Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

An integrated optimization and sensitivity analysis approach to support

the life cycle energy trade-off in building design
Jani Mukkavaara a,⇑, Farshid Shadram b
a
Industrialized and Sustainable Construction, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
b
Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Uppsala University, Sweden

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

Article history: The building design process plays a central role in efforts to implement energy-efficient practices.
Received 17 May 2021 However, unilateral design choices based solely on reducing operational energy use can significantly
Revised 15 September 2021 increase a building’s embodied energy and life cycle energy use as there is a trade-off between embodied
Accepted 28 September 2021
and operational energy. To support such trade-off problems, multi-objective optimization represents a
Available online 30 September 2021
useful approach that produces a set of optimal solutions from where a solution can then be selected
and progressed within the design process. Selecting one solution from the set of optimal solutions can
Keywords:
however be a challenging task as each solution has the potential to be chosen as the optimum.
Embodied energy
Energy efficiency measures
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how solutions from a multi-objective optimization
Life cycle energy approach can be analyzed further to provide information to decision-makers when selecting the optimal
Multi-objective optimization design solution. An approach is proposed where the integration of post-optimization sensitivity analysis
Operational energy into a multi-objective optimization approach aims to support decision-makers in analyzing the optimal
Sensitivity analysis solutions provided by the optimization process. The applicability of approach is demonstrated using a
case of a multifamily apartment building located in Sweden, where the aforementioned trade-off is
explored for a set of energy efficiency measures. Thereby, a diverse range of optimal solutions that could
result in up to 4520 GJ life cycle energy (LCE) savings relative to the case building’s initial design was ini-
tially identified using the multi-objective optimization. These solutions were then subjected to a sensi-
tivity analysis where the results indicated that in general the lowest and highest sensitivity in terms
of LCE use belonged to the insulation thicknesses in roof and walls, respectively. Furthermore, the thick-
ness of exterior floor insulation yielded the greatest variation in the sensitivity. The findings of case study
indicate that the post-optimization sensitivity analysis can add valuable information that complements
the results obtained using a multi-objective optimization approach. Consequently, it can support
decision-making on how to progress with the design in terms of what design parameters have a negligi-
ble or significant impact on the objectives when they are varied, thus facilitating prioritization.
Ó 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction national and international goals/targets regarding energy use and

1.1. Life cycle energy in buildings
The building industry is one of the largest users of energy and
material resources worldwide [1]. In the European Union, buildings
account for almost 40% of final energy use [2]. There is thus a grow-
ing awareness within the industry concerning buildings’ energy
use and their impact on the environment [3]. Consequently, sus-
tainable or green building design interests have brought ambitious
⇑ Corresponding author at: Luleå University of Technology, Laboratorievägen 14,
971 87 Luleå, Sweden.
E-mail address: jani.mukkavaara@ltu.se (J. Mukkavaara).
related CO2 emissions in buildings [4–6]. Many European countries
have developed requirements and certification systems to pursue a
reduction in buildings’ energy use. In Sweden, the national board of
housing, building, and planning has set requirements for improv-
ing a building’s annual energy demand (i.e. energy use for annual
heating, cooling, and hot water demand). Hence, a comprehensive
understanding and novel approaches are sought after to achieve
these targets and fulfill the requirements on a building’s energy
use [7]. However, recent studies also emphasize the significance
of embodied energy (defined in this paper as the energy used for
the production of materials and components) and considering
buildings’ energy use from a life cycle perspective [8–10]. The
background to this comes from the use of energy efficiency

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111529
0378-7788/Ó 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
Nomenclature
Ed,s annual energy use for an energy supply source [MJ]
EEe embodied energy of a construction element [MJ/m2]
EEm embodied energy of a material [MJ/m3]
EF1-M exterior floor insulation material [-]
EF1-T exterior floor insulation thickness [m]
ENAe enclosing area of a construction element [m2]
EW1-M exterior wall (concrete) insulation material [-]
EW2-M exterior wall (wood studs) insulation material [-]
EW1-T exterior wall (concrete) insulation thickness [m]
EW2-T exterior wall (wood studs) insulation thickness [m]
l building lifespan [yr]
Ps primary energy factor for an energy supply source [-]
RF1-M roof insulation material [-]
RF1-T roof insulation thickness [m]
tm thickness of a material [m]
measures to reduce a building’s energy use during its operational
phase (or operational energy), e.g. use of thick and/or high-
performance insulation materials, energy-efficient windows, and
efficient heat ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
Although these energy efficiency measures can minimize the
energy use during a building’s operational phase, their use can
increase the embodied energy to an extent more than the offset-
ting reductions obtained in the operational energy, which is unfa-
vorable from a life cycle energy perspective [8–10]. A review of 90
life cycle energy assessment studies of buildings by Chastas et al.
[8] indicates an increased share of embodied energy in the transi-
tion from conventional to low energy and near-zero energy build-
ings, which reached up to 50% of a building’s total life cycle energy
use. Similarly, Kneifel et al. [10] showed that increasing a build-
ing’s operational energy efficiency by adopting energy efficiency
measures corresponds with increased embodied energy flows in
which near-zero energy performance can result in an over 40%
increase in the building’s embodied energy use. The aforemen-
tioned studies highlight that a trade-off exists between a building’s
energy use during its operation and its embodied energy, where
the application of energy efficiency measures minimizes the for-
mer’s contribution while increasing the latter’s share. Therefore,
it is of significance to explore and understand how various energy
efficiency measures can affect the embodied/operational energy
trade-off already during the building design process in order to
make decisions that favorably minimize energy use from a life
cycle perspective.
1.2. Multi-objective optimization
Trial-and-error methods based on parametric analysis are one
of the ways that have traditionally been applied to explore design
choices for trade-off problems [11]. However, approaches based on
changing one parameter while holding the others constant can
neglect potentially important interactive effects, and full paramet-
ric studies can be time-consuming and infeasible [11]. The advent
of computational design approaches, which strive to further
exploit the computational capabilities of modern computers, has
provided a foundation to implement optimization approaches that
aim to find optimal solutions to trade-off problems in design
[12,13]. Due to the potential power of these approaches, there
has been an increasing trend in the number of building optimiza-
tion studies, which has demonstrated a great interest from the
research community on the issue [14,15]. In a review of
optimization of building designs, Machairas et al. [16] concluded
2
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
Greek letters
m* absolute mean elementary effect [-]
Abbreviations
BIM building information modeling
CAD computer-aided design
EE embodied energy
IDF input data format
LCE life cycle energy
NSGA-II non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
OE operational energy
SRRC standardized rank regression coefficient
that typical objectives for building optimization studies were
related to environmental impact, initial investment and opera-
tional cost, as well as thermal comfort. Additionally, they con-
cluded that construction materials, building geometry and
orientation, and HVAC system design were typical design parame-
ters subjected to optimization.
In particular, multi-objective optimization is suggested as a
promising approach as there often exist multiple conflicting objec-
tives in real-world building design problems [14,16]. As such,
multi-objective optimization can, in many cases, be more relevant
than a single-objective approach. This is also reflected in research
efforts, where there has been an increase in applying multi-
objective optimization [13,14]. For example, in a recent study, Jalali
et al. [17] used genetic algorithms with parametric modeling to
optimize the shape of a building and the window-to-wall ratio to
maximize both natural light and indoor space. D’Agostino et al.
[18] proposed a computational design approach that uses multi-
objective optimization for exploring a building’s energy need, day-
light, and construction cost. Rosso et al. [19] used multi-objective
optimization to minimize annual energy use and cost, investment
cost and CO2 emissions of building retrofit in the Mediterranean
climate. A comprehensive multi-objective optimization framework
is developed by Ascione et al. [20] for building energy design in
order to minimize its primary energy use, global cost and CO2
emissions. Ghaderian and Veysi [21] combined surrogate model
with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to improve occu-
pants’ thermal comfort and simultaneously minimize building’s
energy use. Pazouki et al. [22] developed a fuzzy robust multi-
objective optimization model to find optimal energy retrofit solu-
tion for a university building. Jung et al. [23] used multi-
objective optimization to find optimal passive design strategy for
multi-story residential building in terms of energy, environmental
and economic metrics from a life cycle perspective. A multi-
objective optimization approach was developed by Ciardiello
et al. [24] to optimize the shape and envelope in building energy
design. Chegari et al. [25] developed a multi-objective optimization
approach by combining artificial neural networks and metaheuris-
tic algorithms to improve building energy performance and indoor
thermal comfort. A multi-objective optimization approach was
developed by Acar et al. [26] to minimize overall thermal energy
need and initial investment cost of residential buildings in turkey.
In relation to life cycle energy, Shadram & Mukkavaara [27,28]
used multi-objective optimization in two different studies to
explore the trade-off between embodied and operational energy
with design parameters related to construction materials in the
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
building’s envelope and the building’s geometry. Similarly, Abbasi
& Noorzai [29] proposed a multi-objective optimization approach
for the exploration of embodied and operational energy use, where
they also integrated considerations regarding renewable energy in
the optimization process. These studies show how optimization
approaches could provide valuable insights for decision-makers
on potentially optimal solutions and the impact of different mea-
sures on conflicting objectives during the design process.
Even though previous research has provided ample findings that
highlight the potential benefits of applying multi-objective opti-
mization, there are still challenges and obstacles ahead. This
includes, for example, reducing the computational cost, considering
the uncertainties of design variables, environmental variables, mod-
els, managing problem definition and scale as well as analysis and
better understanding of optimization results [13,14]. In this paper,
the focus is on the challenge of providing a better understanding
of the results that are provided from applying an optimization
approach, a topic that is argued to become more important as the
applications of multi-objective optimization for building design
grow in scope [13]. This process includes interpreting the optimiza-
tion results and making decisions on how to progress with the
design during post-optimization. The root of this challenge is
derived from what the output is from applying a multi-objective
optimization approach. In particular, this is seen in relation to Pareto
optimization strategies, which are a common way of performing
multi-objective optimization [13,16]. Within the concept of Pareto
optimality, a set of trade-off optimal solutions (referred to as Pareto
solutions) is produced. This means that the output from such a
multi-objective optimization approach is a set of solutions, instead
of a single solution. What is noteworthy is that each of these Pareto
solutions can be considered optimal in the absence of further infor-
mation [30]. Consequently, to progress the design process, decision-
makers need to analyze and select the most appropriate solution
from these Pareto solutions, a task that can be challenging [14].
One approach to supporting such a process is to provide more infor-
mation on the behavior of the optimal solutions, for example regard-
ing how optimal solutions are affected by variations in the design
parameters, which can assist decision-making. In line with this, it
has been argued that integration of multi-objective optimization
with sensitivity analysis increases their potential to be adopted
when supporting design decisions [31].
1.3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is a concept that concerns measuring the
effect of a given input of a model on its output [32]. One of the
motivations behind applying sensitivity analysis in building design
is to increase the understanding of the relationships and relative
importance of different design parameters. This can provide possi-
bilities to improve building performance by carefully considering
the important design parameters [33]. The results of sensitivity
analyses can thus provide valuable information about what design
parameters to focus on as the design progresses and give informa-
tion about less influential design parameters that will only have a
minor impact on building performance [34]. This can provide
decision-makers with the information needed to better understand
a design problem and how design parameters interact with the
problem and its objectives. Because of this potential, sensitivity
analyses have been applied in several previously published studies
on building design (e.g. [35–40]).
In relation to multi-objective optimization, sensitivity analysis
could be used in several different ways. This can be discussed using
the pre- or post-optimization phases (i.e. actions performed before
or after an optimization approach, respectively) employed by
Nguyen et al. [14]. Application of sensitivity analysis during a
pre-optimization phase can facilitate a reduction in the size of
3
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
the search space and screen out insignificant inputs that have no
or negligible influence on the objectives, a process referred to as
factor fixing [37,41]. For example, Eisenhower et al. [31] used sen-
sitivity analysis to reduce the number of parameters in their opti-
mization approach with building energy simulation meta-models.
They found that by using sensitivity analysis they could perform
optimization over a smaller subset of influential parameters with
results comparable to optimization using all parameters. Similarly,
Zajas & Heiselberg [42] used sensitivity analysis in their study of
thermal properties concerning window frame geometry. Their
study found that by conducting sensitivity analysis pre-
optimization they could reduce the parameters used in the opti-
mization process and, consequently, reduce the computational
time needed. These approaches of applying sensitivity analysis
can thus provide valuable efforts in simplifications of models and
reductions in computational time if needed, which can be useful
in practical applications.
Besides applying sensitivity analysis pre-optimization, it could
also be useful post-optimization to assist decision-making and bet-
ter the understanding of how sensitive the obtained optimal solu-
tions (Pareto solutions) are with respect to changes in the design
parameters. This can be particularly useful as the possibility to
include all criteria (e.g. constructability, logistics, procurement)
in an optimization process is limited and thus the obtained optimal
solutions must be further analyzed before progressing with the
design. This process is conceptually similar to that conducted by,
for example, Heiselberg et al. [34] that used sensitivity analysis
to provide input of the significance and relevance of design deci-
sions with respect to a building’s performance. Similarly, Østergård
et al. [37] used sensitivity analysis and building performance sim-
ulation to guide designers in preventing unwanted performance
changes. However, these were performed without the context of
first applying multi-objective optimization. An example of sensi-
tivity analysis being applied post-optimization can be found in
Tuhus-Dubrow & Krati [11] where they used an optimization
approach to investigate building shape and envelope design with
the objective to minimize energy use. They used a simple sensitiv-
ity analysis post-optimization to investigate the effects of design
environment parameters (climate, utility rates, and heating and
cooling set-points) on their optimal solutions.
1.4. Research aim and scope
Although there has been an increasing interest in using multi-
objective optimization and sensitivity analysis to explore building
performance and sustainable design, there have been limited
efforts to adopt such approaches for exploring the impact of energy
efficiency measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off,
despite its importance from a life cycle energy perspective. Addi-
tionally, and central to this study, sensitivity analysis has previ-
ously been applied mainly pre-optimization to screen out
insignificant parameters that have no or negligible influence on
the objectives in order to minimize the solution space and opti-
mization costs. Sensitivity analysis as a post-optimization process
to guide decision-makers in analyzing further optimal solutions
(i.e. Pareto solutions) has received limited attention, despite its
potentially valuable contributions [11]. This is particularly relevant
as the task of selecting the most appropriate optimal solution to
progress the design with is not necessarily a trivial task, which
consequently needs to be supported [14]. To address this gap,
the aim of this study was to propose and test a post-
optimization sensitivity analysis approach that integrates multi-
objective optimization with sensitivity analysis to find and analyze
optimal solutions that consider the embodied/operational energy
trade-off in order to make design decisions that favorably mini-
mize a building’s energy use from a life cycle perspective.
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
An overview of the scope for a building’s life cycle energy use is
presented in Fig. 1. The focus of this study was primarily on the
embodied/operational energy trade-off caused by materials and
components used in the building envelope. The embodied energy
is defined to include the energy used for off-site production of
building materials and components. The operational energy is
defined in this study to include the energy use during the build-
ing’s lifespan to produce hot water and heating the building, as
well as the operational electricity use, but excludes household
electricity use because of its dependence on the devices present
in the individual households.
2. Method
2.1. Multi-objective optimization and sensitivity analysis approach
The outcome from this study is the proposal of an approach,
which is used to illustrate the general strategy for solving the iden-
tified problem. The approach is based on leveraging a computa-
tional design setup, where multi-objective optimization and
sensitivity analysis is linked with a parametric model and a series
of evaluations. The approach was iteratively developed together
with a prototype, which is used to demonstrate and evaluate the
approach with the case building described in Section 2.2. Fig. 2
shows an overview of the approach and a more detailed descrip-
tion of its components follows below.
2.1.1. Product definition, design parameters and parametric model
The initial step of the proposed approach is constituted by set-
ting up a product definition, design parameters, and a parametric
model; a concept adapted from [43]. The product definition con-
tains the static traits that are used to define the overall product.
For the case demonstration in this paper, the product definition
consists of a 3D model representing the overall geometry and ther-
mal zones of a building together with attributes corresponding to
the building’s geographic location and construction elements. The
design parameters are used to establish the boundaries within
which possible solutions exist by defining variations in relevant
aspects of the design. Herein, these correspond to relevant energy
efficiency measures that are of interest to the design. Each design
parameter can be defined either in continuous (a range defined
by lower and upper limits) or discrete form (a set of alternatives).
A design parameter can affect the physical design (e.g. through
dimensions) or its properties (e.g. thermal properties through
material selection). Because of the inherent effects of defining
design parameters on the range of possible solutions, careful con-
sideration should be given to their choices such that they can lead
to more meaningful results [44]. Material types, material quanti-
ties, and component types related to the building’s envelope are
used as the design parameters for the case demonstration in this
paper, which are further detailed in Section 2.2.
Fig. 1. An overview of the scope of a building’s life cycle energy in this study.
4
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
By combining the information gathered for the product defini-
tion and design parameters, a parametric model can be defined.
The parametric model represents a way of describing a design
symbolically based on parameters [12] and can be used to generate
solutions through a rule-based process [45]. This can be imple-
mented by capturing relevant parameters, relationships, con-
straints, conditions, attributes, and functions [46]. By altering the
values of the design parameters in the parametric model, different
solutions can be generated; a process that both the optimization
algorithm and sensitivity analysis interact with. Implementation
of the parametric model can, for example, be done using CAD
(computer-aided design) or BIM (building information modeling)
software [47,48]. Herein, the parametric model was implemented
through a combination of the input data format (IDF) for the
dynamic energy simulation tool EnergyPlus and the Python pro-
gramming language. An IDF file was used to encapsulate the pro-
duct definition and a Python script was used to modify that IDF
file with the current values of the design parameters.
2.1.2. Evaluate solution
When a solution has been generated using the parametric
model through variation of the design parameters it needs to be
evaluated to provide input to the multi-objective optimization
and sensitivity analysis. The evaluation process, together with
the generation of solutions using the parametric model, is central
to leveraging a computational design approach as it provides feed-
back that can be used to develop the design [12]. The specific eval-
uations that are needed are dependent on the objectives of the
design problem and can include calculations, simulations, analyses,
or other processes deemed relevant [49]. The key here is that the
generation of a solution based on the parametric model and the
evaluation of that solution is performed automatically for both
the optimization and sensitivity analysis to function efficiently.
This is important as hundreds or thousands of solutions need to
be generated and evaluated.
For the case demonstration in this paper, two different evalua-
tions were conducted: dynamic energy simulation and quantity
take-off. For the dynamic energy simulation, EnergyPlus was used
to obtain the annual energy performance of the building and the
operative temperature in different zones. The quantity take-off
was implemented using a Python script and was used to calculate
the quantities of each construction element and their constituent
material quantities.
2.1.3. Multi-objective optimization
To conduct the multi-objective optimization there is a variety of
different algorithms and approaches that can be used [14]. Herein,
a stochastic population-based genetic algorithm was used. This
type of algorithm has been indicated in previous studies to be
robust at large-scale problems and especially concerning disconti-
nuities, such as those that may occur in the output due to the use of
discrete variables [14,50]. More specifically, the non-dominated
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
Fig. 2. Overview of the proposed approach for the integration of multi-objective optimization and sensitivity analysis. Boxes encapsulated by dashed lines indicates case
specific implementations made for the study in this paper.
sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II, see [30]) was used, which was
chosen as it is commonly used for trade-off problems related to
building design [13]. Additionally, Pareto optimization was used
as the optimization method to identify optimal solutions from a
set of feasible trade-off solutions that are generated by the
NSGA-II algorithm. A solution is deemed Pareto optimal when no
other feasible solutions exist that improve one objective without
worsening at least one other objective. Pareto optimization was
used instead of, for example, scalarization where weight factors
are assigned to each criterion to construct an objective function,
primarily due to the inherent difficulties in estimating and
attributing the weight factors to the design objectives [14]. Addi-
tionally, using Pareto optimization can expose the optimization
problem and the optimal solutions to more in-depth analysis
where different potentially optimal solutions can be presented
and further analyzed to gain knowledge on the properties of opti-
mal solutions [51]. The output from the optimization process is
thus a set of solutions, herein referred to as Pareto solutions, each
of which could be considered optimal in the absence of further
information [30].
For the case demonstration in this paper the multi-objective
optimization problem was defined as follows:




min f 1 x ; f 2 x ; x ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ;    ; xn 
where f 1 is the first objective function (i.e. embodied energy), and f 2
is the second objective function (i.e. operational energy), x is a com-
bination of design parameters x1 ; x2 ;    ; xm , and n is the number of
design parameters.
The first objective function (i.e. embodied energy) was esti-
mated using the following equations:

 Xj
f1 x ¼ e¼1
EEe  ENAe
Xu
EEe ¼ EEm  t m
m¼1
In equation (2), EEe (MJ/m2) is the embodied energy of construc-
tion element e (where e is an index ranging from zero to the total
number of construction elements in the building j), and ENAe (m2)
is the enclosing area of the construction element e. In equation (3),
EEm (MJ/m3) is the embodied energy of material m (where m is an
index ranging from zero to the total number of materials in each
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
construction element u) and tm (m) is the thickness of material m
in each construction element. The materials’ embodied energy
was primarily obtained from the Bath Inventory of Carbon and
Energy (ICE) [52], however, for some components such as win-
dows, the embodied energy data was gathered from EPD databases
[53,54]. The Bath ICE was used here since (1) it is an open access
database and contains data for only building materials compared
with other databases that include material data from other sectors,
and (2) there is lack of a Swedish national database that contains
the embodied energy data for various building materials.
The second objective function (i.e. the operational energy) was
estimated using the following equation:

 Xy
f 2 x ¼ ð s¼1 Ed;s Ps Þ  l ð4Þ
In equation (4), Ed;s (MJ) is the annual energy use for energy sup-
ply source s (where s is an index ranging from zero to the total
number of relevant energy supply sources y). The annual energy
use for different energy supply sources was an output from Energy-
Plus (the dynamic energy simulation in the 2nd step). P s is the pri-
mary energy factor for the energy supply source s, which was
obtained from the Swedish building code [55]. Finally, l (yr) is
the lifespan of the building.
ð1Þ Each of the trade-off solutions (represented as different values
in the design parameters) is created by the optimization algorithm
and passed through the parametric model to generate a model for
the associated solution. The model is then evaluated using the 2nd
step, which provides the input needed for computing the objective
functions (as detailed above) and constraints (requirements of
Swedish building codes, e.g. the allowed heat transfer coefficient,
annual primary energy, and operative temperature in various
zones). The optimization process is performed until the defined
ð2Þ termination condition is met (e.g. the maximum number of
generations).
ð3Þ The multi-objective optimization through the NSGA-II algo-
rithm was implemented using the pymoo package for the Python
programming language (see [56]). In general, Ascione et al. [20]
indicated that in terms of reliability and convergence of multi-
objective genetic algorithm, the most important parameters are
maximum number of generations and population size. More
specifically, the values for these parameters are suggested to be
10–100 as maximum generations and a population size equivalent
5
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
to 2–6 times the number of design parameters [20]. As the case
study building (see section 2.2) investigates nine design parame-
ters, the NSGA-II parameters were set up with a termination con-
dition of maximum number of generations = 100 and population
size = 50. The other NSGA-II related parameters were (based on
[30]) set as crossover probability = 0.9, mutation probability = 1/
n (where n is the number of design parameters), and crowding
degree = 20. Additionally, it was set up to be performed using par-
allelization to decrease its overall run time.
2.1.4. Select solutions for further analysis
As noted previously, with a Pareto-based multi-objective opti-
mization the results of the optimization process will be a set of Par-
eto solutions. Depending on the optimization problem and its
definition, this can range from only a few solutions to a substantial
number of solutions. To progress into the sensitivity analysis a set
of relevant solutions needs to be selected from the Pareto
solutions.
It should be recognized that it is theoretically possible to per-
form post-optimization sensitivity analysis on all Pareto solutions.
However, this has two main practical challenges. First, depending
on the choice of sensitivity analysis method, a qualitative evalua-
tion needs to be made, i.e. the sensitivity analysis only provides
information that a user then manually needs to assess in order to
make decisions on how to progress. If this needs to be done on a
large number of solutions it can become impractical and poten-
tially overwhelming. Additionally, if continuous design parameters
are used there is a possibility that many Pareto solutions are very
similar to each other, which will also result in a sensitivity analysis
with a similar outcome. Second, if many Pareto solutions are
passed through the sensitivity analysis there is a computational
cost that needs to be accounted for, where the feasible amount
of time spent should be considered.
There are many ways to reduce the size of the Pareto solution
set, including ranking techniques for multi-criteria decision mak-
ing [57] and clustering techniques, such as K-means [58]. Herein,
a simple technique was used which groups Pareto solutions based
on their discrete design parameter values and chooses a median
solution from those groups based on their performance. This tech-
nique was deemed a suitable approach as it provided a simple way
of both reducing the size of the Pareto solution set while still pro-
viding a diverse set of solutions to further evaluate and analyze in
terms of their sensitivity to embodied and operational energy.
2.1.5. Generate samples and sensitivity analysis
The last step of the approach is to conduct sensitivity analysis
on the selected Pareto solutions. The purpose of this step is to gain
a better understanding of what design parameters have the
greatest influence on the design objectives and should be given
extra consideration when moving forward in the design process
[34]. Similar to multi-objective optimization, there are multiple
different sensitivity analysis methods, and they are valuable and
appropriate for different purposes [33,38,41,59]. For the case
demonstration in this paper, the Method of Morris was used, which
is one of the most commonly used screening-based methods for
sensitivity analysis [59]. This method can provide a compromise
between accuracy and efficiency, compared to, for example,
variance-based methods that generally provide better information
but has a much higher computational cost [39].
The Method of Morris uses the concept of elementary effects to
characterize the sensitivity of a model with respect to its input
parameters, where the elementary effects are approximations of
the first-order partial derivatives of the model [60]. The method
is thus based on computing the elementary effects of each input,
which are then averaged to provide an assessment of the inputs’
overall importance [61]. These values (denoted m*) provides an
6
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
approximation of the total sensitivity of each parameter including
their interactions with other parameters [37]. This measure can be
suitable for detecting highly influential parameters and insignifi-
cant parameters that have no or negligible influence on the design
objectives. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis approach was chosen
where the parameters are given a small interval of variation
around a nominal value. The nominal value is here derived from
the design parameter values of the selected Pareto solutions. The
small interval of variation provides a range within which each
parameter can vary from its nominal value. For the study in this
paper an interval of ±0.02 m was chosen for the thickness param-
eters in the sensitivity analysis. This interval selection was made to
keep the variance in the obtained solutions close to the known
parameter values (i.e. those provided by the multi-objective opti-
mization) [39], thus keeping them situational instead of going for
a broad interval that represents the diversity of the full design
space. During the study both smaller and larger intervals were
tested (i.e. ± 0.01 m and ± 0.03 m) with similar results. It is of note
that the interval value of ±0.02 m is inherently relative and depen-
dent on the study context and could be assumed smaller or greater
depending on the parameters it is attached to.
The process of performing the sensitivity analysis is conducted
in two stages. First, a set of samples are generated that represent
the model inputs. Each of the generated samples is then passed
through the parametric model to generate a model representing
that solution, which is then evaluated to extract the model outputs.
In the second stage, the actual sensitivity analysis is conducted,
where the model inputs and outputs are subjected to analysis.
The output is a set of sensitivity indices (including m*) for each
design parameter and objective. The outcome of this process indi-
cates the sensitivity of the obtained optimal solution(s) from the
optimization approach with respect to the variations in the design
parameters. These results can then add valuable information for
design decisions and progression that complements the results
obtained using the multi-objective optimization approach.
Implementation of the sensitivity analysis using the Method of
Morris was done using the sensitivity analysis library (SALib) for
the Python programming language (see [62]). It was set up with
50 trajectories and 4 levels. Additionally, like the multi-objective
optimization, it was also set up to be performed using paralleliza-
tion to decrease its overall run time.
To ensure that the sensitivity analysis approach applied herein
provided reliable results, assessment of the Standardized Rank
Regression Coefficient (SRRC) [41] was also tested, as it is another
a widely used sensitivity analysis approach in the building perfor-
mance research context [63–65]. This was done by generating
samples using Latin Hypercube Sampling and performing the cal-
culation of the SRRCs using the R programming language and the
sensitivity package (see [66]). The findings showed that the results
of applying the Method of Morris (as suggested herein) and
assessment of the SRRCs were comparable.
2.2. Description of the case building and design parameters
For this study, an apartment building is used as a case to
demonstrate and evaluate the applicability of the proposed
approach. The apartment building is designed based on a standard-
ized building concept, which is characterized by high levels of pre-
engineering that aims to shorten the design process and contribute
to cost-effective solutions. The apartment building consists of 39
apartments distributed across eight stories, a total heated floor
area of 2478 m2, and a glazing area of 340 m2. The heating system
uses hydronic radiators connected to the city’s district heating grid.
The building is also equipped with an air-to-air heat exchange ven-
tilation system (with 80% efficiency). The apartment building is
located in Vindeln, a locality situated in the northern parts of
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
Sweden, approximately 545 km (geodesic distance) north of Stock-
holm, Sweden. The climate conditions in Vindeln are subarctic,
characterized by cold and dark winter days with an annual mean
outdoor temperature of 3.4 °C.
Data for the case building was collected from drawings and a
BIM model provided by the case company. This provided input
for the product definition, selection of design parameters, and con-
sequently the definition of the parametric model. An illustration
and floor plan for the building can be seen in Fig. 3.
To set up the parametric model the apartment building’s initial
design was used as a starting point. In total 9 design parameters
were included where eight of them were related to insulation in
the construction elements and one was related to the window
types. Tables 1–4 show the constituent materials of the exterior
construction elements and the window types used in the building,
together with the design parameters subjected to the optimization
and sensitivity analysis. As shown in Table 2, four design parame-
ters (i.e. material quantities) were defined in a continuous form
and the rest (i.e. material types and windows) were defined as dis-
crete. This use of both continuous and discrete parameters was
made in line with previous studies that share similar contexts
[27,28,49]. However, it should be noted that the material quanti-
ties could also be defined as discrete parameters using set intervals
(e.g. 0.01 m), which has the potential to reduce the overall compu-
tational cost and provide more solutions that are more easily trans-
lated into practical solutions.
The insulation materials that were considered included both
traditional ones, such as mineral wool, cellulose, and expanded
polystyrene (EPS), and high-performance ones, such as polyisocya-
nurate (PIR). In terms of embodied energy, PIR exhibits a higher
value compared to mineral wool, cellulose, and EPS while provid-
ing lower thermal conductivity (see, for example, [67,68]).
Thereby, the use of traditional insulation materials can require
thicker building envelopes to achieve sufficiently low operational
energy standards compared with high-performance ones. Pursuing
very thick building envelopes may not be feasible due to consider-
ations including architectural appearance and space limitations.
The range of insulation thicknesses (see Table 2) was thus defined
based on practical considerations of appearance and available
space in the case building.
The configurations and profiles that were used for evaluating
the operational energy in the case demonstration are presented
in Table 5, where the values were commonly used for all the heated
Fig. 3. 3D-model illustrating the case building and a 2D-drawing showing the building’s floor plan.
7
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
zones. These represent the intended use of the as-built design as a
multifamily residential building consisting of only apartments and
were obtained from the case company as well as the Swedish
building codes, guidelines, and energy standards [55,69]. With
respect to the thermal zones, each floor was considered as a sepa-
rate zone. The occupancy schedule was defined so that zones are
occupied from the afternoon until the morning (i.e. not during
working hours), and the HVAC schedule was set to be always on.
Lastly, the building’s lifespan was considered to be 50 years.
3. Results and analysis
The results of executing the multi-objective optimization (i.e.
step 3 in the proposed approach, see Fig. 2) on the case building
are presented in Fig. 4 as the differences in embodied and opera-
tional energy relative to the building’s initial design. This is shown
for all obtained feasible solutions (n = 4920), Pareto solutions
(n = 420), and the selected solutions (n = 12) later subject to sen-
sitivity analysis (i.e. step 5 in the proposed approach, see Fig. 2).
Each solution identified by the multi-objective optimization pro-
cess represents a unique combination of the design parameters
listed in Table 2.
In general, the Pareto solutions yielded a range from a reduction
in embodied energy of 129 GJ to an increase of 1911 GJ compared
to the building’s initial design. For operational energy, the range is
from a reduction of 5230 GJ to an increase of 106 GJ. The results
thus contain solutions with a variety of different configurations
that represent a broad range of performance considering both
embodied and operational energy. Furthermore, these results also
indicate that the application of the energy efficiency measures
listed in Table 2 for the case building can result in larger reductions
in operational energy compared to increases in embodied energy.
The results in Fig. 4 also show the trade-off between embodied
and operational energy, where reductions in one increase the
other’s share. This trade-off is less noticeable in the Pareto solution
providing the minimum embodied energy in which the reductions
in the embodied energy (129 GJ) and increase in operational
energy (106 GJ) were similar in scope (see Fig. 4, Min. EE). How-
ever, by pursuing additional energy efficiency measures and striv-
ing to further decrease the operational energy the results show
that there is a more considerable trade-off in the Pareto solutions.
This can be seen, for example, regarding the Pareto solutions pro-
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529

Table 1
The exterior components and construction elements associated with the as-built design of the apartment building and the associated constituent type or material subject to
optimization.

Component/construction Enclosing area Initial thermal transmittance Initial Initial Design parameter Design parameter
element (m2) (W/(m2 K)) type/material thickness (m) (type/material) (thickness)
Windows (WN1) 336 1.0 Standard triple- N/A WN1-M N/A
glazed
Exterior floor (EF1) 340 0.33 EPS 0.100 EF1-M EF1-T
Exterior wall, concrete 502 0.2 Mineral wool 0.170 EW1-M EW1-T
(EW1)
Exterior wall, wood studs 1068 0.15 Mineral wool 0.080 EW2-M EW2-T
(EW2)
Roof (RF1) 340 0.09 Cellulose 0.450 RF1-M RF1-T

Table 2 Table 5
A list of the design parameters, their ranges or values, and types used in this study. Configurations and profiles used in the dynamic energy simulation in this study.

Design Range/values Type Configuration Value

parameter
Room’s temperature set point (heating) 21 °C 1
WN1-M Standard triple-glazed, passive house Discrete Cooling N/A
window Hot water demand 25 kWh/(m2 yr) 1
EF1-M EPS, PIR Discrete Internal gains from domestic hot water usage 20 % 1
EF1-T 0.06 – 0.3 m Continuous Occupant density 0.033 occupants/
EW1-M Mineral wool, EPS, PIR Discrete m2 1
EW1-T 0.08 – 0.3 m Continuous Occupant presence per day 14 h 1
EW2-M Mineral wool, EPS, PIR Discrete Effect per occupant 80 W 1
EW2-T 0 – 0.25 m Continuous Internal gains from occupants’ heat 100 % 1
RF1-M Cellulose, mineral wool, EPS, PIR Discrete Mechanical ventilation (air flow) 0.35 l/(s m2)
RF1-T 0.1 – 0.6 m Continuous Infiltration rate (constant) 0.6 l/(s m2 surface
area)
Additional energy use and losses (e.g., distribution 10 % of the heating
system losses, plant losses, and thermal bridges) demand 2
Table 3
1
A list of the insulation materials and their properties used for the design parameters Sveby, standards for energy in buildings. Input data for calculation of building’s
in this study. energy use. http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukar-
indata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf. Accessed 04/01, 2021.
Material Thermal conductivity (W/ Embodied energy 2
F. Bianchi, A.l. Pisello, G. Baldinelli, F. Infrared thermography assessment of
(m K)) (MJ/m3)
thermal bridges in building envelope: Experimental validation in a test room setup.
Cellulose 0.042 106 Sustainability 6(10) (2014) 7107–7120, https:///https://doi.org/
Mineral wool 0.039 830 10.3390/su6107107.
Expanded polystyrene 0.035 2658
(EPS)
Polyisocyanurate (PIR) 0.028 3063 of the first and necessary measures to launch a reduction in life
cycle energy use for the building case.
Beyond the window type (WN1-M) parameter, the configura-
Table 4 tion of the Pareto solutions generally indicated that further reduc-
A list of the components and their properties used for the design parameters in this
tions in operational energy entail increasing the thicknesses of the
study.
insulation materials (i.e. EF1-T, EW1-T, EW2-T, RF1-T) and moving
Component Thermal transmittance (W/ Embodied energy (MJ/ towards implementing higher-performing materials (e.g. PIR) for
(m2 K)) m2)
the insulation (i.e. EF1-M, EW1-M, EW2-M, RF1-M). The solution
Standard triple- 1.0 1462 with the lowest noted life cycle energy (according to the scope pre-
glazed
sented in Fig. 1; see Fig. 4, Min. LCE) increased the insulation thick-
Passive house 0.8 1585
window nesses for the exterior walls (EW1-T, EW2-T) and roof (RF1-T) to
their maximum allowed value (see Table 2) and moderately
increased the insulation thickness for the exterior floor (EF1-T) rel-
viding the minimum operational energy in which a reduction of ative to the building’s initial design. Additionally, the solution
operational energy increases the embodied energy by up to 1911 implemented the passive house window (WN1-M), and used PIR
GJ (see Fig. 4, Min. OE). This indicates that there is a limit for the insulation for the concrete exterior wall (EW1-M) and the exterior
reduction of operational energy use by adopting energy efficiency floor (EF1-M), whereas all other material types (i.e. EW2-M and
measures beyond which further reductions can be unfavorable RF1-M) were kept the same as the initial design. These results fur-
from a life cycle energy perspective due to significant increases ther indicate that there is a limit to when additional reductions in
in the embodied energy use. operational energy through energy efficiency measures can be
Out of all the design parameters (i.e. energy efficiency mea- unfavorable from a life cycle energy perspective.
sures) considered in this study one, i.e. window type (WN1-M), There are also some solutions that simultaneously reduce both
converged to the same outcome (passive house window) for all the embodied and operational energy compared to the building’s
the Pareto solutions shown in Fig. 2. This indicates that although initial design, i.e. solutions located in the lower-left quadrant (neg-
the application of passive house windows increases the embodied ative energy differences) in Fig. 4. These solutions implemented
energy (by 123 GJ/m2 window, see Table 4) compared to a standard the passive house window (WN1-M), whereas all other material
window, the offsetting reduction in operational energy is more sig- types (i.e. EF1-M, EW1-M, EW2-M, and RF1-M) were kept the same
nificant which is favorable from a life cycle energy perspective. The as the initial design. Besides changing the window type, these
results thus suggest that the use of passive house windows is one solutions generally had thickness increases in the insulation of

8
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529

Fig. 4. Results of the multi-objective optimization on the case building with respect to embodied and operational energy. The solutions in the figure are presented as the
difference in embodied and operational energy compared to the building’s initial design. The solutions that are selected to be subject to sensitivity analysis are also
highlighted and labeled. A color print for this figure is recommended.

the concrete exterior wall (EW1-T) and the roof (RF1-T), and thick-
ness reductions in the insulation of the wood stud exterior wall
(EW2-T) and exterior floor (EF1-T).
Based on the results of the multi-objective optimization shown
in Fig. 4 the Pareto solutions were divided into groups to provide
the sensitivity analysis with a reduced set of Pareto solutions. A
group was defined as a set of solutions that provided the same out-
come for the discrete design parameters related to the material and
component types (i.e. WN1-M, EF1-M, EW1-M, EW2-M, RF1-M).
Thereby, within these groups, the solutions differ only in terms
of the values for the design parameters related to material quanti-
ties (i.e. EF1-T, EW1-T, EW2-T, RF1-T). To obtain one solution from
each group for further analysis, the solution with the median oper-
ational energy was chosen. Additionally, the compromise Pareto

Table 6
Design parameter values and results for embodied energy, operational energy, and life cycle energy for the selected Pareto solutions based on the grouping and selection process.

Solution WN1-M EF1- EF1-T EW1-M EW1-T EW2-M EW2-T RF1-M RF1-T D Embodied D Operational
M (m) (m) (m) (m) energy (GJ) energy (GJ)
1 Passive house EPS 0.06 Mineral 0.24 Mineral 0.09 Cellulose 0.60 –33 2148
window wool wool
2 Passive house PIR 0.06 Mineral 0.30 Mineral 0.25 Cellulose 0.60 137 3889
window wool wool
3 Passive house EPS 0.13 PIR 0.30 Mineral 0.25 Cellulose 0.60 524 4437
window wool
4 Passive house PIR 0.13 PIR 0.28 Mineral 0.25 Cellulose 0.60 521 4431
window wool
5 Passive house PIR 0.27 PIR 0.30 Mineral 0.25 Mineral 0.60 836 4627
window wool wool
6 Passive house EPS 0.08 PIR 0.30 PIR 0.23 Cellulose 0.60 1017 4653
window
7 Passive house PIR 0.15 PIR 0.30 PIR 0.25 Cellulose 0.60 1164 4934
window
8 Passive house PIR 0.24 PIR 0.30 PIR 0.25 Mineral 0.60 1407 5039
window wool
9 Passive house PIR 0.15 PIR 0.30 PIR 0.25 PIR 0.60 1771 5157
window
Min. Passive house PIR 0.16 PIR 0.30 Mineral 0.25 Cellulose 0.60 573 4520
LCE window wool
Min. EE Passive house PIR 0.06 Mineral 0.18 Mineral 0.01 Cellulose 0.43 129 106
window wool wool
Min. OE Passive house PIR 0.29 PIR 0.30 PIR 0.25 PIR 0.60 1911 5230
window

9
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529

solutions, which here corresponds to the lowest life cycle energy
(according to the scope presented in Fig. 1), and the Pareto solu-
tions with the minimum embodied and operational energy, respec-
tively, were selected. The selected Pareto solutions (12 solutions in
total) are highlighted and labeled in Fig. 4 and described more in
detail in Table 6. The selected Pareto solutions were then subjected
to a sensitivity analysis for supporting design decisions. The reason
for performing sensitivity analysis on this range of Pareto solutions
(and not just focusing on those that commonly minimized embod-
ied and operational energy) was to highlight how diverse optimal

Fig. 5. Results from the sensitivity analysis of the 12 selected Pareto solutions showing the absolute mean elementary effect m* with respect to the design parameters and
both embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (EE). A color print for this figure is recommended.

10
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
solutions (i.e. configurations of design parameters) can give differ-
ent results in terms of sensitivity.
The results from executing the sensitivity analysis on the 12
selected solutions presented in Table 6 are shown in Fig. 5,
where the absolute mean elementary effect (m*) related to both
embodied and operational energy for the design parameters is
presented.
In general, the results of the sensitivity analysis in Fig. 5
show how the design parameters can exhibit different sensitivi-
ties to embodied and operational energy depending on the con-
figuration of the solution and its performance. The results of the
sensitivity analysis indicate that for all selected solutions the
thickness of the roof insulation (RF1-T, blue squares in Fig. 5)
ranks the lowest or second lowest in terms of sensitivity to both
embodied and operational energy. This is especially clear in solu-
tions (i.e. solutions 1 to 7, Min. LCE and Min. EE) where the roof
insulation material (RF1-M) converged to cellulose, which has a
low embodied energy and high thermal conductivity compared
to the other insulation materials (see Table 3). For solutions 9
and Min. OE where PIR insulation is used on the roof (RF1-M),
the roof insulation thickness (RF1-T) resulted in modest sensitiv-
ity to embodied energy due to higher embodied energy of PIR
compared with other insulations. These results indicate that, in
general, due to the relatively low sensitivity of the roof insula-
tion thickness (RF1-T) to embodied and operational energy, its
value can diverge more freely from the optimal value identified
by the optimization process without significantly impacting
either of the objectives.
The insulation thickness in the wood stud exterior wall (EW2-T,
red circles in Fig. 5) indicated a high sensitivity to operational
energy in all the selected solutions. This is partially an effect of
the wood stud exterior wall having the largest enclosing area,
which is about twice the area of the concrete exterior wall
(EW1), and about three times the area of the exterior floor (EF1)
and roof (RF1). From an embodied energy and life cycle energy per-
spective, the insulation thickness in the wood stud exterior wall
(EW2-T) has a higher sensitivity in solutions 6 to 9, and Min. OE,
which commonly used PIR insulation. This indicates that, in gen-
eral, when PIR insulation is selected as the optimal choice, it can
strongly affect the building’s life cycle energy use depending on
its thickness and therefore needs to be selected carefully. As shown
in Fig. 5, the results indicate that, in general, thicknesses of insula-
tion in both the exterior wall (i.e. EW1-T, EW2-T) result in higher
sensitivity in terms of embodied and operational energy compared
with the roof insulation thickness (RF1-T). This indicates that in
contrast to the roof insulation thickness (as described above), the
insulation thicknesses in the exterior walls should be considered
carefully and kept close to those of the identified value for each
optimal solution (listed in Table 6) provided by the optimization
process.
The greatest variation in the sensitivity (from lowest to highest)
is found in the exterior floor insulation thickness (EF1-T, green tri-
angles in Fig. 5), both in terms of embodied and operational energy.
For example, the exterior floor insulation thickness ranks the high-
est for both embodied and operational energy in solution 2, indi-
cating that it is the most sensitive parameter. In contrast, it ranks
the lowest in terms of operational energy in solutions 5, 8, and
Min. OE. In general, the thickness of exterior floor insulation ranks
higher when its nominal value is closer to the lower possible range
of that parameter (see Table 2). The results thus indicate that for
the thicknesses lesser than 0.16 m, it is necessary to select the opti-
mal exterior floor insulation close to the value that the optimiza-
tion process converged to (see Table 6). In contrast, when aiming
to use thicker insulations greater than 0.16 m in the exterior floor
its value can, due to the lower sensitivity, be selected with a higher
degree of freedom.
11
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
4. Discussion and conclusion
The use and integration of multi-objective optimization and
post-optimization sensitivity analysis were explored for finding
and evaluating design solutions that consider the embodied/oper-
ational energy trade-off in order to find solutions that favorably
minimize the building’s life cycle energy use. For this purpose, an
approach was developed and demonstrated in a case of a Swedish
multifamily apartment building located in a subarctic climate.
The sensitivity analysis approach proposed in this paper builds
on the previously recognized potential of sensitivity analysis to
provide valuable information about what design parameters to
focus on and less influential design parameters that only have a
minor impact on a building’s performance [33,34]. However, the
proposed post-optimization sensitivity analysis is in contrast to
previous studies which mainly considered sensitivity analysis on
its own (e.g. [34,37]). Instead, the proposal presented in this paper
is arranged such that sensitivity analysis is applied to solutions
that are generated using a multi-objective optimization approach.
The contribution of the proposed post-optimization sensitivity
analysis is that it can add valuable information that would comple-
ment the results obtained using a multi-objective optimization
approach. Consequently, it can be used to support a decision-
making process in the analysis and selection of solutions from a
set of Pareto solutions to progress with, a task that is previously rec-
ognized as not always trivial [14]. Additionally, the type of post-
optimization sensitivity analysis approach explored in this paper
contrasts with, for example, robustness measure approaches which
are used to calculate an aggregated metric to indicate how robust a
solution is to changes (e.g. [70]). These types of aggregated metrics
can be useful as they provide a single metric that could potentially
be easier to interpret, however, the aim of the post-optimization
sensitivity analysis is to expose individual design parameters for a
deeper analysis. The outcome could thus provide a better under-
standing of the relationships and relative importance of specific
design parameters and could provide valuable information for the
progression of the design going forward [33,34]. This process sup-
ports indications of what design parameters (1) have no or negligible
influence on the objectives where deviations from their values and
optimal choice could be made without significantly impacting the
expected performance of the objectives, and (2) have a relatively
substantial influence on the objectives and should thus not deviate
significantly from their optimal values identified by the optimiza-
tion process if the desired performance is to be maintained.
Besides contributing to an approach for post-optimization sen-
sitivity analysis, the proposed approach herein is based on the
notion that the same processes for generating solutions (using
the parametric model) and evaluating them are used for both the
multi-objective optimization and sensitivity analysis, respectively.
This has the practical benefit of not having to have separate pro-
cesses, which can be time-consuming to set up. Instead, if reuse
of already defined processes for multi-objective optimization
approaches can be performed, the addition of sensitivity analysis
could become a more attractive proposal. This helps to better align
with Eisenhower et al. [31], who suggested that sensitivity analysis
should be integrated into any optimization process.
The outcome of the case demonstration indicated the applica-
bility of the approach proposed and developed in this study to suc-
cessfully identify the sensitivity of design parameters and obtained
optimization results to aid supporting design decisions that favor-
ably minimize a building’s life cycle energy use. Thereby, multi-
objective optimization was initially performed to identify a diverse
range of optimal Pareto solutions of various energy efficiency mea-
sures that could result in life cycle energy savings of up to 4520 GJ
relative to the case building’s initial design. Later, 12 Pareto solu-
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
tions were selected and subjected to a sensitivity analysis for sup-
porting design decisions. The results of this sensitivity analysis
indicated that due to the relatively low sensitivity of the roof insu-
lation thickness to embodied and operational energy, its value
could be modified and selected more freely without significantly
impacting the building’s life cycle energy use. Thicknesses of insu-
lation in exterior walls showed in general higher sensitivity than
the roof insulation thickness and therefore in contrast to the roof,
their value needs to be selected carefully and kept close to those
identified by the optimization. The thickness of exterior floor insu-
lation exposed the greatest variation in the sensitivity which
ranked higher when its nominal value is closer to the lower possi-
ble range of that parameter. The results thus indicated that for the
exterior floor thicknesses lesser than 0.16 m, it is necessary to
select the optimal insulation thickness close to the value that the
optimization process converged to, while, when aiming to use
thicker insulations greater than 0.16 m its optimal value can be
selected more freely due to the lower sensitivity in terms of
embodied and operational energy.
From a practical perspective, applications of multi-objective
optimization are currently often limited to consider two or three
objectives and a relatively limited number of constraints [14], as
is the case herein. Therefore, having these sensitivity indices could
also be useful when an optimal solution is considered in light of
other criteria (e.g. constructability, logistics, procurement, etc.)
that were not explicitly included through design parameters,
objectives, or constraints in the optimization process. Including
such considerations when evaluating an optimal solution might
result in changes needed to the configuration of that optimal solu-
tion. The potential effect of such changes on the objectives and
expected performance of the solution could be qualitatively evalu-
ated using their sensitivity provided by the post-optimization sen-
sitivity analysis.
5. Limitations and future research
The scope of this study was chosen to be focused on the trade-
off between embodied/operational energy as it provides a demon-
stration for the purpose of exploring how multi-objective opti-
mization and post-optimization sensitivity analysis could be
used. However, future studies need to extend this scope to consider
additional, or other, trade-off scenarios that are relevant to build-
ing design. This could include, for example, life cycle carbon
impact, life cycle cost, and different design contexts (building
types, geographic locations, etc.).
The proposed approach in this study also only considered a sub-
set of a design process and it is suggested that it should be inte-
grated with other approaches, defining a more holistic
proposition. This can include, for example, factor fixing to screen
out insignificant design parameters prior to performing optimiza-
tion to reduce the computational time [14,37] and techniques for
supporting multi-criteria decision making [49]. Additionally, the
Method of Morris was chosen as the sensitivity analysis method,
however, other methods could offer additional insights and higher
accuracy (such as variance-based methods [39]), and further stud-
ies should investigate the selection of appropriate methods.
In regard to the evaluation of a building’s life cycle energy per-
formed in this study, there are some other parameters that have
potentially considerable effects on the results, such as the scope
and system boundary of the life cycle energy assessment, the
building’s lifespan (assumed to be 50 years herein), and the
embodied energy data used for different materials and compo-
nents. The impact of these factors was not considered herein, how-
ever, they should be taken into consideration in future research
works. Additionally, the scope of the embodied energy and life
12
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
cycle energy assessment in this research did not cover the energy
used in construction and end-of-life phases, which should be
expanded upon in future studies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swedish Energy Agency
through the E2B2 project (grant number 2019-020708); and the
Swedish research council Formas (grant number 2018-01463).
The authors would also like to thank the NCC construction com-
pany for providing data and feedback relating to the building case
studied.
References
[1] United Nations Environment Programme. 2020 Global Status Report for
Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient
Buildings and Construction Sector. https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/
inline-files/2020%20Buildings%20GSR_FULL%20REPORT.pdf. Accessed 04/01,
2021.
[2] European Parliament and European Council. Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive
2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU
on energy efficiency. Off. J. Eur. Union (2018).
[3] McGraw-Hill Construction. World green building trends: Business benefits
driving new and retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countries. Bedford
Massachusetts: Smart Market Report, 2013.
[4] M.M. Khasreen, P.F.G. Banfill, G.F. Menzies, Life-cycle assessment and the
environmental impact of buildings: a review, Sustainability 1 (2009) 674–701,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030674.
[5] C.J. Kibert, Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, John
Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[6] A. Schlueter, F. Thesseling, Building information model based energy/exergy
performance assessment in early design stages, Autom. Constr. 18 (2) (2009)
153–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.07.003.
[7] M. Rekola, T. Mäkeläinen, T. Häkkinen, The role of design management in the
sustainable building process, Architectural Eng. Design Manage. 8 (2) (2012)
78–89, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2012.659503.
[8] P. Chastas, T. Theodosiou, D. Bikas, Embodied energy in residential buildings-
towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review, Build. Environ.
105 (2016) 267–282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.040.
[9] M.K. Dixit, Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: a
review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 390–413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.05.051.
[10] J. Kneifel, E. O’Rear, D. Webb, C. O’Fallon, An exploration of the relationship
between improvements in energy efficiency and life-cycle energy and carbon
emissions using the BIRDS low-energy residential database, Energy Build. 160
(2018) 19–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.030.
[11] D. Tuhus-Dubrow, M. Krarti, Genetic-algorithm based approach to optimize
building envelope design for residential buildings, Build. Environ. 45 (7)
(2010) 1574–1581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.005.
[12] I. Caetano, L. Santos, A. Leitão, Computational design in architecture: defining
parametric, generative, and algorithmic design, Front. Architectural Res. 9 (2)
(2020) 287–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.12.008.
[13] R. Evins, A review of computational optimisation methods applied to
sustainable building design, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22 (2013) 230–245,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.004.
[14] A.T. Nguyen, S. Reiter, P. Rigo, A review on simulation-based optimization
methods applied to building performance analysis, Appl. Energy 113 (2014)
1043–1058, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.061.
[15] F. Kheiri, A review on optimization methods applied in energy-efficient
building geometry and envelope design, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92 (2018)
897–920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.080.
[16] V. Machairas, A. Tsangrassoulis, K. Axarli, Algorithms for optimization of
building design: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 101–112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.036.
[17] Z. Jalali, E. Noorzai, S. Heidari, Design and optimization of form and façade of
an office building using the genetic algorithm, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 26
(2) (2020) 128–140, https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2019.1624095.
[18] D. D’Agostino, P. D’Agostino, F. Minelli, F. Minichiello, Proposal of a new
automated workflow for the computational performance-driven design
optimization of building energy need and construction cost, Energy Build.
239 (2021) 110857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110857.
J. Mukkavaara and F. Shadram
[19] F. Rosso, V. Ciancio, J. Dell’Olmo, F. Salata, Multi-objective optimization of
building retrofit in the Mediterranean climate by means of genetic algorithm
application, Energy Build. 216 (2020) 109945, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2020.109945.
[20] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, A new comprehensive
framework for the multi-objective optimization of building energy design:
Harlequin, Appl. Energy 241 (2019) 331–361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2019.03.028.
[21] M. Ghaderian, F. Veysi, Multi-objective optimization of energy efficiency and
thermal comfort in an existing office building using NSGA-II with fitness
approximation: a case study, J. Build. Eng. 41 (2021) 102440, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102440.
[22] M. Pazouki, K. Rezaie, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, A fuzzy robust multi-objective
optimization model for building energy retrofit considering utility function:
A university building case study, Energy Build. 241 (2021) 110933, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110933.
[23] Y. Jung, Y. Heo, H. Lee, Multi-objective optimization of the multi-story
residential building with passive design strategy in South Korea, Build.
Environ. 203 (2021) 108061, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108061.
[24] A. Ciardiello, F. Rosso, J. Dell’Olmo, V. Ciancio, M. Ferrero, F. Salata, Multi-
objective approach to the optimization of shape and envelope in building
energy design, Appl. Energy 280 (2020) 115984, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.115984.
[25] B. Chegari, M. Tabaa, E. Simeu, F. Moutaouakkil, H. Medromi, Multi-objective
optimization of building energy performance and indoor thermal comfort by
combining artificial neural networks and metaheuristic algorithms, Energy
Build. 239 (2021) 110839, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110839.
[26] U. Acar, O. Kaska, N. Tokgoz, Multi-objective optimization of building envelope
components at the preliminary design stage for residential buildings in
Turkey, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021) 102499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.102499.
[27] F. Shadram, J. Mukkavaara, An integrated BIM-based framework for the
optimization of the trade-off between embodied and operational energy, Energy
Build. 158 (2018) 1189–1205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.017.
[28] F. Shadram, J. Mukkavaara, Exploring the effects of several energy efficiency
measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off: a case study of
swedish residential buildings, Energy Build. 183 (2019) 283–296, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.026.
[29] S. Abbasi, E. Noorzai, The BIM-Based multi-optimization approach in order to
determine the trade-off between embodied and operation energy focused on
renewable energy use, J. Cleaner Prod. 281 (2021) 125359, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125359.
[30] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T.A.M.T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist
multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2)
(2002) 182–197, https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
[31] B. Eisenhower, Z. O’Neill, S. Narayanan, V.A. Fonoberov, I. Mezić, A
methodology for meta-model based optimization in building energy models,
Energy Build. 47 (2012) 292–301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2011.12.001.
[32] A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, M. Ratto, Sensitivity Analysis in
Practice, John Willey & Sons (2004).
[33] A.T. Nguyen, S. Reiter, A performance comparison of sensitivity analysis
methods for building energy models, Build. Simul. 8 (6) (2015) 651–664,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-015-0245-4.
[34] P. Heiselberg, H. Brohus, A. Hesselholt, H. Rasmussen, E. Seinre, S. Thomas,
Application of sensitivity analysis in design of sustainable buildings,
Renewable Energy 34 (9) (2009) 2030–2036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2009.02.016.
[35] C.J. Hopfe, J.L. Hensen, Uncertainty analysis in building performance
simulation for design support, Energy Build. 43 (10) (2011) 2798–2805,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.06.034.
[36] M.H. Kristensen, S. Petersen, Choosing the appropriate sensitivity analysis
method for building energy model-based investigations, Energy Build. 130
(2016) 166–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.038.
[37] T. Østergård, R.L. Jensen, S.E. Maagaard, Early Building Design: Informed
decision-making by exploring multidimensional design space using sensitivity
analysis, Energy Build. 142 (2017) 8–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.02.059.
[38] Z. Pang, Z. O’Neill, Y. Li, F. Niu, The role of sensitivity analysis in the building
performance analysis: a critical review, Energy Build. 209 (2020) 109659,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109659.
[39] D.G. Sanchez, B. Lacarrière, M. Musy, B. Bourges, Application of sensitivity
analysis in building energy simulations: combining first-and second-order
elementary effects methods, Energy Build. 68 (2014) 741–750, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.048.
[40] C. Spitz, L. Mora, E. Wurtz, A. Jay, Practical application of uncertainty analysis
and sensitivity analysis on an experimental house, Energy Build. 55 (2012)
459–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.013.
[41] A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M.
Saisana, S. Tarantola (Eds.), Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer, John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2007.
[42] J. Zajas, P. Heiselberg, Parametric study and multi objective optimization of
window frame geometry, Build. Simul. 7 (6) (2014) 579–593.
[43] J. Mukkavaara, M. Sandberg. Architectural design exploration using generative
design: framework development and case study of a residential block.
Buildings 10(11) (2020) 201, doi: 10.3390/buildings10110201.
13
Energy & Buildings 253 (2021) 111529
[44] N. Emami, Untangling parameters: a formalized framework for identifying
overlapping design parameters between two disciplines for creating an
interdisciplinary parametric model, Adv. Eng. Inf. 42 (2019) 100943, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100943.
[45] R. Yu, J. Gero. An Empirical Foundation for Design Patterns in Parametric
Design. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Association
for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), 2015.
[46] A. Borrmann, V. Berkhahn. Principles of Geometric Modeling. In: A. Borrmann,
M. König, C. Koch, J. Beetz. (eds). Building Information Modeling. Springer,
2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92862-3_2.
[47] T. Cerovsek, A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A
multi-standpoint framework for technological development, Adv. Eng. Inf. 25
(2) (2011) 224–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003.
[48] R. Sacks, C.M. Eastman, G. Lee, Parametric 3D modeling in building
construction with examples from precast concrete, Autom. Constr. 13 (3)
(2004) 291–312, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(03)00043-8.
[49] M. Sandberg, J. Mukkavaara, F. Shadram, T. Olofsson, Multidisciplinary
optimization of life-cycle energy and cost using a BIM-based master model,
Sustainability 11 (1) (2019) 286, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010286.
[50] K. Deb, Multi-objective genetic algorithms: Problem difficulties and
construction of test problems, Evol. Comput. 7 (3) (1999) 205–230, https://
doi.org/10.1162/evco.1999.7.3.205.
[51] K. Deb. Multi-objective optimisation using evolutionary algorithms: An
introduction. Springer, 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-0-85729-652-8_1.
[52] G. Hammond, C. Jones. Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE), Version 2.0.
Sustainable energy research team, University of Bath, https://
www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.
html. Accessed 04/01, 2021.
[53] Norwegian EPD foundation (EPD Norway). http://epd-norge.no/epder/.
Accessed 04/01, 2021.
[54] The International EPDÒ System-Environmental Product Declarations. http://
environdec.com/. Accessed 04/01, 2021.
[55] Swedish building code, Swedish national board of housing, building and
planning (Boverket). Regulations and general advice on accessibility, housing
design, room height, operating space, fire protection, hygiene, health and
environment, noise protection, safety in use and energy conservation. https://
www.boverket.se/contentassets/a9a584aa0e564c8998d079d752f6b76d/
konsoliderad_bbr_2011-6.pdf. Accessed 04/01, 2021.
[56] J. Blank, K. Deb, pymoo: multi-objective optimization in python, IEEE Access 8
(2020) 89497–89509, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567.
[57] E. Triantaphyllou, E. Multi-criteria decision making methods. Springer, 2000,
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6_2.
[58] H.A. Taboada, F. Baheranwala, D.W. Coit, N. Wattanapongsakorn, Practical
solutions for multi-objective optimization: an application to system reliability
design problems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (3) (2007) 314–322, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.014.
[59] W. Tian, A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 20 (2013) 411–419, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.014.
[60] M.D. Morris, Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational
experiments, Technometrics 33 (2) (1991) 161–174.
[61] F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, A. Saltelli, A. An effective screening design for
sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ. Modelling Software 22(10)
(2007) 1509-1518, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.10.004.
[62] J. Herman, W. Usher, SALib: An open-source Python library for sensitivity
analysis, J. Open Source Software 2 (9) (2017), https://doi.org/10.21105/
joss.00097.
[63] Y. Yildiz, K. Korkmaz, T. Göksal Özbalta, Z. Durmus Arsan, An approach for
developing sensitive design parameter guidelines to reduce the energy
requirements of low-rise apartment buildings, Appl. Energy 93 (2012) 337–
347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.048.
[64] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, T. Iovane, G.M. Mauro, D.F. Napolitano, A. Ruggiano, L.
Viscido, A real industry building: Modeling, calibration and Pareto
optimization of energy retrofit, J. Build. Eng. 29 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101186 101186.
[65] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, C. De Stasio, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, Multi-stage and
multi-objective optimization for energy retrofitting a developed hospital
reference building: A new approach to assess cost-optimality, Appl. Energy
174 (2016) 37–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.078.
[66] CRAN – Package sensitivity. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/
sensitivity/index.html. Accessed 09/13, 2021.
[67] A. Berge, P. Johansson, Literature Review of High Performance Thermal
Insulation, Chalmers University of Technology, 2012.
[68] C. Hill, A. Norton, J. Dibdiakova, A comparison of the environmental impacts of
different categories of insulation materials, Energy Build. 162 (2018) 12–20,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.12.009.
[69] Sveby, standards for energy in buildings. Input data for calculation of
building’s energy use. http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/
Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf. Accessed 04/01, 2021.
[70] P. Hoes, M. Trcka, J.L.M. Hensen, B.H. Bonnema, Optimizing building designs
using a robustness indicator with respect to user behavior, in: Building
simulation proceedings of the 12th conference of the international building
performance simulation association, 2011, pp. 1710–1717.