00 vote positif00 vote négatif

6 vues16 pagesThis is a paper by Kyung Sun Lee 1, Ki Jun Han and Jae Wook Lee about their excellent work on day lighting parametric optimization

Aug 28, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

This is a paper by Kyung Sun Lee 1, Ki Jun Han and Jae Wook Lee about their excellent work on day lighting parametric optimization

© All Rights Reserved

6 vues

00 vote positif00 vote négatif

This is a paper by Kyung Sun Lee 1, Ki Jun Han and Jae Wook Lee about their excellent work on day lighting parametric optimization

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Article

Feasibility Study on Parametric Optimization of

Daylighting in Building Shading Design

Kyung Sun Lee 1, *, Ki Jun Han 2 and Jae Wook Lee 3, *

1 School of Architecture, Hongik University, 94 Wausan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul 02481, Korea

2 Digit, 12, Dongmak-ro 2-gil, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04071, Korea; dbxkrvk2@naver.com

3 School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA

* Correspondence: ksunlee01@gmail.com (K.S.L.); jlee764@illinois.edu (J.W.L.); Tel.: +82-10-3731-2170 (K.S.L.);

+1-217-402-4335 (J.W.L.)

Received: 1 August 2016; Accepted: 18 November 2016; Published: 24 November 2016

Abstract: Shading design to optimize daylighting is in many cases achieved through a designer’s

sense based on prior knowledge and experience. However, computer-assisted parametric techniques

can be utilized for daylighting design in an easy and much more accurate way. If such tools are

utilized in the early stages of a project, this can be more effective for sustainable design. This study

compares the conventional approach, which depends on a designer’s sense of judgment to create

optimal indoor lighting conditions by adjusting louver shapes and window patterns, with the

approach of making use of genetic algorithms. Ultimately, this study discusses the advantages and

disadvantages of those two approaches. As a starting point, 30 designers were instructed to design

a facade by manually adjusting several input parameters of shading. The parameters govern six

kinds of louver and window types, with the ratio of analysis grid surface area achieving a daylight

factor of 2%–5%. Secondly, input parameters were automatically created by using genetic algorithm

optimization methods to find optimal fitness data. As a conclusion, conventional approaches result

in a strong disposition toward designing certain shading types represented by linear relationships.

Computer-assisted daylight simulation can help influence this, being effective when dealing with a

large amount of data and non-linear relationships.

Keywords: parametric optimization; daylight; genetic algorithm; facade design; computer simulation

1. Introduction

The importance of sustainability in green building design is increasing. About 70% of all energy

usage is consumed in urban areas, and lighting alone takes up around 15% of total building energy

consumption [1–3]. Therefore, architects and engineers are actively looking for solutions to reduce

lighting energy. Beside energy issues, lighting plays a significant role in buildings and urban areas

more generally. Lighting, which can be divided into natural and artificial sources, can affect occupants’

comfort and satisfaction levels [4].

Inside a building, access to daylight makes the indoor environment healthier and more

comfortable for occupants; natural lighting is also linked with greater productivity [5]. When designed

with proper glare control and minimized solar heat gain, daylighting provides high-quality light

while significantly reducing energy consumption for lighting and cooling. An effective facade shading

design should contribute to the creation of such an environment that will reduce building energy

expenditure and optimize daylight distribution [6–8].

There are several factors involved in the control of lighting energy, but the impact of the building

skin on lighting is considerable. Formerly, architects typically designed the building skin based on

previous experience and intuition. In order to achieve low-energy design, environmental engineers

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 2 of 16

sometimes support the design by mathematical analysis. However, their involvement is often requested

later in the design process. In the early design stages, passive design strategies can be optimized by

considering an active design, which potentially improves the energy efficiency of buildings much

more effectively [9–12]. Therefore, there is a need to integrate scientific methods with design to help a

designer achieve low-energy design easily and effectively.

With the development of a design-integrated energy simulation, architects and designers can

now more easily construct and design a building. Simulation programs which are combined with

architectural daylighting design tools, such as DIVA-for-Grasshopper/Rhino were tested and used to

design a building envelope [13]. With daylighting design, research-related building energy simulations

such as Esp-r [14] or EnergyPlus [15] for energy-efficient buildings were also implemented in various

areas. Furthermore, some simulation programs provide parametric methods or algorithms for

optimization, which can help to find optimal solutions in a faster and easier way. Several pieces of

research-related optimization techniques for transparent building facades [16] and genetic algorithms

for design variables [17] show that those techniques can be an effective way to harmonize design and

energy fields. Recently, utilizing digital technology based on computer hardware and software has

been implemented in design projects, and this is known as parametric design [18,19]. Such technology

can be actively and positively used in the early design stage for design optimization. For example,

parametric modeling is related to geometric information which includes several parameters [20,21],

and it can automatically modify parameters such as elevation proportion, louver size, and angle

without reorganizing the whole model. Furthermore, other related research on energy performance of

a building envelope and optimization of an engine or heat exchanger’s performance successfully adopts

an optimization genetic algorithm [22–24], demonstrating how the application of a computer-aided

algorithm has very important potential in architectural design.

In this study, other viewpoints and methods are introduced to clarify the distinction and

importance compared to previous research. Above all, differences in daylighting between two design

approaches will be tested: (A) design alternatives performed by an architectural designer’s experience

and intuition; (B) design optimization by computer simulation will be tested. By comparing the

architectural designer and the computer simulation, it can help to identify: (1) how much more

daylighting performance a designer can achieve with a simulation program; (2) which louver and

window types (defined as horizontal, vertical, random horizontal, random vertical louver types,

and Delaunay and Voronoi screen types) can affect daylighting performance.

Secondly, this study explains how parametric optimization methods can be applied in daylighting

design simulation. As a result, it can help to identify the advantages and disadvantages of daylighting

optimization between designers and computer simulations. Also, this paper suggests how a designer’s

manual and simulation methods can harmonize daylighting performance and facade design.

Architects design buildings through an iterative process using light simulation feedback.

Light analysis can be simulated for either a simple or complex building facade. In other words,

design processes are inseparable from simulations, to the extent that design can be controlled by the

results of simulations. Thus, the main purpose of this research is to analyze and compare the uses of

simulation results in buildings, specifically regarding the aspect of daylighting design. As a result,

the processes of finding optimal solutions for daylighting design can be compared using a computer

algorithm. Also, the proposed solutions can be tested on both a conventional envelope design as well as

a computer-aided one, such as with Delaunay and Voronoi screens.

2. Methodology

The main goal of this research is to find input parameters which can maximize fitness, i.e., the ratio

of analysis grid surface area achieving a daylight factor (DF) of 2%–5% with variation of shape and

combination of shading and window size in given conditions. This DF metric is a rather simplistic

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 3 of 16

architectural designer in terms of simulation and analysis. The research was performed in the following

three steps:

• To find optimal fitness data with Galapagos, a component inside Grasshopper that can

optimize shape,

• To find efficiency and improvement of optimization in green building facade design through a

comparative analysis of manually adjusting input parameters and genetic algorithms.

For simulation, a typical office space facing south is used as a base model, which measures 5 m

(16.4 ft) depth by 7.2 m (23.6 ft) width, with a floor-to-floor height of 3 m (9.8 ft), as shown in Figure 1.

South orientation was selected, which is most favorable, since there are no significant differences in DF

by changes in orientation. Input materials for floor, wall, and ceiling were implemented as default

values which are supported by DIVA in Table 1, and the selected glazing type is 8 mm double-pane

clear glass.

This is a purely diffuse reflector with a

1 Wall GenericInteriorWall_50

standard wall reflectivity of 60%

Material for typical ceilings as

2 Ceiling GenericCeiling_70

suggested by IES-LM-83 [25]

Visual transmittance: 80%

3 Window Glazing_DoublePane_Clear_80

Visual transmissivity: 87%

This is a purely diffuse reflector with a

4 Floor GenericFloor_20

standard floor reflectivity of 20%

As tools for parametric design and indoor lighting analysis, Grasshopper and DIVA are used [26].

Grasshopper is a graphical algorithm editor, a plug-in for Rhinoceros, a NURBS (Non-uniform rational

B-spline curve) modeling software. It does not require knowledge of programming or scripting, and it

allows designers to create simple to complex shapes. Once a definition for the Grasshopper is created,

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 4 of 16

designers can easily adjust input parameter values and generate a variety of outputs for deformation

and modification. Grasshopper is used for this experiment in order to easily adjust input parameters

to find optimal fitness (output) manually. Using the Galapagos component, which is linked to those

programs, an optimization method based on genetic algorithms in daylight fields can be applied using

a personal computer.

DIVA-for-Grasshopper is a daylighting and energy modeling add-on for Grasshopper and an

environmental simulation tool which can calculate data such as DF or solar irradiation parametrically.

If it is done manually, people should adjust the value of the input parameters to find optimal fitness.

When using Galapagos, associated input parameters execute an algorithm to automatically calculate

the optimized output.

There are different types of metrics for daylighting. For instance, DF, daylight autonomy,

and useful daylight illuminance are well-known metrics [7]. However, each metric comes with

disadvantages as well as unique advantages. Daylight autonomy counts all the values over 300

lux, which is regarded as excessive light level. Also, useful daylight illuminance does not count any

value over 2000 lux or below 100 lux. We have acknowledged those contradictory phenomena and

have chosen DF for the research. Although it is not perfect, it is widely known and easy to understand.

Even though the metrics are measured for either static or dynamic conditions, they are commonly

considered static at a single point in time. In fact, the stability of DF is itself one of the benefits,

regardless of the time of day or year, even assuming an overcast sky [27,28]. Also, DF is easy to

calculate for buildings in the real world or models in the lab with illumination meters. Most European

and Asian countries, such as the UK (BREEAM), France (HQE), Japan (CASBEE), and South Korea

(G-SEED), use DF for green building assessment as part of their guidelines [29–32].

DF is a metric used to quantify the amount of diffuse daylight in a space. Diffuse daylight is

light that has been scattered in the atmosphere before reaching the Earth’s surface. It is a ratio that

represents the amount of illumination available indoors relative to the illumination present outdoors

at the same time under an overcast sky. The design day for DF calculations is based on the standard

International Commission on Illumination (CIE) overcast sky for 21 September at 12:00 p.m. [27,28].

It is usually measured at the height of the work plane (i.e., a desktop) under a standardized CIE

overcast sky [33].

Ein: Interior illuminance at a fixed point on the work plane. Eext: Exterior illuminance under an

overcast sky.

In the UK (CIBSE Lighting Guide 10), DF is categorized into three levels [34]:

(1) DF under 2 is not adequately lit and artificial lighting will be required,

(2) DF between 2 and 5 is adequately lit but artificial lighting may be in use for part of the time,

(3) DF over 5 is well-lit and artificial lighting is generally not required except at dawn and dusk,

although glare and solar gain may cause problems.

According to the British Standards Institution (BS 8206 part 2 CIBSE), a space with a mean DF

between 2% and 5% is considered well-lit and requires little or no additional lighting during the

day [35].

Also, the Indoor Environmental Quality in the LEED rating system recommends a 2% DF in

at least 75% of all spaces occupied for critical visual tasks (LEED NC-v2.2 EQc8.1: Daylight and

Views) [36].

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 5 of 16

In this experiment, louver and window types are formed from a combination of eight kinds of

input parameters: (1). Angle: horizontal/vertical angle of the louver, from −60 to 60 degrees; (2). Num:

number of louvers; (3). Depth: louver depth; (4). U Num.: number of window panel divisions in

the horizontal direction; (5). V Num.: number of window panel divisions in the vertical direction;

(6). WWR: window to wall ratio; (7). Pattern: Delaunay, Voronoi division pattern number (number

of seed points of patterns); (8). Random: Delaunay, a random variable to be added to the Voronoi

type. Each louver and window type has 125 variations with a combination of the three types of input

parameters out of eight input parameters (Table 2). The parameters govern six kinds of louver and

window types (horizontal, vertical, random horizontal, random vertical louver types, and Delaunay

and Voronoi screen types) (Tables 3 and 4).

Unit Step Size Variables

Parameters (min.) (max.)

Horizontal/vertical angle

1 Angle (degree) −60 60 30 5

adjustment of the louver

2 Num. (integer) The number of louvers 5 13 2 5

3 Depth (10 cm) Louver depth 2 6 1 5

U Num. Number of window panel

4 5 13 2 5

(integer) divisions in the U direction

V Num. Number of window panel

5 5 13 2 5

(integer) divisions in the V direction

Ratio of remove from the entire

6 Remove (-) 0.2 (20%) 0.8 (80%) 0.15 (15%) 5

window panel

7 Pattern (step) Number of seed point patterns 10 50 10 5

8 Random (-) Random variable for seed points 1 5 1 5

1 2 3 4 5 6

Random Random Delaunay Voronoi

Input Horizontal Vertical

Horizontal Vertical Pattern Pattern

Parameters Louver Louver

Louver Louver Screen Screen

√ √

1 Angle √ √ - - - -

2 Num. √ √ - - - -

3 Depth -

√ -

√ - -

4 U Num. - - √ √ - -

5 V Num. - - √ √ -

√ -

√

6 Remove - - √ √

7 Pattern - - - - √ √

8 Random - - - -

No. total variations 125 125 125 125 125 125

√

: Applied parameters.

55 VVNum.

Num. -- -- √√ √√ -- --

66 Remove

Remove -- -- √√ √√ √√ √√

77 Pattern

Pattern -- -- -- -- √√ √√

88 Random

Random -- -- -- -- √√ √√

No.

No.total

totalvariations

variations 125

125 125

125 125

125 125

125 125

125 125

125

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 6 of 16

√:√:Applied

Appliedparameters.

parameters.

Table

Table4. Louver/window types.

Table 4.

4. Louver/window

Louver/windowtypes.

types.

(a)

(a)Horizontal

Horizontallouver

louver (b)

(b)Vertical

Verticallouver

louver

(a) Horizontal

Parameters:

Parameters: louver

Angle,

Angle, Num.,

Num.,Depth

Depth (b) Vertical

Parameters:

Parameters: louver

Angle,

Angle,Num.,

Num.,Depth

Depth

Parameters: Angle, Num., Depth Parameters: Angle, Num., Depth

Sustainability

Sustainability2016,

2016,8,

8,1220

1220 66ofof16

16

Sustainability 2016,

Sustainability 8,8,

2016, 1220

1220 6 6ofof

1616

(c) Random horizontal louver (d) Random vertical louver

(c)

(c)Random

Randomhorizontal

Parameters: U Num., louver

horizontal

Vlouver

Num., WWR (d)

(d)Random

Randomvertical

Parameters: Num.,louver

Uvertical louver

V Num., WWR

Parameters:

Parameters: UNum.,

U Num.,VVNum.,

Num.,WWR

WWR Parameters:

Parameters: U Num.,VVNum.,

U Num., Num.,WWR

WWR

(e)

(e) Delaunay

Delaunay pattern

pattern screen

screen (Figure

(Figure A1)

A1) ** (f)

(f) Voronoi

Voronoi pattern

pattern screen

screen (Figure

(Figure A2)

A2) **

(e) DelaunayWWR,

Parameters: patternPattern,

screen (Figure

Random A1) * (f)Parameters:

Voronoi pattern

WWR, screen (Figure

Pattern, A2) *

Random

(e)(e)Delaunay pattern

DelaunayWWR,

Parameters: patternscreen

screen(Figure

Pattern, (FigureA1)

Random A1)* * (f)(f)Voronoi

Voronoipattern

Parameters: WWR,screen

pattern screen(Figure

Pattern, A2)

(Figure

Random A2)* *

Parameters: WWR, Pattern, Random Parameters: WWR, Pattern, Random

Parameters:

Parameters:WWR,

WWR,Pattern,

Pattern,Random

Random Parameters:

Parameters:WWR,

WWR,Pattern,

Pattern,Random

Random

Green: Solid wall; Blue: Window glass. * The detailed procedures described in Figures are found in Appendix A.

Green:

Green:Solid

Solidwall;

wall;Blue:

Blue:Window

Windowglass.

glass.**The

Thedetailed

detailedprocedures

proceduresdescribed

describedininFigures

Figuresare

arefound

foundin

inAppendix

AppendixA.

A.

2.2. Green: Solid

Green: Solid

Methods wall;

and wall; Blue: Window

Blue: Window

Procedures glass.

glass. * The detailed procedures described in Figures are found in AppendixA.A.

* The

of the Experiment detailed procedures described in Figures are found in Appendix

2.2.

2.2. Methods

Methods and and Procedures

Procedures of of the

the Experiment

Experiment

2.2.

2.2.Methods

2.2.1. Methods

Manual and

and Procedures

Procedures

Approach ofof ofthetheExperiment

Adjusting Experiment

Input Parameters

2.2.1.

2.2.1. Manual

Manual Approach

Approach of of Adjusting

Adjusting Input Input Parameters

Parameters

2.2.1. Thirty

2.2.1.Manual

Manual students

Approach

Approach with of at least

Adjusting

of Adjusting four years

Input

Input of architectural design education participated in this

Parameters

Parameters

Thirty

Thirty students

experiment. students

They have

with

with at least

least four

four years

fairatunderstanding years ofGrasshopper

ofof

architectural

architecturaland design

design

DIVA.

education

education participated

They areparticipated

in this

also familiarinwith this

experiment.

Thirty

Thirty

experiment. They

students

students

They have

have fair

with

with

fair understanding

atat least

least four

understanding four of

years

years

of Grasshopper

of architectural

of and

architectural

Grasshopper and DIVA.

design

design

DIVA.

the concept of DF and indoor lighting environments through their sustainable architecture classes.

They

educationare

education

They are also familiar

participated

participated

also familiar with

inin

with the

this

this

the

concept

experiment. of

experiment.

concept DFTheyand

They

of DF and indoor

have

have fair

indoor lighting

fairunderstanding environments

understanding

lightingare ofof

environments through

Grasshopper

Grasshopper their

and

and sustainable

DIVA.

DIVA. They

They architecture

are

arealso

alsofamiliarclasses.

familiar

through their sustainable architecture classes. The with

with The

the

the

The guidelines for the experiment given as:

guidelines

concept

conceptofofDF

guidelines for

for the

DFand experiment

indoor

indoorlighting

andexperiment

the are

lighting given

are given as:

environments

environments

as: through

throughtheirtheirsustainable

sustainablearchitecture

architectureclasses.

classes.The The

•

guidelines

Adjust

guidelines

Adjust for

for the

three the experiment

parameters,

experiment are

and

aregiven

given as:

proceed as: with DIVA simulations. Check visual information of DF

Adjust three

three parameters,

parameters, and and proceed

proceed withwith DIVA

DIVA simulations.

simulations. CheckCheck visual

visual information

information of of DF

DF

range

range being

being 2%–5% of the analysis grid surface area in the color index (Figures 2 and 3).

Adjust

Adjust

range three2%–5%

three

being parameters, of

of the

parameters,

2%–5% theandanalysis

and proceed grid

proceed

analysis grid surface

with

with DIVA

surface area

DIVAarea in

in the

the color

simulations. index

colorCheck

simulations. (Figures

indexvisual

Check 22 and

and 3).

visualinformation

(Figures information3). ofofDF DF

range

Calculate

Calculate the output (fitness: the ratio of analysis grid surface area having a DF value of 2% to

range being

beingthe output

2%–5%

2%–5% of(fitness:

ofthethe the

analysis

analysisratio

grid

gridof analysis

surface

surface area grid

areain surface

the

in thecolor area

colorindex having

index a

(Figures DF

(Figures 2 value

and

2 and 3).of

3). 2% to

5%)

Calculateas

as operation

Calculate

5%) thetheoutput

operation result.

output (fitness:

result.(fitness:the theratio

ratioofofanalysis

analysisgridgridsurface

surfacearea

areahaving

havinga aDF DFvalue

valueofof2% 2%toto

5%) Adjust the

5%)asasoperation

Adjust input parameters

inputresult.

operation

the result.

parameters appropriately

appropriately and and choose

choose the the form

form of of louvers

louvers which

which create

create aa high

high

fitness.

Adjust

Adjust

fitness. thethe input

input parameters

parameters appropriately

appropriately and

and choose

choose the

theform

form of louvers

of louvers which

which create

create a ahigh

high

fitness.

Check if three kinds of parameters are set properly using visual

fitness.if three kinds of parameters are set properly using visual information of DF in the color

Check information of DF in the color

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 7 of 16

• Calculate the output (fitness: the ratio of analysis grid surface area having a DF value of 2% to 5%)

as operation result.

• Adjust the input parameters appropriately and choose the form of louvers which create a

high fitness.

• Check if three kinds of parameters are set properly using visual information of DF in the color

index (Figures 2 and 3). This assists participants in determining which parameter combination

needs to be used for the next run and if the space needs more or less light.

• Repeat at least 10 times for each window/louver type and adjust the input parameters in order to

get to 2016,

Sustainability the highest

8, 1220 possible optimal value. 7 of 16

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 7 of 16

Figure 2.

2. Analysis grid

grid surface of

of DF range

range between 2%

2% to 5%.

5%.

Figure 2. Analysis

Figure Analysis grid surface

surface of DF

DF range between

between 2% to

to 5%.

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Analysis

Analysis grid

grid surface

surface of

of DF.

DF.

2.2.2. Genetic

2.2.2. Genetic Algorithm

Algorithm Optimization

Optimization Methods

Methods Using

Using Galapagos

Galapagos

Galapagos is used as the other experiment method to find optimum fitness values and three

Galapagos is

Galapagos is used

used asas the

the other

other experiment

experiment method

method to to find

find optimum

optimum fitnessfitness values

values and

and three

three

parameter values for each louver/window type using genetic algorithm optimization methods. The

parameter

parameter values for each louver/window type using genetic algorithm optimization

for each louver/window type using genetic algorithm optimization methods. methods. The

main reason why the genetic algorithm was selected is that it is the only algorithm to find optimal

mainmain

The reason why why

reason the genetic algorithm

the genetic was selected

algorithm is that isit that

was selected is theit only

is thealgorithm to find optimal

only algorithm to find

solutions with Rhino and Grasshopper software. In addition, this software is very widely used for

solutions with Rhino and Grasshopper software. In addition, this software

optimal solutions with Rhino and Grasshopper software. In addition, this software is very widely is very widely used for

architectural drawings [37]. In order to have equal conditions to those of manual methods, Galapagos

architectural

used drawingsdrawings

for architectural [37]. In order

[37].to

Inhave

order equal conditions

to have to those ofto

equal conditions manual

those methods,

of manualGalapagos

methods,

is set with three parameter values with four variables: Max. Stagnant: 50, Population: 20, Maintain:

is set with is

Galapagos three parameter

set with values with

three parameter four variables:

values Max. Stagnant:

with four variables: Max. 50, Population:

Stagnant: 20, Maintain:

50, Population: 20,

20%, Inbreeding: 50%. The Population, set as 20, means that evolution for each generation DIVA

20%, Inbreeding: 50%. The Population, set as 20, means that evolution for

Maintain: 20%, Inbreeding: 50%. The Population, set as 20, means that evolution for each generation each generation DIVA

simulates 20 times. In this case, Max. Stagnant, set as 50, calculates up to 50 generations. The total

simulates

DIVA 20 times.

simulates In this case,

20 times. In thisMax.

case,Stagnant, set as 50,set

Max. Stagnant, calculates up to 50 generations.

as 50, calculates The total

up to 50 generations.

number of simulations should be 1000, and the skip and filtering-method algorithm was

number

The of simulations

total number shouldshould

of simulations be 1000, and and

be 1000, the the

skip

skip andandfiltering-method

filtering-method algorithm was

algorithm was

programmed to avoid duplications. Stagnant by 20 of population. However, each louver/window

programmed to avoid duplications. Stagnant by 20 of population. However,

programmed to avoid duplications. Stagnant by 20 of population. However, each louver/window each louver/window

type is composed with 125 cases in this research, and the maximum value of fitness could be found

type is composed with 125 cases in this research, and the maximum value of fitness could be found

within ten generations.

within ten generations.

3. Result

3. Result

Table 5 shows the results of fitness (the ratio of analysis grid surface area having a DF value of

Table 5 shows the results of fitness (the ratio of analysis grid surface area having a DF value of

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 8 of 16

type is composed with 125 cases in this research, and the maximum value of fitness could be found

within ten generations.

3. Result

Table 5 shows the results of fitness (the ratio of analysis grid surface area having a DF value of

2% to 5%) by manual judgment against optimal fitness data from Galapagos. A total of 30 people

ran the simulation, ten times for each louver or window type, to reach the highest fitness values.

The average person’s data for each trial were compared, and the result (Table 5) includes the maximum

and minimum of average, range, and standard deviation value from the average of the ten simulations.

In order to compare the ratios to approach the maximum value for each type of louver or window

under the same conditions, the original data need to be adjusted. The maximum fitness value for

each type results from using Galapagos. Therefore, each type’s fitness is adjusted to 100 based on

the Galapagos result for the comparison. Similarly, the other type’s fitness was also readjusted by

applying the same ratio. The maximum of the average values for manual input ranges from 65% to

94%, and the minimum values of the average ranges from 32% to 87% compared to the optimization

value by Galapagos. Among the six types, the vertical louver type reached the highest value (94%)

by manual input, and the Voronoi screen type reached the lowest value (65%). The horizontal louver

type has the highest average range (51%), and the random vertical and random horizontal louver

type have the lowest average (3%). The average of the SD (standard deviation) of each trial ranges

from 6 to 27. The horizontal louver type has the highest average of SD (27%) and the random vertical

louver type has the lowest average of SD (6%). The maximum fitness value from the Galapagos

optimization method ranges from 44% to 86%. The horizontal louver type has the highest value (86%),

and the Voronoi screen type has the lowest value (44%). The minimum original fitness value from the

Galapagos optimization method ranges from 0% to 36%.

Fitness Value (%) Max. of Min. of Max.

Aver. SD Min.

Louver/WindowType Avg. Avg. Parameter Value

Horizontal 86

83 32 27 0

(Type 1) 0/5/5

Vertical 46

94 76 9 26

(Type 2) 0/11/6, 0/13/0

Random horizontal 75

70 67 16 20

(Type 3) 5/11/0.35

Random vertical 47

90 87 6 36

(Type 4) 11/5/0.2

Delaunay 47

79 61 19 6

(Type 5) 0.65/30/2

Voronoi 44

(Type 6) 65 55 18 0

0.2/10/4, 0.2/10/5

The result of the experiment in which participants find optimal values by adjusting input

parameters manually is illustrated in Figures 4–6. Each graph shows the optimal value from

125 combinations of variables and the average value of ten tries by 30 participants. In the case

of horizontal and vertical louver types, the more tries that are undertaken, the more optimal values

are obtained (Figure 4). As an example, in the horizontal louver, the value of the first try was 36.

This rose to 83 at the tenth try, which is an improvement of 2.3 times the original value. After ten

repeated experiments, 83 was reached, which is 83% of the maximum value 86 from 125 combinations.

In the vertical louver, the value of the first try was 76, which rose to 94 at the tenth try, which is

an improvement of 1.2 times. After ten repeated experiments, 94 was reached, which is 94% of the

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 9 of 16

maximum value 46 from 125 combinations. Participants learned the linear relationship between

optimized output values and input parameters after repeated efforts. This test confirms that two

types of louvers and windows are composed of linear input parameters, and the average value of 30

participants approaches the maximum value gradually. In other words, as the number of tries increases,

participants become able to predict the results, and the most optimized facade design becomes possible.

The minimum to maximum value of fitness spectrum of the horizontal louver type is larger than the

vertical louver’s spectrum. It is interpreted that the combination of three input parameters influences

the fitness values more critically in the horizontal louver type. The average values show that vertical

is nearer the maximum value than horizontal. The basic fitness values are high regardless of input

parameters. In addition, the variances of the horizontal louver are larger than those of the vertical

louver, which

Sustainability 2016,is8,the

1220unique characteristic of those louver types. As the louver is facing south in the

9 of 16

base model of the experiment, daylight control of the horizontal louver is excellent compared to the

vertical louver.

is excellent Therefore,

compared thevertical

to the weight louver.

of the horizontal

Therefore,louver is larger

the weight of than the verticallouver

the horizontal louverisfor the

larger

input parameters.

than the vertical louver for the input parameters.

Figure 4.

Figure 4. Horizontal

Horizontal louver

louver vs.

vs. Vertical louver.

Vertical louver.

However, the results of the random horizontal and random vertical with non-linear components

However, the results of the random horizontal and random vertical with non-linear components

remain steady regardless of the number of calculations (Figure 5). In the case of the random

remain steady regardless of the number of calculations (Figure 5). In the case of the random horizontal

horizontal and random vertical, as the relationship between fitness and input parameters is non-

and random vertical, as the relationship between fitness and input parameters is non-linear, unlike the

linear, unlike the horizontal and vertical, the graph runs parallel to the x-axis. The random horizontal

horizontal and vertical, the graph runs parallel to the x-axis. The random horizontal louver shows that

louver shows that the values of the first and tenth try are 70 and 69, respectively. The variance ranges

the values of the first and tenth try are 70 and 69, respectively. The variance ranges from 67 minimum

from 67 minimum to 70 maximum overall. It only reaches 70% of 75, the maximum of 125

to 70 maximum overall. It only reaches 70% of 75, the maximum of 125 combinations. The random

combinations. The random vertical louver shows that the difference between the first and tenth try is

vertical louver shows that the difference between the first and tenth try is negligible, 87 for the first,

negligible, 87 for the first, and 89 for the tenth, respectively. Overall, the minimum value is 87 and

and 89 for the tenth, respectively. Overall, the minimum value is 87 and the maximum is 90. However,

the maximum is 90. However, it reaches 90% of 47, the maximum of 125 combinations. The reason is

it reaches 90% of 47, the maximum of 125 combinations. The reason is that the relationship between

that the relationship between optimized output values and input parameters is unclear. Therefore,

optimized output values and input parameters is unclear. Therefore, this unpredictability makes it

this unpredictability makes it difficult to improve fitness value toward the optimization. Due to

difficult to improve fitness value toward the optimization. Due to irrelevancy, it is not useful when

irrelevancy, it is not useful when input parameters are adjusted manually.

input parameters are adjusted manually.

Lastly, in the cases of the Delaunay and Voronoi screen types, which include non-linear

Lastly, in the cases of the Delaunay and Voronoi screen types, which include non-linear

components, the optimized values are not achievable since the relationship between optimized

components, the optimized values are not achievable since the relationship between optimized output

output values and input parameters are neither concrete nor predictable (Figure 6). The Delaunay

values and input parameters are neither concrete nor predictable (Figure 6). The Delaunay screen type

screen type shows that the first try results in 61, and 79 occurs at the tenth try, which is an

shows that the first try results in 61, and 79 occurs at the tenth try, which is an improvement of 1.3 times.

improvement of 1.3 times. After the tenth try, it reaches 79% of 47, the maximum value of 125

After the tenth try, it reaches 79% of 47, the maximum value of 125 combinations. The Voronoi screen

combinations. The Voronoi screen type indicates that the first try results in 65, while the tenth try

type indicates that the first try results in 65, while the tenth try gives a lower value of 64. When the

gives a lower value of 64. When the unit sizes are compared between the Delaunay and Voronoi

screen types, the Delaunay pattern has lower average values than the Voronoi pattern (Figure 7). The

Delaunay pattern is more advantageous over the Voronoi pattern for the fact that subtle facade

adjustment is possible and light is diffused evenly over the facade. Therefore, fitness values of the

Delaunay screen type are larger than those of the Voronoi screen type.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 10 of 16

unit sizes are compared between the Delaunay and Voronoi screen types, the Delaunay pattern has

lower average values than the Voronoi pattern (Figure 7). The Delaunay pattern is more advantageous

over the Voronoi pattern for the fact that subtle facade adjustment is possible and light is diffused

evenly over the facade. Therefore, fitness values of the Delaunay screen type are larger than those of

the Voronoi screen type.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 10 of 16

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 10 of 16

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 10 of 16

Figure 5. Random horizontal louver vs. Random vertical louver.

Figure 5. Random horizontal louver vs. Random vertical louver.

Figure 5. Random horizontal louver vs. Random vertical louver.

Figure 6. Delaunay screen type vs. Voronoi screen type.

Figure 6. Delaunay

Figure 6. Delaunayscreen typevs.

screen type vs.Voronoi

Voronoi screen

screen type.type.

Figure 7. Unit size variation by panel division of Delaunay window screen vs. Voronoi screen type.

Figure 7. Unit size variation by panel division of Delaunay window screen vs. Voronoi screen type.

Figure

seen7. size

Unit size variation by panel division

results ofofDelaunay windowsixscreen vs.types

Voronoi screen type.

FigureAs7. Unit in Table 6, theby

variation statistical

panel division of the previous

Delaunay window louver

screen were

vs. Voronoiplotted.

screenThetype.

horizontal and vertical louver types have relatively high R-squared value, 0.585

As seen in Table 6, the statistical results of the previous six louver types were plotted. and 0.301, which

The

As seen

indicates

horizontalthat

andin Table

those two

vertical6,louver

the statistical

types are results

on have

types the of theline.

regression

relatively previous

high The six louver

coefficient

R-squared types

values

value, were

0.585of plotted.

those

and The

two which

0.301, types

Ashorizontal

seen

seem inthat

to be

indicates

Table

and 6,two

vertical

significant

those bythe

the statistical

louver types

p-value

types have

are ontest,

results

theshowing

of

relatively

regressiontheythe

highhave

line.

previous

R-squared

Thea much sixvalues

value,

more

coefficient

louver types

0.585relationship.

linear ofand 0.301,

those

were

twowhich

types

plotted.

The horizontal

seem to beand

indicates that vertical

those

significanttwo louver

types

by the are types

on

p-value the have relatively

regression

test, showing they have high

line. Thea muchR-squared

more linear value,

coefficient values of those 0.585 and 0.301,

two

relationship. types

seem to be significant by the p-value test, showing they have a much more linear relationship.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 11 of 16

which indicates that those two types are on the regression line. The coefficient values of those two

types seem to be significant by the p-value test, showing they have a much more linear relationship.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 11 of 16

Coefficients (S.E.)

six louver/window types. p-Value

Horizontal

Type 5.71 **

Coefficients 23.04

Constant (0.28)

(S.E.) 0.001

p-Value

R-squared: 0.585

Horizontal

Vertical 5.71 ** 23.04 (0.28) 0.001

R-squared: 0.585 1.96 ** 73.71 (0.17) 0.001

R-squared: 0.301

Vertical

Random horizontal 1.96 ** 73.71 (0.17) 0.001

R-squared: 0.301 −0.14 69.60 (0.32) 0.65

R-squared: 0.001

Random horizontal

Random vertical −0.14 69.60 (0.32) 0.65

R-squared: 0.001 0.19 87.57 (0.12) 0.12

R-squared: 0.008

Random vertical

Delaunay 0.008 0.19 87.57 (0.12) 0.12

R-squared: 1.53 ** 64.93 (0.39) 0.001

R-squared: 0.049

Delaunay

1.53 ** 64.93 (0.39) 0.001

Voronoi 0.049

R-squared:

−0.47 63.10 (0.36) 0.19

R-squared: 0.006

Voronoi

−0.47

**: p < 0.01.

63.10 (0.36) 0.19

R-squared: 0.006

**: p < 0.01.

3.2. Genetic Algorithm Optimization Methods Using Galapagos

3.2. Genetic Algorithm Optimization Methods Using Galapagos

The results of using Galapagos for the six types of facades are as follows: The row on the left

The results of using Galapagos for the six types of facades are as follows: The row on the left

shows the input parameters’ combination of 125 cases (genome combination). The row on the right

shows the input parameters’ combination of 125 cases (genome combination). The row on the right

indicates the input parameters’ combination of the upper 10% fitness values (Figure 8).

indicates the input parameters’ combination of the upper 10% fitness values (Figure 8).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 8. Cont.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 12 of 16

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 12 of 16

(i) (j)

(k) (l)

Figure 8. Galapagos results. (a) Horizontal louver (Type 1); (b) Horizontal louver (Type 1)—Top 10%;

Figure 8. Galapagos results. (a) Horizontal louver (Type 1); (b) Horizontal louver (Type 1)—Top 10%;

(c) Vertical louver (Type 2); (d) Vertical louver (Type 2)—Top 10%; (e) Random horizontal (Type 3);

(c) Vertical louverhorizontal

(f) Random (Type 2);(Type

(d) Vertical louver

3)—Top 10%; (Type 2)—Top

(g) Random 10%; (Type

vertical louver (e) Random horizontal

4); (h) Random (Type 3);

vertical

(f) Random

louverhorizontal

(Type 4)—Top(Type 3)—Top

10%; 10%;pattern

(i) Delaunay (g) Random vertical

(Type 5); louver

(j) Delaunay (Type(Type

pattern 4); (h) Random

5)—Top 10%;vertical

(k) Voronoi

louver (Type 4)—Toppattern screen;

10%; (i) (l) Voronoi pattern

Delaunay patternscreen—Top

(Type 5); 10%.

(j) Delaunay pattern (Type 5)—Top 10%;

(k) Voronoi pattern screen; (l) Voronoi pattern screen—Top 10%.

The area with black dots on the left is a genome map (combination map). Each point refers to a

gene (a parameter), and the distance between genes refers to a relationship. A genome (parameter

The area with black

combination) is madedots

up ofonnumerous

the left is a genome

genes. mapis(combination

If a genome decomposed into map). Each

N genes, thepoint refers to a

distance

gene (a count

parameter), andisthe

of two genes distance between

N-dimensional, which meansgenesthatrefers tocases

all the a relationship.

are a count ofA“Ngenome

raised to(parameter

the

power of

combination) isN” [38].up of numerous genes. If a genome is decomposed into N genes, the distance

made

It is impossible to render N-dimensional values with a two-dimensional plane. Therefore, this

count of two genes is N-dimensional, which means that all the cases are a count of “N raised to the

genome map only shows approximate relationships between genes. The definitive information on

power of N” [38].

this map is how similar genes are, and how different they are. The relationship of genes is shown as

It is

theimpossible to point

distance. If each render N-dimensional

is grouped valuesit means

in a single point, with that

a two-dimensional plane. Therefore,

the number of combinations of

this genome map only

parameters shows

that make upapproximate relationships

the louver is less. However, if between genes.

each point The definitive

is distributed information on

across multiple

this map points,

is how it means

similarthat thereare,

genes are fewer

and howparameters

different of the combination

they of parametersof

are. The relationship to genes

achieveisthe

shown as

optimal illumination of the parameters, i.e., the optimized illumination environment.

the distance. If each point is grouped in a single point, it means that the number of combinations of

parameters that make

According to up the8,louver

Figure is less.

the horizontal axisHowever, if eachi.e.,point

is each parameter, count,isangle,

distributed

depth. Theacross

verticalmultiple

axis points,

is the

it means that number

there areoffewer

cases (5parameters

× 5 × 5) for eachof

parameter. The upper 10%

the combination ofresults for each type

parameters to confirm

achieve thethe optimal

aggregation parts. It is apparent that the upper 10% fitness parameter combination gives only one

illumination of the parameters, i.e., the optimized illumination environment.

kind in the case of the horizontal louver (Type 1) (Figure 8a). On the contrary, the different vertical

louver types have diverse upper 10% fitness parameters. The random vertical louver (Figure 8h)

According to Figure 8, the horizontal axis is each parameter, i.e., count, angle, depth.

provides six kinds of parameter combinations. In summary, the Galapagos results show that the

The vertical axis islouver

random vertical the number of cases

has more design (5 × 5than

alternatives × 5)thefor each parameter.

horizontal The

louver when it is upper

set to find 10%

resultsthe

forupper

each10%

type confirm

fitness values. the aggregation parts. It is apparent that the upper 10% fitness

parameter combination gives only one kind in the case of the horizontal louver (Type 1)

4. Conclusions

(Figure 8a). On the contrary, the different vertical louver types have diverse upper 10%

fitnessAparameters.

feasibility study

The on parametric

random optimization

vertical of daylighting

louver (Figure was performed,

8h) provides six kindsand the main

of parameter

findings can be summarized as follows:

combinations. In summary, the Galapagos results show that the random vertical louver

has more designdesign

Parametric alternatives than

technology tothe horizontal

create louver

optimal indoor whenconditions

lighting it is set tobyfind the upper

adjusting 10%

shading

fitnessshapes can help to improve daylighting quality in early design stages.

values.

Conventional methods which depend on designers’ experience and knowledge can sufficiently

be applied with computer simulation techniques in several design types, notably horizontal and

4. Conclusions

vertical louver types, which represent linear relationships in daylight simulation.

A feasibility study on parametric optimization of daylighting was performed, and the main

findings can be summarized as follows:

• Parametric design technology to create optimal indoor lighting conditions by adjusting shading

shapes can help to improve daylighting quality in early design stages.

• Conventional methods which depend on designers’ experience and knowledge can sufficiently

be applied with computer simulation techniques in several design types, notably horizontal and

vertical louver types, which represent linear relationships in daylight simulation.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 13 of 16

• Computer-assisted daylight simulation can help and assist the conventional approach, which can

be maximized when dealing with large amounts of data and non-liner algorithms such as in the

case of random,

Sustainability Delaunay, and Voronoi.

2016, 8, 1220 13 of 16

When Computer-assisted

the experimentdaylight simulation

is executed can help

manually, it and assist thetoconventional

is possible approach, which

find the relationship between

parameters and fitness. However, when the cases of parameter combination are large such

can be maximized when dealing with large amounts of data and non-liner algorithms and as in

complex,

the case of random, Delaunay, and Voronoi.

it takes considerable time to obtain the results, or sometimes it is difficult to reach optimal values.

While theWhenrelationship betweenisparameters

the experiment and fitness

executed manually, it isispossible

unobtainable

to find using the geneticbetween

the relationship algorithms

parametersitand

of Galapagos, fitness. However,

is effective to find thewhen the cases of parameter

combination of parameters combination

to reach are alarge and fitness

certain complex,value.

it takes considerable

In particular, it is useful whentime tothe

obtain

numberthe results, or sometimes

of parameters it isand

is large difficult to reach optimal

the combination values.

or algorithm is

While the relationship between parameters and fitness is unobtainable

complex. Moreover, the optimization method using Galapagos provides various design alternatives using the genetic algorithms

of Galapagos, it is effective to find the combination of parameters to reach a certain fitness value. In

in a scientific manner, which is executable on a personal computer. However, the downside is that

particular, it is useful when the number of parameters is large and the combination or algorithm is

the optimization method using Galapagos still needs the same amount of time even if the number of

complex. Moreover, the optimization method using Galapagos provides various design alternatives

combinations is small.

in a scientific manner,In that case,

which it is necessary

is executable on ato set population

personal computer. and generation

However, values in Galapagos.

the downside is that

The calculation

the optimization method using Galapagos still needs the same amount of time even and

continues until a certain number of calculations, i.e., population if thegeneration,

number of are

reached. In other words,

combinations is small. even if thecase,

In that combinations of parameters

it is necessary are found

to set population andtogeneration

produce the upper

values in 10%

or above of fitness,

Galapagos. The the calculation

calculation continues.

continues until a Therefore,

certain number as seen in this experiment,

of calculations, when the

i.e., population and total

numbergeneration,

of casesare is reached.

only 125,Initother

mightwords, even if the to

be inefficient combinations

use Galapagos. of parameters are found

Nevertheless, thetooptimization

produce

the upper 10% or above of fitness, the calculation continues. Therefore, as

method is useful for the fact that it is accessible without special skills or experience in daylighting seen in this experiment,

when

design. the total number

A designer of cases is only

with insufficient 125, it might

knowledge be inefficient

of computer to use Galapagos.

programming can applyNevertheless, the in

facade design

optimization method is useful for the fact that it is accessible without special skills or experience in

a logical procedure. Instant views of results enable designers to develop their initial designs further,

daylighting design. A designer with insufficient knowledge of computer programming can apply

making Grasshopper a useful resource.

facade design in a logical procedure. Instant views of results enable designers to develop their initial

Currently,

designs further,buildings

makingare designedausing

Grasshopper useful computers

resource. and various software, as for daylighting.

NURBS orCurrently,

randomized patterns

buildings which might

are designed using have been hard

computers to implement

and various software,previously, can now be

as for daylighting.

applied.

NURBSTherefore, this research

or randomized patternshas revealed

which might how thosehard

have been shading design methods

to implement previously,are canevaluated

now be by

comparing

applied. computer-aided simulations

Therefore, this research with conventional

has revealed how those shading ones. design methods are evaluated by

comparing computer-aided simulations with conventional ones.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning

Research Foundation ofIl Hyun

(NRF-2014R1A1A1002268). Korea Whang,

(NRF) funded by the

a student MinistryUniversity,

of Hongik of Science,assisted

ICT & in

Future Planning of

the collection (NRF-

materials.

2014R1A1A1002268). Il Hyun Whang, a student of Hongik University, assisted in the collection of materials.

Author Contributions: Kyung Sun Lee and Jae Wook Lee conceived and designed the experiments; Ki Jun Han

Author

performed theContributions:

experiments;Kyung

KyungSun

SunLee

Leeand JaeJae

and Wook LeeLee

Wook conceived andthe

analyzed designed theJun

data; Ki experiments; Ki Jun Han

Han contributed analysis

tools; performed

Kyung Sunthe Leeexperiments; Kyung

and Jae Wook LeeSun Leethe

wrote andpaper.

Jae Wook Lee analyzed the data; Ki Jun Han contributed

analysis tools; Kyung Sun Lee and Jae Wook Lee wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 14 of 16

Sustainability 2016,

Sustainability 8, 8,

2016, 1220

1220 1416

14 of of 16

(e)

(e)

Figure A1. The procedure for making the Delaunay pattern. (a) Selecting surface for analysis;

Figure A1. The procedure for making the Delaunay pattern. (a) Selecting surface for analysis;

Figure A1. Theseed

(b) Selecting procedure for making

points (Pattern the Delaunay

parameter, pattern. (a) (c)

Random parameter); Selecting

Creatingsurface for pattern

Delaunay analysis;

(b) Selecting seed points (Pattern parameter, Random parameter); (c) Creating Delaunay pattern

(b)division;

Selecting

(d)seed points

Removing (Patterncells

Delaunay parameter, Random parameter);

by WWR parameter; (c) material:

(e) Application Creatingglass

Delaunay pattern

(80% visible

division; (d)(d)

division; Removing

RemovingDelaunay

transmittance)/wall Delaunay

(50%

cells

cells by

reflectance).by WWR parameter;(e)

WWR parameter; (e)Application

Applicationmaterial:

material: glass

glass (80%

(80% visible

visible

transmittance)/wall (50% reflectance).

transmittance)/wall (50% reflectance).

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure A2. The procedure for making the Voronoi pattern. (a) Selecting surface for analysis; (b)

Selecting seed points (Pattern parameter, Random

(e)parameter); (c) Creating Voronoi pattern division;

(d) Removing Voronoi cells by WWR parameter; (e) Application material: glass (80% visible

Figure A2. The procedure

transmittance)/wall for making the Voronoi pattern. (a) Selecting surface for analysis; (b)

(50% reflectance).

Figure A2. The procedure for making the Voronoi pattern. (a) Selecting surface for analysis;

Selecting seed points (Pattern parameter, Random parameter); (c) Creating Voronoi pattern division;

(b) Selecting seed points (Pattern parameter, Random parameter); (c) Creating Voronoi pattern

(d) Removing Voronoi cells by WWR parameter; (e) Application material: glass (80% visible

division; (d) Removing Voronoi cells by WWR parameter; (e) Application material: glass (80% visible

transmittance)/wall (50% reflectance).

transmittance)/wall (50% reflectance).

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 15 of 16

References

1. Lo, K. A critical review of China’s rapidly developing renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 508–516. [CrossRef]

2. Deal, B.; Schunk, D. Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: A simulation approach

to assessing the costs of urban sprawl. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 51, 79–95. [CrossRef]

3. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build.

2008, 40, 394–398. [CrossRef]

4. Boubekri, M.; Hull, R.B.; Boyer, L.L. Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers’

mood and satisfaction a novel way of assessing sunlight. Environ. Behav. 1991, 23, 474–493. [CrossRef]

5. Boubekri, M. Daylighting, Architecture and Health; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2008.

6. Boyce, P.; Hunter, C.; Howlett, O. The Benefits of Daylight through Windows; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute:

Troy, NY, USA, 2003.

7. Reinhart, C.F.; Mardaljevic, J.; Rogers, Z. Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building

design. Leukos 2006, 3, 7–31.

8. Munaaim, M.A.C.; Al-Obaidi, K.M.; Ismail, M.R.; Rahman, A.M.A. Empirical evaluation of the effect of heat

gain from fiber optic daylighting system on tropical building interiors. Sustainability 2014, 6, 9231–9243.

[CrossRef]

9. Lee, K.S.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.S. Low-energy design methods and its implementation in architectural practice:

Strategies for energy-efficient housing of various densities in temperate climates. J. Green Build. 2013, 8,

164–183. [CrossRef]

10. Augenbroe, G. Integrated building performance evaluation in the early design stages. Build. Environ. 1992,

27, 149–161. [CrossRef]

11. Cheong, C.H.; Kim, T.; Leigh, S.B. Thermal and daylighting performance of energy-efficient windows in

highly glazed residential buildings: Case study in Korea. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7311–7333. [CrossRef]

12. Piderit Moreno, M.B.; Labarca, C.Y. Methodology for Assessing Daylighting Design Strategies in Classroom

with a Climate-Based Method. Sustainability 2015, 7, 880–897. [CrossRef]

13. Jakubiec, J.A.; Reinhart, C.F. DIVA 2.0: Integrating daylight and thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D,

Daysim and EnergyPlus. In Proceedings of Building Simulation 2011: 12th Conference of International

Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, Australia, 14–16 November 2011; Volume 20,

pp. 2202–2209.

14. Bourgeois, D.; Reinhart, C.; Macdonald, I. Adding advanced behavioural models in whole building energy

simulation: A study on the total energy impact of manual and automated lighting control. Energy Build.

2006, 38, 814–823. [CrossRef]

15. Crawley, D.B.; Lawrie, L.K.; Winkelmann, F.C.; Buhl, W.F.; Huang, Y.J.; Pedersen, C.O.; Glazer, J. EnergyPlus:

Creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy Build. 2001, 33, 319–331. [CrossRef]

16. Lee, J.W.; Jung, H.J.; Park, J.Y.; Lee, J.B.; Yoon, Y. Optimization of building window system in Asian regions

by analyzing solar heat gain and daylighting elements. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 522–531. [CrossRef]

17. Caldas, L.G.; Norford, L.K. A design optimization tool based on a genetic algorithm. Autom. Constr. 2002, 11,

173–184. [CrossRef]

18. Iqbal, I.; Al-Homoud, M.S. Parametric analysis of alternative energy conservation measures in an office

building in hot and humid climate. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2166–2177. [CrossRef]

19. Attia, S.; Gratia, E.; De Herde, A.; Hensen, J.L. Simulation-based decision support tool for early stages of

zero-energy building design. Energy Build. 2012, 49, 2–15. [CrossRef]

20. Ward, G.; Shakespeare, R. Rendering with Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting Visualization; Morgan

Kaufmann Publishers: Burlington, MA, USA, 1998.

21. Blackwell, O.M.; Blackwell, H.R. Individual responses to lighting parameters for a population of 235

observers of varying ages. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 1980, 9, 205–232. [CrossRef]

22. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; de Masi, R.F.; Mauro, G.M.; Vanoli, G.P. Design of the building envelope: A novel

multi-objective approach for the optimization of energy performance and thermal comfort. Sustainability

2015, 7, 10809–10836. [CrossRef]

23. Sadeghzadeh, H.; Aliehyaei, M.; Rosen, M.A. Optimization of a Finned Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger

Using a Multi-Objective Optimization Genetic Algorithm. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11679–11695. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1220 16 of 16

24. Turkson, R.F.; Yan, F.; Ali, M.K.A.; Liu, B.; Hu, J. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of engine

performance and hydrocarbon emissions via the use of a computer aided engineering code and the NSGA-II

genetic algorithm. Sustainability 2016, 8, 72. [CrossRef]

25. IES Daylight Metrics Committee. IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE),

Daylight Metrics Committee. Approved Method IES LM-83-12; Illuminating Engineering Society of North

America: New York, NY, USA, 2012.

26. Website of Solemma. Available online: http://www.solemma.net/DIVA-for-Rhino/DIVA-for-Rhino.html

(accessed on 14 October 2016).

27. Ismail, E.D.; Ibrahim, N.; Hajar, N.H. Daylight Factor on Natural Lighting Analysis Simulation of an

Adaptive Reuse Building: Penaga Hotel, Penang. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2016, 22, 1120–1124. [CrossRef]

28. Galatioto, A.; Beccali, M. Aspects and issues of daylighting assessment: A review study. Renew. Sustain.

Energy Rev. 2016, 66, 852–860. [CrossRef]

29. Building Research Establishment. BREEAM—The BRE Environmental Assessment Method. Available online:

http://www.breeam.org (accessed on 12 October 2016).

30. Kudryashova, A. Certification Schemes for Sustainable Buildings: Assessment of BREEAM, LEED and

LBC from a Strategic Sustainable Development Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology,

Blekinge, Sweden, 2015.

31. Lim, Y.W. Building Information Modeling for Indoor Environmental Performance Analysis. Am. J.

Environ. Sci. 2015, 11, 55–61. [CrossRef]

32. CASBEE for Building (New Construction). 2014 Edition. Available online: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/

english/ (accessed on 12 October 2016).

33. Day Lighting Rules of Thumb. Available online: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/gsdsquare/

Publications/DiffuseDaylightingDesignSequenceTutorial.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2015).

34. CIBSE Lighting Guide. 10: Daylighting and Window Design; The Chartered Institution of Building Services

Engineers: London, UK, 1999.

35. British Standards Institution. Available online: http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/GPG245.pdf (accessed on

5 January 2016).

36. LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/

General/Docs1095.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2016).

37. Yi, Y.K.; Kim, H. Agent-based geometry optimization with Genetic Algorithm (GA) for tall apartment’s solar

right. Sol. Energy 2015, 113, 236–250. [CrossRef]

38. Rutten, D. Galapagos: On the logic and limitations of generic solvers. Arch. Des. 2013, 83, 132–135. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access

article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution

(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.