgow: International
Building Performance Simulation Association.
Attia, S. 2011, Early Design Simulation Tools for Net Zero Energy Buildings: A
Comparison of Ten Tools. [Online]. Louvain La Neuve: Architecture et climat,
Université Catholique de Louvain. [Accessed 02 May 2018]. Available from:
https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/168349
Attia, S., Hamdy, M., O’Brien, W., & Carlucci, S., 2013. Computational optimization
for zero energy buildings design: Interviews results with twenty-eight
international experts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference of the IBPSA, 978-984.
Autodesk, 2014, Sustainability Workshop: Building Orientation. [Online].

[Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available from:
https://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/building-orientation.
Donato, M., Zemella, G., Rapone, G., Hussain, J. & Black, C. An Innovative app for a
Parametric Holistic and Multidisciplinary Approach to Early Design Stages. In:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives for Future Building Envelopes ICBEST 2017.
Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University, 2017. Pp. 72-82.
72
Edwards, L., and Torcellini, P., 2002, A Literature Review of the Effects of Natural
Light on Building Occupants. [Online]. Colorado: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. [Accessed 128 April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30769.pdf
Elghazi, A. Wagdy, S. Mohamed, and A. Hassan, 2014, Daylighting Driven Design:

Optimizing Kaleidocycle Façade for Hot Arid Climate. In: BauSIM - Fifth German-
Austrian IBPSA Conference RWTH Aachen University. [online.] pp. 314-320.
[Accessed 08 January 2018]. Available
from:http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bausimPapers/2014/p1155_final.pdf.
El Mouled, S. 2014, Parametric Design’s Influence on Today’s Architecture, [Online].

2014. [Accessed 05 June 2018]. Available from:
https://archplanet.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/parametric-designs-influence-on-
todays-architecture/
Erlendsson, O. 2014, Daylight Optimization: A Parametric Study of Atrium Design.

Master of Science Degree. Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm. [Online].
[Accessed 01 June2018]. Available from: http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:723644/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Etman, Omar, Tolba, Osama, and Ezzeldin, Sherif, 2013, Double-Skin Facades in
Egypt between Parametric and Climatic Approaches. In: ecaade 31. [online], p.
459-466. [Accessed 22 October 2016]. Available from:
http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:2e96ccfd-6212-4f90-8dae-
05da5009aa31?collection=research.
Fang, Yuan, 2017, Optimization of Daylighting and Energy Performance Using

Parametric Design, Simulation Modeling, and Genetic Algorithms. Phd degree in
design. University of California. [Online]. [Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available
from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zs2h81m.
Goia, F., 2016, Search for the optimal window-to-wall ratio in office buildings in
different European climates and the implications on total energy saving potential.
Solar Energy. [Online]. 2016. 132:467–492. [Accessed 20 April 2018]. DOI:
10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.031. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299979249_Search_for_the_optimal_w
in dow-to
wall_ratio_in_office_buildings_in_different_European_climates_and_the_implicat
ions_on_total_energy_saving_potential
Gonzalez, J. & Fiorito, F, 2015, Daylight Design of Office Buildings: Optimization of

External Solar Shadings by Using Combined Simulation Methods. Buildings
[Online]. 2015. Vol. 5, no. 2, p.560-580. [Accessed 19 May 2018].
DOI:10.3390/buildings5020560. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2075-
5309/5/2/560
73
Guideline for Condition Assessment of the Building Envelope. [Online]. ASCE, 2000.
[Accessed 28 September 2017]. Available from:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784404836.
Illuminating Engineering Society, 2012. [Online]. [Accessed 23 May 2018]. Available

from: https://www.ies.org/standards/ies-lighting-library/
Labib, R., 2015, Trade-off method to assess the interaction between light shelves
and complex ceiling forms for optimized daylighting performance. Advances in
Building Energy Research [Online]. 2015. Vol. 9, no. 2, p. 224-237. [Accessed 5
April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512549.2015.1014838
Lartigue, B., Lasternas, B., & Loftness, v., 2014, Multi-Objective Optimization of
Building Envelope for Energy Consumption and Daylight. Indoor and Built
Environment. [Online]. 2014. Vol. 23, no. 1, p.70-80. [Accessed 12 April 2018].
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X13480224. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258149788_Multiobjective_optimization
_of_building_envelope_for_energy_consumption_and_daylight
Lopez, L. 2016. Shading Design Workflow for Architectural Designers. Master of

Science. [Online] TU Delft. [Accessed 11 May 2018]. Available from:
uuid:5849d327-fa7a-4591-a468-0368b2713374
Monna, S., Masera, G. Intelligent Tall Building Envelope Technologies and Design
Alternatives for Comfort and Energy Efficiency in Hot, Arid Climate. In:
Proceedings of CIB World Building Congress, At Salford, United Kingdom, May
2010. [Online]. Salford: 2010. pp. 84-94. [Accessed 27 September 2017].
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258237313_Intelligent_Tall_Building_E
nvelope_Technologies_and_Design_Alternatives_for_Comfort_and_Energy_Effi
ciency_in_Hot_Arid_Climate.
Nguyen, A., Reiter, S., & Rigo, P., 2014, A Review on Simulation based Optimization
Methods Applied to Building Performance Analysis. Science Direct [Online].
2014. Vol. 113, p.1043-1058. [Accessed 12 June 2018]. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.061. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261913007058
Ostergard, T., Jensen, R. L., & Maagaard, S. 2016. Building simulations supporting
decision making in early design – A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews, [Online]. 2016. Vol. 61, p.187-201. [Accessed 22 March 2018].
Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211600280X
Patterson, M. & Matusova, J., 2015. High Performance Facades. Façade Tectonics.
[Online]. Volume 1. pp. 135-149. [Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.enclos.com/assets/docs/Insight03-Chapter15-
HighPerformanceFacades.pdf
74
Prowler, D, 2016. WBDG: Sun Control and Shading Devices. [Online].
[Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available from: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/sun-
control-and-shading-devices
Qingsong, Ma, and Fukuda, Hiroatsu. 2015, Parametric Office Building for Daylight
and Energy Analysis in the Early Design Phase. Master of Science Degree.
University of Kitakyushu. [Online]. [Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291419654_Parametric_Office_Buildin
g_for_Daylight_and_Energy_Analysis_in_the_Early_Design_Stages
Qiong, Y. Li, Z., & Zhou, X., 2012, Research on Parametric Design Method for
Energy Efficiency of Green Building in Architectural Scheme Phase. Science
Direct [Online]. 2012. Vol. 2, no. 1, p.11-22. [Accessed 12 April 2018]. DOI:
org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.10.005. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209526351200074X
Reeves, T., Olbina, S., and Issa, R.R.A. Guidelines for Using Building Information
Modeling for Energy Analysis of Buildings. Buildings 2015, 5. 9 December 2015,
pp. 1361-1388. [Accessed 29 September 2017]. Available from:
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/5/4/1361.
Rolvink, A., van de Straat, Roel, & Coenders, J, 2010, Parametric Structural Design
and Beyond [Online]. 2010. Vol. 8, no. 3, p. 319-336. [Accessed 5 April 2018].
Available from:
http://www.academia.edu/30875540/Parametric_Structural_Design_and_beyond
Roudsari, M. S., & Pak, M., 2013, Ladybug: A parametric environmental plugin for
grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design. In:
Proceedings of the 13th conference od International Building Performance
Simulation Association. [Online]. Chambery: 2013. p. 3128 – 3135. [Accessed 5
May 2018]. Available from:
http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bs2013/p_2499.pdf
Roudshari, M, Grasshopper Algorithm Modeling for Rhino. [Online]. [Accessed 12

December 2017]. Available from:http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug.
Trubiano, F., Roudshari, M., & Ozkan, A., 2013, Building Simulation and
Evolutionary Optimization in the Conceptual Design of a High Performance
Office Building. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference od International Building
Performance Simulation Association. [Online]. Chambery: 2013. p. 1306 – 1314.
[Accessed 3 May 2018]. Available from:
http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2013/p_1449.pdf
USGBC, LEED BD+C: Healthcare v4 – LEED v4 Daylight. [Online]. [Accessed 09

June2018]. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/credits/healthcare/v4-
draft/eqc-0
VELUX. Daylight Calculations and Measurement. [Online]. [Accessed 07 June 2018].

Available from: https://www.velux.com/deic/daylight/daylight-calculations-and-
measurements
75
Wong, I., 2017, A Review of Daylight and Implementations in Buildings. Science
Direct [Online]. 2017. Vol. 74, p.959-968. [Accessed 12 May 2018]. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.061. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117303775?via%3Di
hub
Wymelenberg, K., & Mahic, A., 2016, Annual Daylighting Performance Metrics,
Explained. [Online]. 2016. [Accessed 10 June2018]. Available from:
https://www.archlighting.com/technology/annual-daylighting-performance-
metrics-explained_o
Yee, T, 2011, Climatic Impact on Urban Heritage Building: Case Study on a British
Colonial Residence. Master Thesis. University of Malaya. [Online].
[Accessed 17 April 2018]. Available from:
http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/3598/6/04_chap_4.pdf.
76

Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems Performance and Energy Efficiency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems Performance and Energy Efficiency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Building Envelope Systems

Performance and Energy Efficiency

Simulation Modeling and Genetic Algorithm Analysis

Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Architecture and Interior Design in

Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe, University of Applied Sciences

Supervisors: Prof. Ing. Daniel Arztmann

Name: Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud

Date/Place: Detmold, 26.06.2018

Prof. Ing. Daniel Arztmann

This thesis project has been accepted.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors,

Radwa Ahmed Omar Abouelseoud

Keywords: Building Envelope Performance, Energy Efficiency, Building Performance

3. Building Envelope Performance Analysis 38

Figure 2.1 Facades performance attributes…………………………………..………5

Figure 2.4 Thermal analysis of a stack joint………………………………………….11

Figure 2.5 Different buildings orientations for daylight efficiency………………….12

Figure 2.6 Sun path diagram for different climate zones……………………………13

Figure 2.7 The CIE sky types…………………………………………………………..18

Figure 2.8 Direct and diffuse radiation and seasonal inclination……………………19

Figure 2.9 Basic solar shading systems………………………………………………20

Figure 2.10 Relationship between building performance and cost of

Figure 2.11 Framework for incorporating building performance analysis

procedure with design of high performance building envelopes………22

Figure 2.12 Building performance simulation tools used

Figure 2.13 Relationship between Design Decisions

Figure 2.15 Five selection criteria for BPS tools……………………………………....27

Figure 2.16 Ranking of the most important features of a BPS tool………………...…27

Figure 2.18 Parametric design example in Rhino and Grasshopper……………..…30

Figure 2.19 Ladybug weather data components…………………………………...….32

Figure 3.1 Ladybug and Honeybee work Scheme………………………………...…39

Figure 4.4 Daylight performance evaluation process definition

Figure 5.1 Visualization graph of annual dry bulb temperature

Figure 5.2 Visualization graph of the annual outdoor comfort

Figure 5.3 Visualization graph of the annual global radiation range

Figure 5.10 Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance

Figure 5.12 Analysis results of daylight performance comparing the values of

Figure 5.14 Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance

Figure 5.16 Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance

Figure 5.19 Daylight performance and glare analysis generated by Radiance

Figure 5.21 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

Figure 5.22 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

Figure 5.23 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

Figure 5.24 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

Figure 5.25 Comparative analysis of Daylight performance of DA, sDA,

Table 2.1 Facade design strategies for different climate types……..………..……6

Table 2.2 Standard requirement for WWR…………………………………………...8

Table 2.3 U.S. National Median EUI by Building Type……………………………..14

Table 2.6 Comparison of softwares in terms of project phase usage,

complexity, file format and compatibility, and tools capabilities………..29

Table 2.7 Comparison of the existing environmental analysis

tools for Rhino/Grasshopper…………………………………………..….32

Table 4.2 Radiance parameters set for Daylight Availability metric……………….47

Table 5.3 Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to

wall glazing ratios for case study A……………………………………....53

Table 5.4 Window to wall glazing ratio values in relation to lighting

energy consumption for case study B………………………………..…..54

Table 5.5 Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to

wall glazing ratios for case study B……………………………………….55

wall glazing ratios for case study C…………………………………….58

Table 5.8 Daylight performance evaluation metric for different window to

wall glazing ratios for case study E…………………………………….62