00 голосов за00 голосов против

11 просмотров22 стр.Although the importance of multi-objective parametric analysis is recognized in research literature, in architectural practice it is difficult to implement. Design teams struggle because architectural decisions involve vast design spaces and multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria. They also need appropriate methods for interpreting data and visualizing the geometry of the design. This requires a systematic and multi-disciplinary approach to analysis and optimization that enables teams to narrow the space of exploration through statistical sampling, objective weights, and interactive geometric and data visualizations so that designers can see the physical impact of the optimization. This paper explores a Multi-Objective Parametric Experiments Design (MOPED) workflow that seeks to address the above challenges. The workflow combines parametric analysis with stakeholder preferences, design of experiment methods, and interactive visualizations. The paper describes, through a case study of a relocatable classroom, how the method enables design teams to make higher performing decisions with more confidence in less time.

Oct 08, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Although the importance of multi-objective parametric analysis is recognized in research literature, in architectural practice it is difficult to implement. Design teams struggle because architectural decisions involve vast design spaces and multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria. They also need appropriate methods for interpreting data and visualizing the geometry of the design. This requires a systematic and multi-disciplinary approach to analysis and optimization that enables teams to narrow the space of exploration through statistical sampling, objective weights, and interactive geometric and data visualizations so that designers can see the physical impact of the optimization. This paper explores a Multi-Objective Parametric Experiments Design (MOPED) workflow that seeks to address the above challenges. The workflow combines parametric analysis with stakeholder preferences, design of experiment methods, and interactive visualizations. The paper describes, through a case study of a relocatable classroom, how the method enables design teams to make higher performing decisions with more confidence in less time.

© All Rights Reserved

11 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

Although the importance of multi-objective parametric analysis is recognized in research literature, in architectural practice it is difficult to implement. Design teams struggle because architectural decisions involve vast design spaces and multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria. They also need appropriate methods for interpreting data and visualizing the geometry of the design. This requires a systematic and multi-disciplinary approach to analysis and optimization that enables teams to narrow the space of exploration through statistical sampling, objective weights, and interactive geometric and data visualizations so that designers can see the physical impact of the optimization. This paper explores a Multi-Objective Parametric Experiments Design (MOPED) workflow that seeks to address the above challenges. The workflow combines parametric analysis with stakeholder preferences, design of experiment methods, and interactive visualizations. The paper describes, through a case study of a relocatable classroom, how the method enables design teams to make higher performing decisions with more confidence in less time.

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

AUTHORS

Victor Okhoya, Perkins+Will

Marcelo Bernal, Perkins+Will

Tyrone Marshall, Perkins+Will

John Haymaker, Perkins+Will

analysis is recognized in research literature, in architectural practice it

is difficult to implement. Design teams struggle because architectural

decisions involve vast design spaces and multiple, sometimes

conflicting, criteria. They also need appropriate methods for

interpreting data and visualizing the geometry of the design. This

requires a systematic and multi-disciplinary approach to analysis and

optimization that enables teams to narrow the space of exploration

through statistical sampling, objective weights, and interactive

geometric and data visualizations so that designers can see the physical

impact of the optimization. This paper explores a Multi-Objective

Parametric Experiments Design (MOPED) workflow that seeks to

address the above challenges. The workflow combines parametric

analysis with stakeholder preferences, design of experiment methods,

and interactive visualizations. The paper describes, through a case study

of a relocatable classroom, how the method enables design teams to

make higher performing decisions with more confidence in less time.

1. Introduction

With respect to building performance analysis typical architectural practice

simulates a small number of design options and then uses human judgement

to infer the best cause of action. Parametric Analysis (PA), on the other hand,

varies all relevant input factors through significant ranges and thereby

develops large design spaces for exploration. Research shows that this can

lead to dramatically better building performance results (Clevenger &

Haymaker, 2012). However, PA can also be time and resource expensive, so

researchers have explored optimization methods that can search through large

parametric spaces in a fraction of the time.

1

For example, Naboni et al. (2013) compared traditional simulation to PA

and optimization using a genetic algorithm. They designed and built a project

prototype of a 14m2 test lab made from cross laminated timber located at the

School of Architecture in Copenhagen. They simulated ten design options in

EnergyPlus 1 during design, building the most energy efficient option. After

construction they analyzed a calibrated model. It revealed a total energy

consumption of 98.6 kWh/m2. A PA was performed in EnergyPlus with 11

factors and 139,968 individual runs. It was executed on a 256 core cluster and

took 30 hours to run. Using the results, modifications were identified that

would bring the energy consumption down to 8.5 kWh/m2. The improvement

is dramatic but the cost in computation resources is high.

important to distinguish between multi-disciplinary optimization and single

discipline multi-objective optimization. Many authors referring to multi-

objective optimization are referring to the single discipline optimization of

thermal performance responses like annual heating load, annual cooling load

and HVAC performance (Chlela et al., 2009; Magnier & Haghighat, 2010). A

multi-disciplinary optimization gives a more holistic understanding of the

building performance factors in relation to overall human experience,

economic, and environmental requirements and is as such more desirable. It

requires a careful selection of input factors, a weighting of responses used in

the optimization value function and coordination of simulation results from

different software platforms. In this paper the multi-disciplinary study

optimizes thermal performance, daylight factor, direct line of sight, view

quality, life cycle cost and carbon dioxide emission.

with objective weighting and data and geometry visualization, to understand

how these methods can improve on the PA process. The DoE is seen as a

filtering mechanism that allows for drastic reductions in the design space to

be explored by estimating optimal values of the input factors. By combining

the DoE method with a full-factorial analysis of a reduced design space the

authors explore the extent to which it is possible to maintain the rigor of

analytical search with the accuracy of parametric analysis using a practical

amount of computational resources. In order to distinguish this effort from

other similar research, five aspects of PA have been identified as important

for meeting the requirements of rigor, accuracy and practicality:

1

https://energyplus.net/

2

complex and multi-faceted and good solutions need to recognize the

multi-dimensionality of the problem.

objective circumstance. The PA must prioritize what are considered

more important design goals for a project over other less important

criteria.

cannot simply be numbers and statistical metrics. Architects require a

visual exploratory interface that permits them to interactively

examine ranges of alternatives in the proposed solution.

design geometry. Architects must be able to see the impact of building

performance decisions on the physical geometry of their building

design.

which means, by todays computational standards, it does not extend

much beyond a few thousand simulation runs.

these five aspects, and compares to the Multi-Objective Parametric

Experiments Design (MOPED) workflow.

2. Literature Review

methods rely on exhaustive search which can be computationally intensive.

They propose the use of surrogate models, specifically response surface

models (a form of DoE), that use a limited number of simulation runs. On a

case study of a three story office building in New Delhi they found that the

surrogate model approach reduced simulation time substantially at the cost of

incurring up to 10% in prediction error. Ritter et al. (2015) also use response

surface methods for optimizing design space to support decision making.

They note that current methods lack acceptable interfaces for designers to

interact with. They propose generating a parametric geometric model in

Autodesk Dynamo, defining input parameters to describe the design space,

creating a DoE in Matlab 2 to rapidly calculate the response values based on

2

https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html

3

the input parameters, and then output the results into a parallel coordinates

plot for interactive visualization.

Small number

Visualization

Disciplinary

Parametric

Interactive

Responses

Geometry

Weighted

of runs

Multi-

Dhariwal & Banerjee

Ritter et al.

Sadeghifam et al.

Qian & Lee

Pratt & Bosworth

Sadeghifam et al.

Jabi

Chlela et al.

Magnier & Haghighat

Flager et al.

Iwaro et al.

Lin & Gerber

Khalafallah & El-Rayes

Shi & Yang

Granadeiro et al.

MOPED

.

Sadeghifam et al. (2015) observe that altering a combination of factors

combined for a 36% reduction in annual energy consumption compared to

altering a single factor. This points to the benefit of a PA approach. They

developed a Revit Architecture 3 model, ran a baseline energy analysis based

on the Revit model, identified significant factors and their ranges and then

used a DoE to select building envelope materials in order to optimize

thermal performance. Jabi (2014) sought to better harmonize the outputs of

parametric geometric modeling with the input requirements of building

performance analysis by developing DSOS, a software framework. DSOS

3 https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit-family/architecture

4

used Autodesk Designscript 4, Open Studio 5 and EnergyPlus scripts and files

to output results as color overlays on parametric geometry.

commercial buildings using mixed level factorial design (another form of

DoE). They used Trace 6 7000 for simulation and Minitab 7 1.7 for statistical

analysis. They analyzed a small commercial building at Morgan State

University and found a potential saving of 16.6% total energy consumption.

Pratt and Bosworth (2011) proposed combining parametric methods with

high throughput energy analysis methods. They developed

sustainParametrics and exportZones as Ruby plugins for Sketchup 8 to create

parametric models. They simulated models in EnergyPlus to produce

building energy use metrics. Large simulations with 34,398 runs were

simulated and an interactive visualization interface, including parallel

coordinate plots, used to visualize the results.

Chlela et al. (2009) acknowledged that parametric studies can help designers

choose optimal solutions but noted that such studies can be complicated and

time consuming due to a large number of runs. They proposed that DoE can

simplify parametric studies by reducing significantly the required number of

experiments or simulations. In a case study a DoE reduced a 177,147 run

three factorial design to between 200 and 377 runs. Magnier & Haghighat

(2010) argued for the use of multi-objective optimization with DoE and

artificial intelligence. They acknowledged that a shortcoming with genetic

algorithms is the need for thousands of evaluations to reach optimal

solutions. They proposed using response surface methods with genetic

algorithms to reduce the computational time while maintaining good

accuracy.

Flager et al. (2009) recognized that multi-disciplinary analysis has not been

fully realized in practice because current tools and processes do not support

the generation and evaluation of a large number of alternatives. They

observed that researchers in aerospace and automotive industries have

developed methods for multi-disciplinary design optimization. They

proposed to apply these methods to the parametric modeling of a single

classroom building case study. They used a multi-disciplinary process with

parallel coordinates plot as an interactive visualization, and genetic

algorithms and design of experiments to reduce the size of the design spaces.

4 https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/designscript

5

https://www.openstudio.net/

6

http://www.trane.com

7

http://www.minitab.com/en-us/

8

http://www.sketchup.com/

5

Iwaro et al. (2014) described the importance of weighting and selection

criteria for the sustainable performance assessment of building envelopes.

They developed an integrated criteria weighting framework and used it to

evaluate the most sustainable performance design alternative for building

envelopes in the Caribbean.

Lin & Gerber (2014) argued that the use of multi-objective optimization

methods are an effective means to overcome the limitations of current

performance based design processes. They proposed a multi-objective

design framework (EEPFD) that uses a genetic algorithm to optimize spatial

compliance, construction cost and energy performance. The use of a genetic

algorithm drastically reduces simulation cycle time. Khalafallah & El-Rayes

(2011) also addressed the question of multi-objective optimization with

specific reference to airport layouts. They used genetic algorithms to

optimize layouts for construction safety, construction related aviation safety

and airport security, and overall site layout costs. They also recognized the

need for an interactive visualization interface.

Shi & Yang (2013) understood that performance driven design takes a

holistic view of buildings ensuring ecological and environmental

performance without overlooking design and aesthetics. However

conventional architectural design methodology faces the problems that

analytical models are difficult to obtain, models need both geometric as well

as simulative inputs and the representation needs of design documentation

are often at odds with the needs of performance analysis. They proposed

Rhinoceros 9/Grasshopper 10 integrated with Ecotect 11, Radiance 12 and

EnergyPlus as a platform for performance driven design that addresses these

problems. Granadeiro et al. (2012) cautioned that environmental aspects in

architectural design can lead to neglect of other qualities such as aesthetics.

Their research recognized two challenges: how to improve design while

respecting compositional principles, and second the time consuming task of

modeling design alternatives for energy simulation. They used shape

grammars as a generative design tool that respects encoded design intent,

which they integrate with EnergyPlus to perform energy simulation of each

design iteration.

multi-disciplinary analysis they are aware that PA is computationally

demanding. Many seek to use DoE, in isolation or in combination with other

9

https://www.rhino3d.com/

10

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/

11

http://ecotect.com/

12

https://www.radiance-online.org/

6

methods, to reduce the computational burden. This paper has similar

motivations. Recognizing that the simulation design space must be reduced

as a practical matter, it describes a framework for performing a weighted,

multi-objective optimization which uses a DoE to reduce the design space.

The framework incorporates parametric geometric modeling and interactive

visualization interfaces. The research compares the quality of reduced

samples for simulations specified from DoE optimization to sample

simulations specified by a designers intuition and samples of randomly

specified simulations. It is shown that the DoE based method significantly

improves the mean and range of the value function of the reduced sample.

According to the US National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)

design of experiments is a systematic, rigorous approach to engineering

problem-solving that uses statistical methods to derive valid engineering

conclusions under the constraint of minimal expenditure of engineering

resources (Croarkin & Tobias, 2017). There are four general problem areas

in which DoE is applied: comparative assessment of experimental outputs,

screening for important factors, modeling solutions and optimization of the

problem space. DoE is widely applied to optimization problems in several

fields including building performance analysis.

DoE uses statistical methods to discover the optimum value from a large

problem space of values by methodically sampling the space and then

interpolating between sampled values to obtain estimates of non-sampled

values. This estimated problem space can then be optimized, to a high

degree of accuracy, much faster than trying to experiment over the full

problem space. The concept can be illustrated by a simple example. In this

example we use a least squares model for a two factor experiment (Dunn,

2017). Suppose an experiment wishes to optimize an outcome O. Suppose

that there are two factors affecting this outcome A and B. A ranges from A1

to A2 while B ranges from B1 to B2. This is a two factor experiment with two

levels and an example table of outcomes (the numerical values of the

outcome are purely for illustration) is shown (Table 2).

outcome using the equation = 67 + 10 + 4 . The equation is obtained

by noting that the average of all outcomes is (52 + 74 + 62 + 80)/4 = 67, the

average effect on factor A, going from 0 to +1, is (18 + 22)/4 = 10 and the

average effect on factor B, going from 0 to +1, is (6 + 10)/4 = 4. With this

estimate we can use software to quickly calculate an optimum value of the

outcome, and the corresponding factor levels, without performing any

further experiments.

7

Table 2. Example of DoE outcome table.

1 2 - - 52

2 4 + - 74

3 1 - + 62

4 3 + + 80

The general equation for this experiment, including interaction terms, can be

written:

= 0 + + +

where xA is the coded value for the factor A, xB is the coded value for factor

B, xAxB is the interaction term and the bi are coefficients to be calculated.

We can describe the experiment as follows:

1 = 0 + + +

2 = 0 + + + + +

3 = 0 + + + + +

4 = 0 + + + + + + +

1 1 1 1 +1 0

2 1 +1 1 1

=

3 1 1 +1 1

4 1 +1 +1 +1

the matrix and is the transpose. This can be solved and optimized using

statistical software. The example can be extended to experiments with

several factors and several levels, the statistical calculations getting

progressively more complex. Fortunately there are several commercial and

open source tools capable of performing DoE calculations.

8

4. Description of the MOPED Process

2. Establish input factors and ideal ranges

3. Use a DoE to reduce the design space

4. Run a full factorial PA on the reduced design space

5. Use a value function to optimize the responses

6. Use a parallel coordinates plot to visualize the results

The toolkit for this process includes a custom Grasshopper definition for

receiving inputs, coordinating experimental runs with the simulation

platforms and pushing output results to Flux.io 13 (Figure 2). Grasshopper

performs parametric geometric modeling with Rhinoceros used for

geometric visualization; thermal and daylight analysis are in EnergyPlus and

Radiance using the HoneyBee and LadyBug plugins; Life Cycle Cost

estimation uses RS Means 14 building cost data; and Carbon Dioxide output

emission is based on the total thermal energy values. JMP 15 13.0 (a version

of the well-known SAS 16 statistical software) is used for DoE analysis and a

custom parallel coordinates plot interface, developed at Perkins+Will

Architects, used for visualizing the high dimensional results data of the

experiment.

high performance modular and portable classroom (Perkins+Will, 2017).

The prototype is a 1000 square foot pre-engineered and pre-built design

aimed, in part, at solving the problems of poor daylighting, views, and

energy efficiency experienced in portable classrooms. It was used for

exploring the MOPED workflow.

13

https://flux.io/

14

https://www.rsmeans.com/

15

https://www.jmp.com/en_us/home.html

16

https://www.sas.com/en_ca/home.html

9

Figure 1. The MOPED process.

10

In addition to exploring MOPED the paper presents a series of Sprout Space

experiments to compare the quality of the design spaces generated by a

number of exploration methodologies, including: random sampling (used as

a baseline), a designers intuition, as well as by using DoE based methods.

The metrics for comparison were the means and ranges of the respective

samples. The best performing approach would have a high mean and a range

of values clustered around high values of the value function compared to

other approaches. The discussion also focuses on the time and effort to

implement and interpret these design spaces.

This means that the Sprout Space experiments described here included a few

more steps than the MOPED process shown in Figure 1. In particular Sprout

Space included a step for using random selection to reduce the design space,

a step for using the designers intuition to reduce the design space and a final

step to compare the outcomes of the three sampling approaches.

decision makers. They included goals, indicators or responses, metrics and

preferences or weights. For this paper the goals were identified as

minimizing thermal performance, maximizing daylight factor, maximizing

direct line of sight, maximizing view quality, minimizing life cycle costs and

minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. It was recognized that in reality not

every goal is as important as every other. Therefore weights were given to

the goals as indicated in Table 3.

11

Table 3. Responses with weights.

Response Weight

Total Thermal Energy 25%

of these objectives were first identified intuitively by the research team.

Ranges for each of the variables were first chosen together with the step-

values needed for a rigorous exploration of the design space. Some of these

variables were geometric like the size of the overhang while others were

material properties, like construction assembly. Some assumptions and

constraints were involved in choosing these factors and their ranges. For

example, assumptions included holding some factors constant, such as roof

construction, while constraints included limiting building geometry, dictated

by site restrictions. For this paper there were 64,800 combinations of the

factors which is computationally impractical on easily accessible resources

(Table 4).

input values

input values was randomly selected from the full design space. It was not

expected that the random sampling approach would give the best

performance, but it was seen as a useful base line for comparison. In order to

generate the random sample space, we generated the full space of 64,800

runs in JMP, and then used the table subset feature to define a random

sampling of 1296 runs.

12

Table 4. Ideal ranges for input factors. 17

Options

Orientation 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 12

240, 270, 300, 330

Width 30 (9.1)

Depth 5 (1.5)

Roof Angle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 9

(6.0)

Assemblies 18

Total 64,800

Next, we asked a designer to examine the full sample space in Table 4 and

then intuitively select reduced ranges for each of the inputs that they thought

would yield high values of the value function when taken together (Table 5).

This is not an easy task for a human designer because of the multi-objective

nature of the problem with some of the objectives conflicting and with

potential interactions between inputs that are not easy to predict.

17

Unless otherwise stated numbers in parentheses are unit conversions to meters.

18

Numbers in square brackets are statistical codes.

13

Table 5. Target ranges based on intuitive selection of inputs by a human designer

Orientation 0, 30, 60, 270, 300, 330 6

Roof Angle 1, 5, 9 3

PCP [4]

Total 1296

the design space

Next, a DoE was set up in JMP software to help reduce the size of the design

space. The DoE was set up with reasonable defaults to report estimated

optimum values for each of the factors. A realistic, reduced design space was

constructed centered around these estimates. The full factorial PA was run

on this reduced space (Table 6). The DoE process involved the five steps

described below.

First, input factors and step values were entered into a DoE Custom Design

in JMP, and a response called Value Function was defined which held the

sum of weighted response factors. Second, reasonable interaction and second

order terms were defined, and the DoE was set to a reasonable number of

runs, 32 in this case. Third, JMP was used to design the experiment. Note

that the Value Function is not filled out yet at this point. It will receive the

results from the 32 simulation runs performed in Grasshopper. Fourth, the 32

run DoE was simulated in Grasshopper and a value function created from the

results to plug into JMP (See Step 7 for Value Function discussion). This

simulation took 20 minutes for the Sprout Space case study on a Lenovo

Yoga with Intel Core i7-6600U, 2.6 GHz, 2.81GHz and 16GB of memory.

Finally, the DoE was run and prediction profiler plots obtained with the

estimates of the optimum values of the factors (Figure 4). These estimates

are used in constructing the full factorial design space of Table 6.

14

Table 6. Target ranges of input factors for DoE based full factorial experiment.

Orientation 0, 30, 60, 270, 300, 330 6

Roof Angle 1, 2, 8, 9 4

Construction SIP, CLT 2

Total 1296

We next used the random sample, intuitive based selection and DoE based

results to create realistic ranges for a full factorial PA in the reduced space

of promising designs with a computationally feasible number of runs, 1296

in this case. Each of these full factorial runs took 12 hrs on the Lenovo

laptop. It is estimated that 64,800 runs would have taken 640 hrs, or almost a

month.

the responses, weighting them according to the preferences indicated when

15

developing the objectives and inverting any antagonistic objectives. The

responses Total Thermal Energy, Life Cycle Costs and Carbon Dioxide

Emissions all needed to be inverted. The value function is a summation of

the normalized, inverted (where applicable), and weighted response factors.

The optimization seeks to maximize the value function. The normalized

value function is computed as follows:

RV = Response Value

DF = Daylight Factor

DLS = Direct Line of Sight

VQ = View Quality

LCC = Life Cycle Costs

CDE = Carbon Dioxide Emissions

VF = Value Function

RV inverted = RVi = 1 RVn

RV weighted = RVw = weight RVi (or RVn), where weight is based

on Table 3.

RVmax = Maximum response value for the sample

And then:

visualize geometry

coordinates plot of the full factorial PA (Figure 5). This will enable the

architect to explore ranges of options and understand their impact on

individual responses as well as on the value function. The optimized outputs

can also be visualized in the context of the geometric model in Rhinoceros

(Figure 6).

16

Figure 5. Parallel coordinates plot for interactively exploring analysis results.

6. Results

experiment. First, a 1296 run PA simulation based on random selection was

performed. Second, a 1296 run PA simulation based on the intuitive

selection of inputs by a designer was performed (Table 5). A 32 run

simulation based on a DoE designed in JMP was run from the ideal ranges in

Table 4 then, based on this, a third full factorial 1296 run PA simulation was

run based on these DoE optimized values (Table 6).

Table 7. Comparison of Randomly Based runs to Intuitively Based runs and DoE Based runs

(in value function units).

run PA run PA run PA

Min 31.24 26.64 46.45

Max 80.57 81.52 79.55

Mean 56.62 55.55 62.74

A comparison of the range and the mean values of the value function from

the three simulations is shown in Table 7. A box plot comparison of the

value function range from the three samples is shown in Figure 7. It is seen

that the DoE reduces the range of the design spaces by eliminating low

quality options. It is also seen that the DoE improves the mean value of the

reduced design space. A three way single factor Anova

17

Figure 6. Visualization of design geometry and performance analysis in Rhinoceros

18

shows that the differences in the means between the three samples is

statistically significant (p<0.000). Paired sample t-tests between the DoE

Based method and the Random Based Method as well as the Intuitively

Based methods respectively show that the differences in means are

statistically significant (p<0.000).

selected, intuitively selected and DoE based run simulations a slightly

different method of calculating the value function was required. This is

because the method in Section 6 above provides for in sample normalization

comparing different responses in the same sample. To compare responses

between samples, and to ultimately compare the value function between

samples, a between samples normalization is required. The modification to

the definitions in Section 5 is as follows:

RVmax = Maximum response value for all samples

Figure 7. Comparison of Random Sample PA, Intuitive PA and DoE Based PA (in value

function units)

7. Conclusion

This paper describes the MOPED workflow for using DoE with PA. The

benefit of PA for building performance simulations was indicated and the

limitation of a high computational processing requirement was highlighted.

A comparative literature review of sources that recognize the merits of both

DoE and PA was presented. However, limitations with many of the

19

approaches was observed. The use of the DoE for PA workflow on the

Sprout Space case study was also described. The key benefit of the method

is that it drastically reduces the time and resources needed for analysis. The

method also allows for multi-disciplinary, multi-objective optimization

taking into account the weighting of responses in constructing a value

function. A parallel coordinates plot tool, for visualizing high dimensional

data was introduced. The workflow remains integrated with the parametric

geometric model which can be visualized in Rhinoceros software. The

results of comparing a PA simulation based on random selection, intuitive

selection and DoE optimization shows the range and mean values of

responses to be significantly superior for the latter.

20

8. References

Chlela, F., Husaunndee, A., Inard, C., & Reiderer, P. (2009). A New

Methodology for the Design of Low Energy Buildings. Energy and

Buildings, 41(9), 982-990.

Clevenger, C., & Haymaker, J. (2012). The Value of Design Strategies

Applied to Energy Efficiency. Smart and Sustainable Built

Environment, 1(3), 222-240.

Croarkin, C., & Tobias, P. (2017, March 7). Engineering Statistics

Handbook. Retrieved from NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of

Statistical Methods:

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/index.htm

Dhariwal, J., & Banerjee, R. (2017). An approach for building design

optimization using design of experiments. Building Simulation,

10(3), 323-336.

Dunn, K. (2017, March 7). Process Improvement Using Data. Retrieved

from https://learnche.org/pid/

Flager, F., Welle, B., Bansal, P., Soremekun, G., & Haymaker, J. (2009).

Multidisciplinary process integration and design optimization of a

classroom building. Journal of Information Technology in

Construction, 14(38), 595-612.

Granadeiro, V., Duarte, J., Correia, J., & Leal, V. (2012). Building envelope

shape design in early stages of the design process: Integrating

architectural design systems and energy simulation. Automation in

Construction, 196-209.

Iwaro, J., Abrahams, M., Rupert, W., & Ricardo, Z. (2014). An integrated

Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance

assessment and design of building envelope. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 417 - 434.

Jabi, W. (2014). Parametric spatial models for energy analysis in the early

design stages. Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for

Architecture & Urban Design (p. 16). Society for Computer

Simulation International.

21

Khalafallah, A., & El-Rayes, K. (2011). Automated multi-objective

optimization system for airport site layouts. Automation in

Construction, 313-320.

Lin, S.-H., & Gerber, J. (2014). Designing-in performance: A framework for

evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design.

Automation in Construction, 59-73.

Magnier, L., & Haghighat, F. (2010). Multiobjective optimization of

building design using TRNSYS simulations, genetic algorithms and

Artificial Neural Network. Building and Environment, 45(3), 739-

746.

Naboni, E., Maccarini, A., Korolija, I., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Comparison of

conventional, parametric and evolutionary optimization approaches

for the architectural design of nearly zero energy buildings. Building

Simulation.

Perkins+Will. (2017, May 25). Sprout Space. Retrieved from

http://www.sproutspace.com/

Pratt, K., & Bosworth, D. (2011). A Method for the Design and Analysis of

Parametric Building Energy Models. 12th Conference of the

International Building Performance Simulation Association, (pp.

2499 - 2506). Sidney.

Qian, X., & Seong, L. (2014). The Design and Analysis of Energy Efficient

Building Envelopes for the Commercial Buildings by Mixed-level

Factorial Design and Statistical Methods. Middle Atlantic Section

Proceedings. American Society for Engineering Education.

Ritter, F., Geyer, P., & Bormann, A. (2015). Simulation-based decision-

making in Early Design Stages. 32nd CIB W78 Conference, (pp. 27-

29). Eindhoven.

Sadeghifam, A., Zahraee, S., Meynagh, M., & Kiani, I. (2015). Combined

use of design of experiments and dynamic building simulation in

assessment of energy efficiency in tropical residential buildings.

Energy and Buildings, 86, 525-533.

Shi, X., & Yang, W. (2013). Performance-driven architectural design and

optimization technique from a perspective of architects. Automation

in Construction, 125-135.

22

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.