Integrating Natural Ventilation Within An Optimization Process of Energy Performance in The Early Design Stage

Integrating Natural Ventilation
within an optimization process

of energy performance
in the
early design stage
Antonio DAquilio
Integrating Natural Ventilation

within an optimization process
of energy performance
in the
early design stage
MSc Building Technology | Building Physics
Student:
Antonio DAquilio - 4328116

ant.daquilio@gmail.com
First mentor:
Dr. MSc Arch. Michela Turrin

M.Turrin@tudelft.nl
Second mentor:
Third mentor:
Dr. Regina M. J. Bokel

R.M.J.Bokel@tudelft.nl
Dr. Craig L. Martin
C.L.Martin@tudelft.nl
MSc Thesis 2015

TU Delft - Faculty of Architecture - Department of Building Technology
Preface
This research is the final work for the degree of Master of Science in Building Technology, in the faculty of
Architecture at Delft University of Technology. For the development of this study I have been supervised by
my mentors Dr. MSc Arch. Michela Turrin, Dr. Regina M. J. Bokel and Dr. Craig L. Martin.
Arup (Amsterdam) and specifically the MEP team provided the information regarding the case study and
helped me in the latest developments of the work by giving me feedback and suggestions.
Antonio DAquilio,
July 2015, Delft, the Netherlands
Acknowledgements
There are many people that supported my research and contributed in different ways and that I would like
to thank.
For her continuous support I would like to thank my first mentor Michela Turrin. From the very beginning
she has been keen to help me in every aspect and her guidance was fundamental for the development of
this research and my professional development.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Regina Bokel. Thanks to her support I managed to overcome the
technical problems and to restrain the boundaries of my investigation within manageable limits.
I wish to thank Craig Martin. His critical point of view was very helpful in approaching the architectural
aspects within my investigation.
I would like to thank the people from Arup that I have been guided by in the latest developments of my
thesis, especially Rachid Abu-Hassan, Alex Christodoulou and Mark Koks and the whole MEP team, which I
have been working with for the last months. Their feedback made me reconsider some important aspects
and the way to present and effectively explain my research.
I would like to thank my parents, Domenico and Laura and my sister Marta. Their daily support and presence always pushed me to higher goals, always with love and pride.
I would like to thank Thalia, who shared with me the problems and the beautiful moments of this journey.
Without her patience and support I would not have made it through.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Problem statement and Research question

1.3 Aims and Focus of this research

1.4 Methodology
11
12
13
13
14
2 Background Research

2.1 Precedent works

2.2 Sustainable design aspects

2.3 Passive design strategies

2.4 Building Performance Simulation (BPS)

2.5 Building Performance Optimization (BPO)

2.6 Conclusions
17
18
24
28
31
33
36
3 Integrated optimization process

3.1 What this integrated optimization process is and what is not

3.2 Principle

3.3 Methodology

3.4 Performance evaluation criteria

3.5 Office building performance requirements

3.6 Objective functions

3.7 Design variables

3.8 Design constraints

3.9 Optimization algorithm selection

3.10 Steps of the computational algorithmic process

3.11 Evaluation tools

3.12 Grasshopper definition

3.13 Conclusions
39
40
40
41
42
43
44
44
47
48
48
51
51
52
4 Heating&Cooling need components

4.1 ISO 13790

4.2 Calculation model

4.3 Workflow

4.4 Calculation components development

4.5 Conclusions

4.6 Recommendations
53
54
55
60
60
64
64
5 Natural Ventilation solver components

5.1 Introduction


5.3 Workflow


5.5 Comparison with Oasys BEANS (Arup built-in software)

5.6 Comparison with CoolVent (MIT software)

5.7 Overview comparisons and Conclusions

5.8 Recommendations
65
66
67
72
72
78
80
85
86
6 Case Study - part 1: Introduction

6.1 Location

6.2 The Atrium Building

6.3 Building program

6.4 Site analysis

6.5 Current problems

6.6 Conclusions
87
88
89
89
91
92
94
7 Case study - part 2: Whole building optimization

7.1 Methodology

7.2 Optimization strategies

7.3 Evaluation criteria and objective functions

7.4 Base case analysis

7.5 Improvement of the calculations for heating and cooling

7.6 Optimization study

7.7 Comparisons of results and Conclusions

7.8 Recommendations
95
96
97
101
103
105
106
120
121
8 Case study - part 3: Optimization of Atrium A





8.5 Comparisons of results and conclusions
123
124
126
128
130
138
9 Comments from architectural and engineering firms

9.1 Questionnaire to UNStudio
9.2 Questionnaire to Arup
9.3 Conclusions
141
142
143
144
Conclusions
145
Recommendations
149
Bibliography
151
Table of images
155
Appendix A
159
Appendix B
163
Appendix C
175
Acronyms
AFN: Airflow Network
BPO: Building Performance Optimization
BPS: Building Performance Simulation
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics
EA: Evolutionary Algorithm
EPW: EnergyPlus Weather data file
GH: Grasshopper, plugin for Rhinoceros
GA: Genetic Algorithm
HB: Honeybee, plugin for Grasshopper
IOP: Integrated Optimization Process
LB: Ladybug, plugin for Grasshopper
MOO: Multi-objective optimization
PMV: Predicted Mean Vote
PPD: Percentage of People Dissatisfied
UDI: Useful Daylight Illuminance
UDI*: Useful Daylight Illuminance (with approximation principle applied to the case study)
WWR: Window to Wall Ratio
ZEB: Zero Energy Building
1.1 Introduction
Energy used in buildings accounts for about 40% of the total co2 emissions of the developed countries
(Prez-Lombard, Ortiz et al. 2008). However, it was indicated that buildings have the highest potential in
reduction of co2 emissions with the lowest costs (IPCC 2007). Many regulatory and incentives are helping
in pushing new buildings design towards sustainability. For example, the recast Directive on the Energy
Performance of Buildings (EPBD) introduced new directions that require all new buildings to be nearly
zero energy buildings (nZEB) by 2020.
In general, office buildings are more energy consuming than other building typologies. Energy Use Intensity (EUI) in office buildings is within the range of 100 to 1000 kWh/m2a, depending on the location of the
buildings, building dimensions, and the number and types of equipment used in the office buildings. For
example, in USA, the average EUI has achieved 300 kWh/m2a, and about 79% of this is due to lighting and
ventilation alone. In UK, 72% of the total energy is needed for these two building services (Siew C.C. 2011).
In the Netherlands, the energy use of trade and commercial offices is the highest of the building sector
(ECN 2012).
Decisions made in the early stage of the design process can have huge impacts on the future performance
of a building. For example, making the right decision for the orientation of the building can save up to 40%
of the energy consumption, with no extra costs. (Commission 1999)
Therefore, the design process is recognized as fundamental for energy performance goals. However, the
design of energy performing buildings is not straight-forward. The design process becomes complex because of many competing objectives that are not easy to be handled by the designer (for example, thermal
and daylight performances). An approach called simulation-based optimization uses simulation tools for
the evaluation of building performance, and an optimization algorithm for optimal solution search. The
good points of computational optimization of buildings in the early stages are the following:

It informs the design process and gives evaluation of design strategies.

It is able to handle big amount of data (coming from different parameters involved into the design) and extract useful information from data.

Provides a number of valuable solutions for engineering problems related to competing performances of a design.
Because of the improvements achieved in the field of computer science, between 1980s and 1990s this approach began to be applied. However, the number of research papers on optimization of buildings started
increasing sharply only after 2005 (Evins 2013).
Up to date, many studies and design of high performance buildings using optimization techniques have
been done. Many of them focused only on one or some of the problems related to the buildings optimization for energy efficiency. Sahu et al., for example, minimized energy demand with a Genetic algorithm by
using as parameters the construction elements, for an air-conditioned building in a tropical climate; Holst
minimized the energy use and the thermal comfort metric of Percentage of People Dissatisfied (PPD) by
optimizing the window area and types and thermal properties of the envelope (with EnergyPlus), and so
on.
Also various studies considering all the design variables to minimize the energy use (Holistic approach)
have been conducted, such as: Peippo et al., Evins et al., Pountney et al., Salminen et al. and more.
Although these holistic optimization processes have taken into consideration most of all the variables related to the energy consumption in buildings, they lack the potential of natural ventilation for thermal
comfort and for the reduction of energy use due to mechanical ventilation and cooling systems (HVAC).
Important for the efficiency of the ventilation strategy is its optimization in early stages of a design, where
decision that will affect natural ventilation effectiveness and other aspects are taken into account. These
main decisions regard the building forms, openings and building orientation (Ghiaus and Allard 2005). In
the few examples of optimization studies involving natural ventilation, the common strategy is to model it
as scheduled rates, without considering the efficiency of the design in providing natural airflow.
12
31
Comfort temprerature (C)
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
10
15
20
Mean operative outdoor temperature (C)
25
30
Fig. 1.1: Comfort with natural ventilation, adaptive model
Up to date, only a small number of academic studies were conducted on the optimization of natural ventilation strategies in the early design stage together with simulation for daylight and energy use. One reason for this can be the lack of fast simulation tools for the early design stage. This is especially true if we
consider the need of a large number of evaluations needed in this particular phase of the design process.
1.2 Problem statement and Research question

Problem statement
Even though it would enhance the energy performance potential of a design, the combination of natural
ventilation with daylight and thermal comfort within an integrated optimization approach is poor in literature and in real practice. The main obstacle is given by both the scarcity of natural ventilation simulation
tools for the early design stage and the difficulty in combining it with other performance evaluation tools
and optimization algorithms.
Research question
To what extent can the optimization of natural ventilation strategies in the early design stage improve energy performance and thermal comfort of a design for an office building?
Sub-questions
To what extent can embedding natural ventilation strategies into an optimization process affect its final
outputs in terms of building performance and layout?
To what extent can a holistic approach be beneficial for an optimization process of energy performance
in the early stages of a design?
1.3 Aims and Focus of this research

Aims
The aim of this research is to show that the implementation of natural ventilation strategies should occur
early in the design stages and that it should be embedded into a multi-criteria optimization process in order to achieve low energy performance in building.
13
Focus
When an energy efficiency concept is developed for a new building, there are passive and active aspects
to take into account. Even though a holistic approach encompassing both these aspects might be possible,
the focus of this thesis is on those parameters and evaluation criteria directly related to the building form
finding for offices. Passive aspects and strategies play a key role for the future efficiency of office buildings,
and they must be planned and optimized early in the design process. Thus, the proposed computational
process focuses on the design form finding in the early stages integrating passive design strategies, with
a focus on natural ventilation strategies for passive cooling. The process is meant to be for temperate and
hot climates, and it will be tested on a case study located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
1.4 Methodology
The research done within this thesis can be divided into 5 steps:
1.
2.
need.
3.
4.
5.
Background research.
Assembly and validation of tools for the calculation of Natural Ventilation and Heating/Cooling
Assembly of an integrated optimization process.
Application of the proposed process on a case study of office building.
Comparison of results and final discussion.
Background research
The background research comprises a Literature review and an Interview to architects/engineers. The Literature review is the big part of the background research that was needed in order to take fundamental
decisions for the development of this Thesis, and to support those decisions.
Literature review
The review done on previous studies of energy performance optimization of buildings was fundamental
in order to critically understand and start working on the current limits of optimization processes studied
within the academic field. Also, a literature research was done on the environmental problems related to
buildings, on the potentials of designing following sustainability criteria related to energy and on the current Building Performance Simulation (BPS) techniques.
Questionnaire
Next to this, a questionnaire was delivered to a number of Architects and Engineers of top-level studios
and consultancy firms, in order to assess the current situation of building optimization in real practice.
The objective was to retrieve information on the potential of such a process and on the feasibility of being
embedded into the early stage of a design. As shown in the next chapter, this step was important to understand what are the limits of optimization in real practice, and spot in which way, such an optimization
process can have a wider application on average level building designs.
Tools development
The next step was to build the tools that were needed in order to test an integrated approach for optimization. In this phase, the development of a Natural Ventilation solver and a Heating & Cooling need tools
were computationally developed. In this phase, research was also done on the calculations to be used.
Since the focus of this thesis is on natural ventilation as passive cooling strategy, the Natural Ventilation
solver was tested and compared with an existing software (CoolVent).
14
Integrated optimization process

Once the needed tools were ready to be used, the integrated optimization process was assembled. In this
phase, design parameters, constraints, evaluation criteria, objective functions, evaluation tools, optimization algorithm and specific passive strategies were investigated and selected. A distinction was made
between a hypothetical process and a practical one, which are slightly different. The reason is because the
practical process (to be applied to a case study) needed to overcome time issues. The goal of the proposed
hypothetical process is to create a computational framework for the holistic optimization of selected objective functions (and related evaluation criteria) for early stages of a design process. The applied process
will slightly differ in the selection of design variables, objective functions and level of detail of specific
evaluations.
Case study
An application of the assembled optimization process is performed on a case study of an existing office
building comprising Atria, in order to visualize its potentials and to assess its results. A first analysis of the
existing building revealed problems and room for improvement of the original design. Then, a parameterization of its shape and layout following a specific design strategy, together with other aspects related to
its envelope, was done. The application of the computational process was done at different levels. First,
the application was made without comprising natural ventilation as strategy for passive cooling. Second,
natural ventilation was assessed and optimized together with other passive aspects. The third application
dealt with a more holistic approach, comprising both aspects related to the geometry of the building and
its basic envelope parameters. The three results come along with a base case analysis, which will serve as
final comparison to assess the potential of the investigated process.
Comparison of results
Finally, the results retrieved from the optimization analysis were compared and discussed. Comparisons
for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 of the case study were performed. The specific methodology regarding
Scenario 1 is given in 7.6.1.
Literature research on
Optimization studies
Questionnaires for Architects and

Egineers
Literature research on Sustainable design

aspects and computational techniques
Natural ventilation and Energy calculation tools

development
Case study
Comparison of results
15
16
2.1 Precedent works

In order to form a solid basis for the development of this research, a review of academic studies on optimization was done together with a small review on the current situation of optimization in real practice.
2.1.1 Review on precedent optimization studies

In the study conducted by Jin and Jeon, 2014, thermal characteristics of a given free form are optimized.
The building model is defined with three types of design variables: static parameters, dynamic parameters
and dependent parameters (Jin and Jeong 2014). The fixed parameters are the floor height, floor area,
building volume, WWR (30%), heat transfer coefficient (U values) of exterior walls, roof and windows,
solar heat gain coefficient (g-value) of the windows. Another fixed parameter is the bottom polygon of the
geometry and its dimensions. The dynamic parameters were geometrical characteristics of the building
volume, such as the twisting angle between the bottom and top polygons and the top polygon type. The
dependent parameter is the total height of the building. GA Optimization process: the dynamic parameters
were used as genes in the Genetic algorithm optimization process. Objective functions were assigned to
assess a genes value. The parameters that represented the minimum heating or cooling load were selected thanks to the objective function. Several generations are computed and different climates tested.
In early 2001, Caldas already showed a multi-objective Genetic algorithm and a shape generation algorithm that modifies the geometry according to the trade-offs between building loads (heating, cooling and
lighting), operation costs, and daylighting potentials.
In 2008, the potentials of an optimization tools are presented. GENE_Arch is capable of optimize building
shape, energy efficiency and visual comfort, and it is tested for several building designs located in different
climates. The study shows the trade-offs between heating loads and daylighting loads using two-objective
optimization (Caldas 2008).
The research done by Granadeiro and Duarte in 2013, focuses on a methodology for generative design,
with energy efficiency goals for residential buildings. The authors worked on the conversion of the shape
grammar into a parametric design system. An automated and simple energy simulation analysis calculates
the energy demand for air heating and cooling. The methodology proposed is a 4 steps process: definition
of design system, definition of the variables, programming the parametric design system, programming
the energy simulation process. The authors apply the methodology on Frank Lloyd Wrights Prairie Houses
(Granadeiro, Duarte et al. 2013).
An early stage design framework is developed in the study done by Lin and Gerber, in 2014. The framework
embeds a parametric design and multi-objective optimization. It provides energy performance feedback
for early stage decision-making. The competing objective functions are spatial programming and financial
performances. The indicators used are Energy Use Intensity (EUI), net present value (NPV), and spatial
programming compliance (SPC) (Lin and Gerber 2014).
Hamdy et al. applied a holistic approach, by optimizing eight variables related to glazing, shading, insulation, systems and heat recovery. The trade-off between investment costs and CO2 emissions were investigated for three different overheating constraints.
2.1.2 Review on precedent studies involving natural ventilation strategies

Chrystanthi et al (2013) optimized the faade openings of a cross-ventilated indoor space. The simulation
system is Fast Fluid Dynamics (FFD), coupled with a genetic algorithm. The innovation on this topic is the
use of FFD for the evaluation of non-orthogonal openings. A multiple criteria fitness function was set. Four
different objective functions related to velocity were embedded in the optimization process: average air
velocity, the air exchange rate, the standard deviation from the mean velocity and the maximum velocity
(Chrysanthi, Ava Fatah gen et al. 2013).
The paper by Liu et al, 2014, presents a design procedure to fully utilize natural ventilation with a performance simulation of daylighting. A residential community in Chongqing, China was taken as an example
case to illustrate the design procedure from building level to floor level. The building spacing and orien18
tation was optimized through outdoor velocity and pressure field simulation with Computational Fluid
Dynamics method (CFD). A step-by-step process is proposed, in which every parameter is optimized manually. In this way the parameters defining the design are not directly related with each other, losing possibilities for energy savings (Liu, Liu et al. 2014).
In the study by Hens, 2007, a multi-objective optimization is conducted for energy use, ecological impact
and cost of dwellings. They used a two-stage process, first optimizing envelope properties such as constructions, shading, glazing area and air tightness, and second optimizing system properties including CHP,
heat pumps, storage and controls. Energy simulations were done in TRN-SYS with natural ventilation rates
calculated in COMIS. Calculations for thermal comfort and energy use were performed. (Hens, 2007)
Perez et al (2012) presented an evaluation of natural ventilation to achieve the optimal indoor thermal
comfort within a building. The parameters used for the optimization are: Materials of construction, Building shape, Building orientation, Openings sizes, Openings orientations, Openings shapes, Surroundings.
Different values of the indoor air temperature in a building case are shown by changing these characteristics of the building, trying to find which one is the most important to optimize natural ventilation. The
research was done using the coupled thermal-airflow building simulation program EnergyPlus. The way of
coupling of Energy Plus is a coupled iterative approach (onion coupling). (Perez, 2012)
In the study done by Stephan et al (2011), the authors developed an optimization process for opening
dimensions based on a reversible model. A numerical model calculates the wind-driven pressures and the
equivalent airflow. This model is reversible: the variables can be considered both as input and as report.
For the optimization process, the proposed method is divided into 4 parts. First, setup of a mechanical
ventilation mode is applied: to reduce the number of variables the authors considered the building as
mechanically ventilated; the only three variables considered are the night ventilation rate, when to start
ventilating and when to stop it. Outside this range, the ventilation has a fixed value. Second, subdivide
the simulated days into patterns: the simulated days are divided into pattern selected by the user. Third,
generate an optimal ventilation sequence: an optimization process is used to find the best values for the
selected variables, so a sequence of ventilation rates can found. Finally, it is possible to determine openings dimensions using inverse calculations: once the sequence of ventilation rates is defined, it will be used
to feed the reversible numerical model, to calculate the best opening area. A case study in Cargese (France)
is analyzed and optimized (Stephan, Bastide et al. 2011).
In 2013, Kim et al. proposed an evaluation process that couples Building Energy Simulation (BES) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for naturally ventilated buildings. The studys purpose is to analyze the
indoor thermal environment depending on natural ventilation rate. Heat transfer driven by natural ventilation, indoor and outdoor temperatures have the highest impact. The time-step of BES is set at 5 minutes,
while the coupling of BES and CFD is every hour. Once the BES is done, the boundary conditions, such as
wind speed and direction and indoor walls surface temperatures, are set
to start the CFD analysis, where the detailed airflow calculation takes place. 3 cases are analysed: a case
in which only the BES simulation calculates the indoor temperatures, and two cases with coupled BES and
CFD (one with only the airflow rate used as heat transfer factor, and one with both airflow rate and convective heat provided). The tree results were compared with standalone BES calculations and field measurements for an apartment housing located in Incheon, Korea. Results show that 1: assessment of natural
ventilation performance is not accurate with only BES, and thus coupling simulation tools is necessary to
get accurate values for the simulated indoor environment; 2: it is hard to define the natural ventilation rate
when the building is parallel to the main wind direction; 3: under higher airflow rates, the convective heat
transfer does not change much the results compared to the case in which only airflow rate is used for the
calculation of heat transfer.
In 2014, Singh et al (Singh S. 2014) studies the effectiveness of a holistic optimization process, considering all the parameters of both form and envelope of an office building. Calculations were conducted in
EnergyPlus and natural ventilation was also considered, but within a defined time-set not dependent on
buildings geometry.
Verbeeck and Hens developed an optimization study on energy use, ecological impact and cost of dewellings. They applied a two-stage process. First they optimized the envelope properties (shading, construction, glazing area), and then focused on active aspects, such as CHP, heat pumps. The tools used were
TRN-SYS for thermal analysis and energy use and COMIS for the calculation of natural ventilation rates.
19
Overview of reviewed optimization studies

P2 presentation - Antonio DAquilio - 4328116
A schematic overview of the optimization studies reviewed along this research is here presented. As figure
2.1
shows the number
of studies involving naturalstudies
ventilation is small.
Moreover, only a few studies
comPrevious
optimization
considering
Natural
prised natural ventilation in an integrated way, considering also other conflicting criteria such as daylight.
Ventilation strategies
Capozzoli et al.
2009
Hens et al.
Jakubiec et al.
Jin, Jeong
Kim et al.
Li et al.
Li et al.
Lin, Gerber
Liu et al.
2007
2011
2014
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
Paoletti, Avesani, Exner, Lollini
Perez et al.
Energy
Energy, Thermal comfort

Energy
Energy
Natural ventilation, Thermal comfort
Energy
Energy
Energy, NPV, SPC
Natural ventilation, Daylight
2011
2008
Shi,Yang
Singh, Kensek
2013
2014
Stephan et al.
2011
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape
Shape, Orientation
Energy
Shape
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Envelope
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Whole building
Shape, windows dimensions
Whole building
Energy
Energy

Whole building
Whole building
Windows dimensions
Non-Integrated approach
Integrated approach: A step-by-step process is proposed, in
which every parameter is optimized manually. In this way the
parameters defining the design are not directly related with
each other, losing possibilities for energy savings
Whole building
Airflow,Thermal comfort
Airflow, Thermal comfort
Integrated approach: a proccess in which natural

ventilation rates are calculated by using COMIS
Envelope
Non-Integrated approach: The research was done using the

coupled thermal-airflow building simulation program
EnergyPlus
References:
Capozzoli A., Mechri H., Corrado V., Impacts of architectural design choices on building energy performance, applciations of uncertainty and sensitivity techniques, Eleventh International IBPSA Conference Glasgow, Scotland July 27-30, 2009
Evins, R. (2013). "A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22(0): 230-245.
Jakubiec J. , Reinhart C., Diva 2.0: Integrating daylight and thermal simulations using rhinoceros 3d, daysim and energyplus,Proceedings of Building Simulation 2011: 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, 14-16 November
Jin, J.-T. and J.-W. Jeong (2014). "Optimization of a free-form building shape to minimize external thermal load using genetic algorithm." Energy and Buildings 85(0): 473-482.
Li B.,Yu Q., Li Z., Zhou X., Researchonparametricdesignmethodforenergy efficiency ofgreenbuildinginarchitectural scheme phase, Frontiers ofArchitecturalResearch(2013) 2, 1122
Li Z., Lin B., Lv S., Peng B., Optimizing the building form by simulation - A paramteric design methodology study with integrated simulation at schematic phase, 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambry, France, August 26-28
Lin, S.-H. E. and D. J. Gerber (2014). "Designing-in performance: A framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design." Automation in Construction 38(0): 59-73.
Liu, S., J. Liu, Q.Yang, J. Pei, D. Lai, X. Cao, J. Chao and C. Zhou (2014). "Coupled simulation of natural ventilation and daylighting for a residential community design." The 2nd International Conference on Building Energy and Environment (COBEE), 2012, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA 68, Part B(0): 686-695.
Perez I., stergaardb P., Remmenb A., Model of natural ventilation by using a coupled thermal-airflow simulation program, Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 388393
Shi X.,Yang W., Performance-driven architectural design and optimization technique from a perspective of architects, Automation in Construction 32 (2013) 125135
Singh S., Kensek K., Early design analysis using optimization techniques in design/practice, Building Simulation Conference Atlanta, GA September 10-12, 2014
Stephan, L., A. Bastide and E. Wurtz (2011). "Optimizing opening dimensions for naturally ventilated buildings." Applied Energy 88(8): 2791-2801.
Kim H., Haw J., Kim T., Leigh S., Application of coupled simulation between BES-CFD for naturally ventilated residential buildings, Proceedings of BS2013: 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambry, France, August 26-28
Fig. 2.1: Overview scheme of the reviewed optimization studies
2.1.3 Optimization in real practice

This paragraph shows questionnaires answered by a small number of engineers and architects belonging
to top-level practices. At the end of the paragraph, an overview of the information collected is presented.
Interview 1 - Juergen Heinzel, UNStudio
a. Do you apply Optimization for energy efficiency in the early design stage - or only for specific problems
related to later phases of the design?
Optimization for energy efficiency is used both during early design stages, as well as for later, more particular / localized topics.
b. If you use it in the early stage, do you use computational processes for the optimization? Which ones
specifically?
Internal analysis tools are used (custom Grasshopper definitions), Galapagos, Ecotect, Diva. The analyses
are intended to be run multiple times, as iterations in form-making are being made and evaluated, until a
final result is reached.
c. If you do not use it in the early stage, why is it so? Do you see potentials in using it in the early stage
and would you be interested in using an integrated optimization process for energy efficiency in the early
20
design stage?
The potential of using it in early project stages is significant. To name examples, it can help determine zones
of solar radiation exposure, and suggest massing adjustments accordingly, or anticipate strategies for effective sun shading elements later in design.
d. For optimization processes, do you use available tools, or do you build your own tools at UNStudio? Do
you have an integrated approach, as described above?
As described, UNStudio uses both available and own tools. We strive for an integral approach in all design
phases, and that includes energy analysis too, amongst other design considerations.
e. Do you try to combine natural ventilation with thermal analysis of buildings? If yes, what kind of computational techniques do you use to achieve this? Do you use dedicated software? What current limits do
you encounter, if any?
Thermal analysis would typically be conducted by our engineering consultants.
Interview 2 - Rachid Abu-Hassan, Arup
a. Do you apply Optimization of energy performance in the early design stage - or only for specific problems related to later phases of the design?
There have been many projects that were optimized, but at the moment it is still something that is not
done on regular basis, and it is not done for the whole building. The problems that are taken into account
deal with multiple and contrasting criteria, such as acoustics and cooling, or lighting and acoustics. The
approach is still focused on specific engineering problems.
There have been studies and projects in which the building geometry, massing and orientation were optimized, with a simple approach and next to the designer. This resulted in a better communication with the
architect and in a faster execution of preliminary engineering problems and evaluation. However, there is
still a lack for an integrated process that would be beneficial for the overall energy consumption of buildings.
specifically?
The use of optimization is most of the times performed within parametric modelling tools. The number of
variables to be set and assessment make the process easier if done within customized ad-hoc solutions.
Therefore, built-in software and parametric definitions are done for specific problems, but not yet regularly.
The optimization, when done for more advanced engineering problems, is dealt through the use of more
complex simulation tools, without coupling with optimization algorithm.
c. If you do not use it in the early stage, why is it so? Do you see potentials in using it in the early stage
and would you be interested in using an integrated optimization process for energy efficiency in the early
design stage?
Many are the potentials in developing such processes. It seems interesting, but in our team, we are still not
doing optimization with an integrated approach. The reason is because most of the times we are focusing
on more specific problems that come out later in the design process. However, working next to the architect
with a good interdisciplinary optimization process would be beneficial for both the designers and for the
engineers.
d. For optimization processes, do you use available tools, or do you build your own tools in ARUP? Do you
21
have an integrated approach, as described above?

We use available tools, but also our own tools. Depending on the complexity of the problems and on the
time available, we might create our parametric definitions, and we use a number of built-in software to
perform assessments.
e. How do you handle the architectural aspects within your technical approach?
The MEP team normally provides evaluation of how the design meets specific requirements and provides
suggestions to the designer to improve the design. Whenever a design must be changed in order to improve, for example, daylight performances, it will be sent back to the architect, which will try to change it
according to his own concept. However, this process is rather slow and needs many exchanges between the
consultancy firm and the architect.
The way we do optimization while working next to the designer, is to fix the parameters that have to be
fixed, because of architectural expression, or functional aspects. By fixing these parameters and trying different combinations of others, we are able to optimize the design, but in small steps.
Interview 3 Jack Ponsteen (DPA Cauberg-Huygen)
a. Do you apply Optimization of energy performance in the early design stage - or only for specific problems related to later phases of the design?
Yes, we do optimization in the early stages of the design process.
specifically?
It depends on the specific project. Mostly we use the experience and expertise of the advisor / engineer.
c. Do you see potentials in using it in the early stage and would you be interested in using an integrated
optimization process for energy efficiency in the early design stage?
Computational processes for the optimization lead to standard solutions for standard situations. In our projects we go for specific optimised solutions based on all aspects (user, building, installation, needs, wishes).
d. For optimization processes, do you use available tools, or do you build your own tools at DPA? Do you
have an integrated approach, as described above?
We use available tools and build our own tools depending on needs within projects.
e. Do you try to combine natural ventilation with thermal analysis of buildings? If yes, what kind of computational techniques do you use to achieve this? Do you use dedicated software? What current limits do
you encounter, if any?
Yes. We use CFD-programs like Phoenix, FDS-simulation and Comis. 3D / BIM-Models of architects are very
big and mostly not accurate enough as input for a simulation. (Boundaries not closed, properties not available or not accurate, etc.) It takes a lot of time to build a model and render.
f. What kind of input would you need for an optimization process and what data would you expect to obtain?
We would need fast and simple modelling, with accurate information. Also, a database of materials with
22
acoustic and physical properties would be required.

g. Do you work next to your clients/designers from the early design stages?
It depends on the project. We prefer to do so.
h. How do you handle the architectural aspects within your technical approach?
We prefer to start with a workshop with all the disciplines (including the architect). We need to know from
the architect (and others) what is really important and what is nice to have. Then, we can make a technical
concept respecting architectural ideas.
Regarding a case study (RIVM & CBG Headquarters, Utrecht)
i. What kind of calculations/simulations did you perform for the atrium of this office building and in general
for atrium designs?
In the early design stage of the project we performed simulations for temperature on Vabi.
conceptual phase
design development
technical development
Optimization for solar radiation

No thermal analysis/natural ventilation
Optimization of specic problems

Not integrated approach
Thermal analysis/natural ventilation
Fig. 2.2: Overview scheme of the interviews
Overview of results from questionnaires

From the summary of the questionnaires retrieved from engineers and architects, the main conclusion is
that even though optimization is done early in the design process by both design and consultancy sides,
the application of an integrated approach is still missing, and engineering problems are solved singularly,
without multi-criteria optimization processes. This would eventually bring to the optimization of specific
aspects while others could get affected and not result in good performances. This is especially true when
conflicting criteria are considered, such as daylight and thermal performance.
23
2.2 Sustainable design aspects

2.2.1 Energy concept development
When talking about energy performance of buildings, a proper way to approach a sustainable design is to
consider an energy concept since the early stages of the design. As stated in the book Energy Manual, Sustainable architecture (Hegger M. 2008), normally an energy concept should embrace two complementary
objectives related to two distinct aspects: active and passive aspects.
Climate
Ecology
(CO2 emissions)
Minimization of
energy requirements
Economy
(life cycle costs)
Usage
Society
(acceptance)
Legislation
Architecture
Optimization of
energy supplies
Architecture
(quality of a design)
Fig. 2.3: Energy concept (Hegger M. 2008)
The passive aspects are all those characteristics that will affect the buildings performance when no artificial mean is adopted. By taking into considerations these aspects, the designer can make sure early in the
design process that the energy needs are kept low. The components and building parts should be designed
to deliver not only architectural, functional and constructional specifications, but also with the aim of
gaining extra energy-efficiency benefits. In this way, the building shape and materials can be harmonized
in order to provide a comfortable internal environment for as long as possible, without the use of extensive
mechanical installations.
Active aspects can be directly assumed as the building services. They provide indoor comfort when passive
means cannot. Therefore, they require energy to be able to work. Tracing the energy requirements and the
provision of this energy in order to maximize efficiency can optimize active aspects.
According to this schematic overview of an energy concept development factors, the main evaluation
criteria used to objectively evaluate a sustainable design are: ecology, economy, society and architecture.
Ecology evaluation
The ecological evaluation is based on the negative consequences that energy supplies and energy use
may have on the environment. A widely used measure factor is the carbon dioxide or similar substances
emissions.
Economic evaluation
The objective of this evaluation is to estimate the total costs over the entire life cycle of a building. It must
also consider the costs for optimizing energy efficiency of systems (renewables and installations), but also
the costs for the eco-efficiency of building designs.
Social evaluation
The effects on users are of vital importance when evaluating a building, because they can affect the overall
well-being of the users and also the proper operation of a building. Thermal, visual, acoustic and olfactory
comfort are the main aspects that affect the perceived comfort level of users.
24
Architectural evaluation
The energy concept for a new design can deeply affect the appearance of a building, and also its functionality. Therefore, the architectural expression and intention must be embedded in the energy concept in
the harmonized way.
2.2.2 Indoor environmental performance issues

Indoor air quality
Indoor air quality is related to the occupants health and productivity. Poor indoor air quality can lead to
diseases such as headaches, allergies and asthma and others. Experiments showed that poor indoor air
quality reduce the performance of the office work by 6-9 % (Wyon 2004). The recent energy regulations
in buildings led to a higher air tightness, and therefore to a lower number of air changes with the external
environment. Low ventilation rates can also increase mold growth, because of the increase of air relative
humidity. Considering that people tend to spend most of their time indoors, the indoor air quality is a very
important issue to consider during the design of sustainable buildings.
A required amount of fresh air needs to be provided, in order to minimize the concentration of contaminants in the air, coming from the indoor environment (furniture, equipment, heating, paint, people, etc.).
Examples of common indoor pollutants are: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3). A way to provide the required amount
of fresh air in buildings can be natural ventilation, but only when the exterior environment is not more
polluted than the indoor environment.
Thermal Comfort
In a survey done on user satisfaction in buildings, it was found that thermal comfort is one of the most
important parameter for a building (Griffith 1990).
In the ISO Standard 7730, Thermal comfort is defined as the state of mind that expresses thermal satisfaction with the thermal environment (ISO 2005). There are four aspects to take into consideration when
talking about thermal comfort. Physiology is the way the human body naturally reacts to the thermal environment in order to maintain a constant temperature especially for the internal organs. The psychophysics
are the unconscious actions controlled by the brain defining the way we feel the surrounding environment.
Moreover, physical mechanisms and our behaviour are also important for defining thermal comfort in
buildings.
Behaviour
Behavioural thermoregulation occurs through active actions, in order to control the environment. These
actions can be changing clothes we wear, changing the posture or move towards a colder or warmer
thermal environment. Moreover the metabolic rate and the active systems for thermoregulation can be
considered part of the behaviours of a person.
CLOTHING CHANGES
CHANGES OF POSTURE
THERMAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
MOVEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT

THERMAL ENVIRONMENTS
25
METABOLIC RATE
Physiology
Thermal comfort is linked to the need to maintain a constant internal temperature (Nicol F. 2012).
Thermoregulation occurs in human body in order to maintain this balance. If the body temperature drops,
the blood circulation to the peripheral parts of the body is reduced through vasoconstriction (contraction
of the surface blood vessels).
If the body temperature rises vasodilatation occurs. It expands the vessels close to the skin, increasing the
blood supply to the periphery, and consequently, heat loss through overheating of the skin surface.
Psychophysics
Human brain uses many unconscious actions to thermoregulate our body. Psychophysics is the study of the
relation between these reactions and the stimuli we receive from the physical world.
The factors influencing these actions has been found to be the age, sex, culture and personality of a person.
GENDER
AGE
PERSONALITY
CULTURE AND COSTUMES
Physical mechanisms
PH YS IC AL MEC HA N I SMS
After a certain
the produced
heat produced within
the bodythe
must body
balance the
heat lostbalance
from the body.
The main
physical
After a certain period,
theperiod,
heat
within
must
the
heat
lost from the body. The
processes for heat loss are: convection, radiation and evaporation.[1]
main physical processes for heat loss are: convection, radiation and evaporation.
Evaporation
When breathing or sweating, our
body can regulate its temperature
by means of evaporation. The heat
lost is the energy required to turn
the water into vapour.
Respiratory heat loss

Loss of heat and moisture can
occur from the lungs and upper
respiratory tract, during breathing. This contributes up to 30% of
the total heat loss in a sedentary
person in thermal comfort.
Clothing
Clothing insulation can act
against transfer of dry heat
and aect heat loss by
evaporation. Clothes are an
extra resistance to the
diusion of water vapour
away from the skin and they
can absorb excess moisture
next to the skin.
Radiation
Heat can be lost also through
radiant heat, from the body
surfaces.
Conduction
In certain circumstances, heat is lost from
the soles of our shoes
or clothing surfaces by
cinduction to cold
surfaces, such as the
oor pavement.
Convection
If the temperature of the air is
lower than that of the skin or
the surface of the clothes, heat
loss through convection will
take place.
Fig. 2.4: Physics of human comfort
There is the need for constantly achieving temperature balance, but this does not always result in thermal
comfort. Several researchers have built models to predict the thermal comfort, and most of them come
from surveys of people response to the thermal environment.
26
Visual Comfort
The indoor environment must fulfil the visual needs of its occupants, according to the task they are performing in it. Visual comfort can normally be achieved by providing a sufficient level of Illuminance (lux).
However, there might be glare sources causing visual discomfort and reduced performance (Velds 1999).
Also, a good view outside of the building helps in increasing visual comfort and create a healthy and productive environment.
Daylight has been largely investigated; also because of its potential for energy savings, since almost 20% of
the total energy electrical consumption in Europe is cause by artificial lighting. (Orme 2011)
Finally, when talking about visual comfort and daylight, a key aspect for many well-known architects is the
use of light as an expression element, able to change the perception of spaces and the feeling that generates on people.
Acoustic comfort
Acoustic or aural comfort refers to the noise level within an indoor space. There is a right level and quality of noise that should be reached in order to not compromise the productivity and health of the people,
according to the task that they perform in the space. Normally, people get more productive when they
have acoustic comfort. The noise can come from the indoor space equipment, people or from outdoor
sources, such as street traffic or surrounding buildings. Very important for the comfort of its inhabitants is
aural comfort in schools and office buildings, where tasks requiring concentration are performed (Paradis
2014).
In order to achieve acoustic comfort, metrics such as decibel level (sound pressure), sound reflections and
reverberation time should be controlled. Design strategies such as sound breakers and barriers are the
most used along with geometry of the indoor space, which can be optimized to achieve smaller numbers
of reflections.
Operational Energy
The operational energy of buildings is a term describing the energy needed by buildings in order to achieve
thermal and electrical need for its users, during their operation. This issue is very important not only because of the carbon footprint that can be related to it (and consequently greenhouse gas emissions), but
also of the energy saving potential when a building is optimized toward this aspect.
For commercial and public buildings, for example, it was shown from a study done in UK that 20% of energy saving could be achieved by applying simple solutions (CIBSE 2005)
Energy use intensity (EUI) is the most important parameter that is used for the design of efficient buildings.
EUI is the total annual energy use divided by the gross floor area of the building. It can be expressed in
kWh/ft2, kWh/m2, kBtu/ft2, and MJ/m2. In Europe, it is commonly described with kWh/m2. The reason
why this evaluation criterion is widely applied is because it is a good way of comparing building energy
performance, without considering building dimensions and typology. It is not a measure of total energy
consumption. It can be used to understand energy performance and to set goals for the design of a new
building, comparing it to EUI baselines.
However, the EUI performance measure comprises the energy delivered to a building for all its services,
thus accounting also for the efficiency of the installations and systems.
A performance measure used for estimating the energy needed by a building to deliver thermal comfort
without considering energy efficiency of systems or auxiliary energy is the Energy need.
The energy need for heating and cooling is the heat to be distributed or extracted from a conditioned
space to preserve a desired air temperature for a specific period of time. It is the highest energy requiring
aspect in a building. Second is the energy need for lighting.
27
2.3 Passive design strategies

This paragraph includes an overview of common passive strategies used for low energy buildings. The literature will create a valuable background for the calculation tools and strategies used later on within this
thesis. A special focus is also given to natural ventilation strategies, which can be used in buildings for both
air displacement (for indoor air quality), but also with passive cooling purposes.
2.3.1 The early design stage

The early design phase is the most fundamental stage in order to achieve low energy performance in
buildings. The challenges of combining architecture, passive strategies and building facilities can be dealt
more efficiently by a holistic approach. The decisions taken will directly affect the overall performance of
the building and the users comfort.
The site conditions can affect the built form and can be used to promote passive natural ventilation and
daylight strategies.
The most important parameters influencing the energy demands of buildings are related to the design and
usage of the facilities. More specifically, these are:
Geometry of the building
Performance of building envelope
Efficiency of equipment, e.g. type of heating, air conditioning and lighting systems
Usage patterns, management of the building and occupancy behaviour
Orientation of the building
The decisions and, eventually, the outcome of the design will play a significant role for the energy efficiency
and consumption of a building during its whole service life. This means that their impact will last for over
decades of building use. Considering the factor of energy at the early design it is, most of the times, less
costly as the form of the building, its orientation, the orientation of its windows, and its structural materials do not bear additional costs. New buildings can benefit from an integrated design approach, where
the building performance can be optimized by considering the interaction of all building components and
systems through an iterative process involving all parameters. Through such a holistic approach, the goal
to be achieved will be set according to the identity of the project, the energy-efficient strategies and the
available technologies.
For example, by optimising the orientation of the building, we can maximize daylight, minimizing heat
gains (summer) as well as heat losses (winter); factors that can have a significant impact on heating, cooling and lighting needs. In this way, the operational energy can get even lower than the embodied energy
required during the buildings materialization.
2.3.2 Building Envelope

The building envelope can be considered as a climate modifier, since it interferes with the external climatic
conditions. Its four main functions are:
It reduces heat losses through the fabric, maximises solar and internal heat gains (cold months).
It minimises solar heat gains and prevents overheating by using window shading and thermal mass to
attenuate heat gains (hot months).
It can allow natural ventilation.
It can introduce daylight.
If the building envelope is taken into consideration during the early design stage, it can result in energy
28
savings which would otherwise need expensive and complex solutions. Energy efficiency can be affected
by shape, thermal response, insulation, windows and glazing as well as ventilation and daylight strategies.
2.3.4 Atrium design

Atria can have a good impact on energy performance of buildings, especially when used as buffer zones
between indoor and outdoor environment. When embedded in the early stages of the design process, the
atrium can be related to passive strategies like passive heating, natural ventilation and daylight (Moosavi L.
2014). A number of aspects should be considered when designing an atrium, such as:
Day lighting level can be improved by using reflective surfaces for its walls and clear glazing for its roof
and inner windows. Electric lighting could be automated to increase the benefits.
Orientation and geometry plays a major role to maximise daylight and natural ventilation performance.
Atria can also be used as heat recovery/buffer zone, for pre-heating of incoming fresh air.
Shadings and ventilation should be properly designed in order to avoid overheating in summer.
Internal thermal loads
The heat mass of an atrium depends mainly on the internal heat gains (electric lighting, people, appliances,
etc.) and solar radiation. Their position within the atrium and the amount of heat load they provide creates
temperature gradients which result in air movements (described more in detail in 2.3.5). Therefore, all
sources need to be identified and controlled, so as to avoid having high stratification levels.
2.3.5 Natural ventilation strategies

Single sided ventilation
Single sided ventilation is a strategy using openings on only one side of the building enclosure. In this case
air exchange between indoor and outdoor environment can occur because of the temperature difference,
or wind pressure effect.
Cross ventilation
Cross ventilation can occur when there are openings on both sided of a space. The basic principle is the
airflow to enter one side of the building and leave from the other side, passing through any kind of opening. Most of the cross ventilation strategy are based on wind pressure, by considering the average wind
direction of a specific micro-climate. However, it can occur also due to temperature and density differences in an attached vertical chimney. When the air moves from one zone to another, there might be an
increase of temperature and reduction in air quality, because the air is collecting pollutants and heat from
the other occupied space. Therefore there is a maximum depth of space that could be cross-ventilated. A
good rule of thumb for the maximum distance between two faades is five times the floor-to-ceiling height
(CIBSE 2005). This is achieved by linear shapes but also by considering open courtyard in the middle of
the building. A good way of ensuring cross ventilation is by opening windows or ventilation openings, but
other approaches such as he wind-scoop has been used with good results. The wind is captured by this
system at high level where the dynamic pressure is higher and thus resulting in additional pressure for the
pressure driven air displacement.
29
Stack ventilation
When there is a difference in density between indoor and outdoor air volumes, stack effect takes place. A
pressure difference is created by the difference in density, which will eventually result in bringing air inside
and pulling air outside of the building through envelope openings.
When the temperature inside the building is higher than the one outside, the bottom part experiences
under pressure, while the upper part will have over pressure, resulting in a plane at a certain height, where
the pressure difference between inside and outside is zero. This plane is referred to as neutral plane. The
openings under this plane will bring air inside, the ones above will exhaust air outside. (CIBSE 2005)
The most known design strategies using stack effect, which are: solar chimney, atria, double-skin facade.
Night ventilation
Night ventilation is not a design strategy, but an operational strategy. It uses the fluctuation of temperature
during the day to provide natural cooling. There are many advantages in using this strategy:
Because in the night-time the outdoor temperatures are lower, there is a greater temperature difference
between the indoor and outdoor environments. Therefore stack driven flow can be enhanced and also the
resulting cooling capacity.
The ventilation during night helps in dissipating the heat stored in the fabric of the building, decreasing
the mean radiant temperature of the surfaces. This plays an important role in the way the people experience the indoor environment the following day.
Noise and draught problems can be avoided by ventilating during unoccupied periods, such as night-time.
Design strategies for natural ventilation
Solar Chimney
Chimneys can provide stack driven ventilation whenever the air in the chimney is higher than the outdoor
air. Temperature can be increased by solar gains and therefore chimney designs can include glazed elements. The solar heat is absorbed by the interior surfaces of the chimney, and then is released to the air,
promoting buoyancy.
Atrium
The atrium is a variant of the chimney principle. The main difference is the other functions that the atrium
embeds, such as the circulation spaces and social interaction. Moreover, it provides an attractive space
that can be part of the design expression. The way it can be used as natural ventilation strategy is affected
by all the other criteria that need to be satisfied. One of the main advantage of atrium ventilation is that it
can be used to exhaust the air from both sides of a building, towards a central extract point. The designer
should pay attention to the neutral plane, which defines whether the atrium is providing fresh air to all storeys or it is affecting the top storeys with inflows. Moreover, atria can also serve as buffer zones, to preheat
the incoming air or only to reduce the heat losses towards the environment.
Wind can be used to improve atrium ventilation by providing a difference in pressure on the windward and
leeward faades. Important to consider is the change in wind direction, because it could cause an inflow
from the atrium, decreasing the stack effect and its ventilation potential.
Double-skin faade
The double-skin faade is another design strategy that uses the principle of stack (or chimney) effect. The
difference is that here the whole facade act as a large air duct.
30
The solar gains are trapped in a cavity between the inner and outer skins, providing ventilation by stack
effect. The air is exhausted at the top of the faade. The ventilation is planned in order to remove heat absorbed by the blinds or to provide natural airflow to the building floors, therefore the air is exhausted into
the cavity. In this case the building faade can be divided in segments having their own ventilation system.
This is often done when the building is a high-rise (CIBSE 2005).
Effects of outdoor environment onto natural ventilation performance
The outdoor environment can have influence on the performance of a specific natural ventilation strategy
in a building. Factors such as wind direction and speed, topography and open areas in the urban environment can affect the volume of air displacement within the building spaces. These factors, if considered
early in the design stages can affect the following design aspects.
Building Orientation
Natural ventilation should be integrated with the building orientation, when the designer should consider
the impact of different wind directions and patterns. Building exposure and different orientations can
affect the ventilation and therefore they play an important role in the future performance of the passive
strategy.
Building Shape
The building shape can influence the effectiveness of a specific strategy. The main factors to consider are
the height of the design strategy for stack ventilation, the faade geometry, which can result in different
pressure coefficients, and the main building shape, which can influence the way the volume of air moves
along the indoor spaces. Moreover, the neighbouring building shapes can also affect the natural ventilation
in a building.
2.4 Building Performance Simulation (BPS)

In order to be able to find specific calculation methods, suitable for the proposed integrated approach, a
review of most used computational (and non-computational) calculation methods is here presented. The
focus of the review is on thermal, daylight and natural ventilation analysis.
2.4.1 Thermal analysis

In order to predict the thermal performances of buildings, different types of calculation methods were
developed during the last decades. The two main methods are the dynamic methods and the quasi-steady
state methods.
Dynamic Method
Dynamic methods calculate the heat balance with short periods (typically one hour), by also taking into
account the heat stored and released from the building mass. Detailed dynamic programs use complex
mathematical models that accurately represent the energy flow paths occurring in a building. Thanks to
this type of models, it is possible to produce a wide variety of output results, such as heating and cooling
loads, surface temperatures, air temperatures, etc. As a fundamental equation, the Heat Balance is used
to describe the hourly change of temperatures and loads. The balance is calculated for each inside and
outside zone surfaces, together with the zone air. The detailed analysis deals with many aspect of energy
31
flow, such as long-wave radiation between internal and external surfaces, transmission through fabric,
solar radiation on the inside surfaces, convection and conduction between indoor air to walls and window
surfaces, etc. The heat balances equation are formed and solved for each time step to predict the surface
and air temperatures, and heat flows. This method comprises four main processes:
1. Outside-face heat balance
2. Wall conduction process
3. Inside-face heat balance
4. Air heat balance
Quasi-steady state monthly methods
In Quasi-steady state methods, the energy need for space heating and cooling purposes is calculated by
summing up the monthly energy requirements for heating and cooling.
This method calculates the heat balance over long time steps (one moth or season). It takes into account
the dynamic effects of a heat flows of a building by using an empirically defined gain/loss utilization factor.
For heating, an utilization factor consider the fact that only part of the internal and solar heat gains is hekpful in decreasing the heating loads, while the rest can lead to overheating.
Also the cooling calculation uses two utilization factors: one for the losses (heat transfer by transmission
and ventilation heat transfer) and one for the gains (internal and solar heat gains). The first is used because
only a part of the heat transfer helps in decreasing cooling loads, while the rest occurs during periods (for
example during night) when they do not influence cooling needs. The utilization factor for gains considers
that only part of the internal and solar heat gains is balanced by transmission and ventilation heat trasnfer,
by defining a maximum internal temperature. The rest of the gains can increse the cooling lods.
With this method, the monthly calculation is able to give correct results on an annual basis, but the results
close to the beginning or the end of heating and cooling seasons could show large errors (CEN 2007)
2.4.2 Natural ventilation analysis

In order to predict the airflow of a specific zone of a building, there are four main prediction models: empirical models, network models, zonal models, CFD models (Santamouris, Allard et al. 1998).
Empirical models
Empirical calculation models are fast ways of assessing design proposals and they are meant to be used as
guideline for designers, in the early stages of a design. These expressions use air temperature difference
displacement principle and wind-driven principle to estimate the bulk air movement within a building.
There exist many different approaches for this typology of calculations. All of them are deduced either by
theory or specific experimental data and they are normally applied for single-zone building.
Airflow network (AFN) models
According to the theory of airflow network (AFN) models, the building is divided into zones and each of
these zones has a node. The nodes represent a grid, in which the interactions of air pressure and temperature occurm therefore causing air displacement. These models also consider the outdoor environment by
including exterior nodes. Each zone can communicate with the others through openings and airflow occurs
through them, leading to temperature mixing and pressure drops. In order to calculate the pressure values
for a balanced snapshot of the natural ventilated indoor situation, a numerical method, Newton-Raphson,
is applied. The method solve the non-linear set of equations of the building system (Santamouris, Allard
et al. 1998).
32
Zonal models
Compared to the AFN model, zonal models split the studied indoor space into several small subvolumes,
and they can calculate the mass, energy conservation and other momentum equations to identify the
airflow within a space. This approach can also output the difference of temperature within a space, which
is closer to the reality than AFN. Specific movement of air and temperature gradients can be retrieved by
this calculation method (Santamouris, Allard et al. 1998). However, the level of accuracy is lower than CFD.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Instead of calculation the bulk flow through openings, like in AFN, the CFD calculations solve the fundamental equations of movement of individual elements of fluids. It can predict with very high precision the
air motion at all points in the flow. When embedding thermal equations, CFD can also predict in detail
buoyancy and temperature gradients. This method is often applied for calculating special rooms, like atria.
However, for initial sizing of natural ventilation system, this type of calculations is rather extensive in terms
of computational time.
2.4.3 Daylight analysis

Nowadays, computational analysis for daylight has become widely used. Depending on the objective of
the analysis, there are different calculation methods. The main typologies of calculation methods are two:
Radiosity and Raytracing.
Radiosity
Radiosity is a calculation method used to express reflection. It calculates diffuse light distribution and
reflections. Normally, radiosity analysis is performed before rendering, and it is used to determining illuminance and luminance levels on a set point located on a horizontal surface elements. The calculation results
provide information about the interaction of light and all the surfaces belonging to the analyzed indoor
space (Schorsch 2011).
Raytracing
Raytracing is a rendering method that can represent the image of a scene by mimicking the way light rays
travel in the real world. It can be categorized in two types: backwards raytracing and forward raytracing.
The first is a process tracing the path of light rays from the viewers eye to the source of light, in order to
produce an image. This type of program can calculate the illumination effects on surfaces by tracing the
bounces or the refraction of light rays through the surfaces.
Forward raytracing is the process of tracing the light rays from the light source towards a random direction
in order to produce an image, which is the opposite of backwards raytracing.
Since the majority of light rays does not reach the viewer, this type of calculation can be rather time expensive with no more benefits than the first method. Therefore, the most used method is the backwards
approach (Chaudhuri 2002).
2.5 Building Performance Optimization (BPO)

A review of optimization strategies and algorithms is here presented, to critically investigate the potentials
and shortcomings for the use of these within the proposed integrated approach.
33
2.5.1 Definition
Optimization is the procedure that strives to find the minimum or maximum value of a function that is
dependent on a number of variables. The optimization function, which represents a design problem, is
called cost or fitness objective function and is normally calculated through simulation tools. Optimization
methods can be applied to many different building design problems, such as orientation, massing, faade
design, thermal comfort and daylight. If the design problem is one, then the optimization process is normally called single-objective optimization. If, on the other hand, the problems to be solved are more than
one, the analysis is referred to as multi-objective optimization.
2.5.2 Objective functions

Single and multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) have objective functions that are to be minimized or maximized. The problem has normally a number of constraints that every feasible solution found
by the algorithm must satisfy. For a MOOP, the general definition of its objective function can be given in
the form:
Minimize/Maximize Fm(x1,x2, . . . ,xn),
m = 1,2,, M
Where x is a vector of n decision variables, representing the design space, and m is the number of objective
functions.
2.5.3 Multi-objective optimization versus single-objective optimization

Multi-objective optimization problems deal with more than one objective function, while single-objective
deals with more than one. When a single-objective optimization is set, the used algorithm will eventually
find an optimal solution with respect of its fitness function. When talking about multi-objective optimization, it may be wrongly assumed that the algorithm will find the optimal solution for each of the objective
functions. However, this is never possible, because the global optimal solution for each fitness function
does not exist in reality. Referring to this point as utopia point, can be useful to understand why in a
MOOP there is always a limit (Pareto front) that defines a set of best solutions, instead of having one optimal solution (Deb 2001).
At current state, 60% of the building optimization studies used the single objective approach, which means
that only one fitness function is optimized during the process of optimization. (Evins 2013) However, the
problems related to building design are normally involving conflicts between several design criteria simultaneously, such as, for example, maximizing thermal comfort while minimizing energy consumption, or
minimizing construction cost while minimizing energy consumption etc. Therefore, multi-objective optimization becomes more relevant than the single-objective approach.
2.5.4. Pareto optimality

Most of the multi-objective optimization algorithms use the concept of dominance for their search. The
concept of dominance is applied when two solutions are always compared on the basis of whether one
dominates (shows better results than) the other or not. The iterative process of finding a dominant solution eventually results in a set of optimal solutions, also referred to as Pareto front, and each solution is
called Pareto optimal. A solution can be referred to as Pareto optimal when there are no other solutions
dominating it with respect to the set objective functions. Once a Pareto optimal is achieved, the search
space can actually be split into Pareto optimal solutions and non-Pareto optimal solutions.
34
2.5.4 Optimization algorithms

The optimization search process is computationally made by applying specific strategies. However, all
objective function 2
Dominated solutions
Pareto front
closest point
Utopia point
objective function 1
Fig. 2.5: Typical disposition of solutions in a multi-criteria optimization
methods are called heuristic, which means that they do not guarantee to achieve the true optimum, but
they can offer an efficient and relatively fast search method that has a good probability of finding solutions
close to the optimum.
The direct search method compares new solutions with the best found so far and determines the next
trial solutions based on their results. However, it has been established that these search method can get
trapped into local optima that can be far from the global optima of the specific problem. Algorithms belonging to this method are: Pattern search (e.g. Hooke and Jeeves), Linear programming, Non-linear programming.
Others existing methods are meta-heuristic algorithms that mimic natural processes, such as Harmony
Search, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Simulated Annealing (SA) and
Evolutionary algorithms (EA)
Evolutionary algorithms
Evolutionary algorithms mimic natural evolutionary principle to organize and construct their optimization
process. For a number of iterations, called generations, these type of algorithms apply the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest solution by eliminating the weakest solutions for every generation. There are
a number of operators used to create new solutions, such as mutation, which introduces random changes, and crossover, that mixes characteristics between different solutions. The most common evolutionary
algorithms are: Genetic Algorithms(GA), Evolutionary Programming (EP), Covariance Matrix Adaptation
Evolutionary Strategy (CMA-ES), Differential Evolution (DE).
A more detailed review of Genetic Algorithm was done, in order to understand the mechanisms of one of
the most used method for optimizing building problems (Evins 2013) .
Genetic algorithms
Genetic algorithm is a heuristic search that mimics the natural selection found in nature. In fact, the idea
of this process comes from the observation of lifes evolution. Life evolves by exchanging DNA information
and producing new combinations of traits. Those organisms that survive a specific environment will generate the next generation. Every each generation the organisms get stronger because they inherit the strongest traits of the previous generation. After many generations, the newer populations will be the strongest
ones. Mutation at every generation can also help in finding new ways of survival in the given environment.
35
The computer-aided process of Genetic algorithm is an iterative process that, after many generations, will
provide a number of optimal solutions for a given problem. The algorithm has few main actors: Genomes,
Generations and Populations.
The Genome is a sequence of values that encompass the variables of a design. The Generation is a specific
combination of genomes at a specific moment during the algorithm. The Population is a group of Genomes
of the current Generation.
The genomes of a population undergo through a series of steps in order to create the next generation: Fitness, Crossover, Mutation and Reproduce. The fitness is a value describing the probability that a genome
will survive and be able to reproduce. The crossover is when two genomes exchange parts of their data
with one another. Mutation occurs when pieces of data of a Genome are randomly altered. Reproduce is
when the Genome copies itself into the next generation.
Even though there are many variations of Genetic Algorithms, the overall process stays the same. The steps
are as follows:
1.
Produce an initial generation of Genomes using a random number generator.
2.
Determine the fitness of all of the Genomes.
3.
Determine which Genomes are allowed to reproduce.
4.
Crossover the Genome pairs in the allowable population.
5.
Pick the 2 fittest Genomes of the 2 parents and 2 children resulting from the crossover and add
them to the next generation.
6.
Produce random mutations through the next generation population.
7.
Calculate the next generations fitness and loop back to step 3.
2.5.4 Levels of Approximation

Since any optimization process is time expensive and can require a long time before solutions are collected,
solutions were found and adopted in different studies to overcome this problem. Solutions for the level
of detail regarding the optimization process are called approximation. Approximation in optimization has
been widely applied so far. It refers to two main approaches: problem approximation and functional approximation. (Jin 2002)
Problem approximation
With this approach, the statement of the problem to be solved is replaced by an approximated one, that is
easier and faster to be solved. For example, simulations done with CFD are very detailed and time consuming. They use Navier-Stokes equations with a turbulence model. If an optimization needs many iterations
before solutions are found, a solution is to use Euler equations that neglects the viscosity, mass diffusion
and thermal conductivity of the airflow. Since Euler equations are computationally more efficient than
Naver-Stokes equations, this is a problem approximation.
Functional approximation
Functional approximation refers to the way the objective functions are constructed. In this case an alternate and explicit expression is built for the fitness function. Therefore, the way the optimization is approximated is only related to the optimization algorithm efficiency in finding solutions. In this case the reliability
of the optimization algorithm in finding global optima solutions decreases accordingly, but the speed of
the whole process can widely increase.
36
2.6 Conclusions
A number of different conclusions can be derived from the background research.
Regarding the review on academic optimization studies, although natural ventilation has been widely studied through simulations made with CFD, FFD and Airflow Network, only rarely it has been combined with
other factors affecting the energy use of the building, like daylight and thermal performances. A reason
for this is the lack of calculation tools for the early design stages allowing flexibility in the design and fast
elaboration.
This is also confirmed by the interviews done to top-level professionals belonging to architecture and engineering firms. According to the interviews, it appears that optimization has been done in the last few years,
but never in an integrated approach involving also the coupling of thermal analysis and natural ventilation
for early design stages.
Regarding sustainable design aspects, it appears clear that among all the aspects and evaluation criteria
that should be addressed in early design stages, the ones that have a direct dependency on main design
decisions are the passive aspects, such as orientation, building geometry, envelope performance, solar
exposure, solar protection etc.
Among these aspects, there is a large set of design possibilities and passive strategies that can be planned
early in the design process for office buildings located in temperate and hot climates, in order to achieve
low-energy goals. Specifically for this research, the potential of natural ventilation as passive mean for
cooling during summer months is investigated. Therefore, attention will be paid to wind assisted stack
effect. Moreover, exposure to solar radiation and daylight for reduction of need for heating and lighting
is considered. The Atrium as main passive strategy is selected in order to merge the natural ventilation
strategy with natural daylight.
The passive strategies related to early design stages are also one main focus of this research. Therefore,
building orientation, shape and window to wall ratio will be introduced within the proposed computational
process. Moreover, the basic aspects related to envelope design, such as envelope materials U-value (for
both windows and opaque elements), Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of glazed elements and shading
devices are selected as main parameters to be included and optimized within an early design.
Regarding Building Performance Simulation (BPS) and Building Performance Optimization (BPO), it is clear
that many computational techniques were developed in the last decades, in order to assess and optimize
building designs. Simulation techniques such as quasi-steady state monthly or seasonal method (for heating and cooling energy need), envelope flow models (natural ventilation) and raytracing (daylight) seem
to be the most suitable for early stages, where the need for a large number of simulations requires fast
evaluation tools. In line with the theory on level of approximations, described in 2.5.4, the criterion for the
selection of these specific calculation methods is the computational time needed for an evaluation. The
selected methods need short time for one assessment because they sacrifice accuracy, while focusing only
on the main aspects affecting their specific evaluation.
Finally, genetic algorithm have gained the trust of many experts in building optimization, because of their
ability in searching within large design space, and for their probability in finding global optimal solutions,
compared to other techniques. Within this research, the need for an algorithm able to optimize multiple
and conflicting criteria within a highly constrained design space led to the selection of genetic algorithm
as most suitable method.
37
38
3.1 What this integrated optimization process is and what is not

What it is not
As already explained in 2.2.2, when focusing on building energy efficiency, an energy concept must be
involved. Guidelines regarding the development of such a concept are well explained in many books and
researches. The strategies and aspects discussed within this thesis derive from an extensive research.
Thus, the proposed approach is not a new way of dealing with energy concepts.
Also, the architectural form-finding has a key relevance for the future energy efficiency of a building. However, trying to standardize a complex and high creative process such as the architectural design cannot be
done in any way. Thus, the proposed approach does not want to constrain and standardize the architectural expression.
Finally, it cannot be referred to as tool, since the scope of the investigation is the outputs of such a combination of tools, instead of the making of a proper tool-set.
What it is
As stated in the aim of this thesis paragraph, the goal of this thesis is to prove that the design of sustainability-oriented buildings can benefit from embedding Natural ventilation strategies within computational
optimizations since early stages of the design. In order to prove this concept, there was the need of developing an optimization process. The focus was the use of an integrated approach. Therefore, the developed
integrated process is an algorithmic process combining aspects related to energy performance that should
be considered in the early stages of a design for office buildings. Thus the adjective integrated.
3.2 Principle
As explained in the paragraph regarding energy concept development, there are a number of performance
criteria that can be applied to a design for a new and existing building. These basic aspects are related to
Ecology, Economy, Society, Architecture.
In order to restrain the scope of the proposed approach, the selected evaluation criteria are the ecological
evaluation and the social evaluation. The reason for such a selection comes for a direct and well-known
relationship between architectural design and effects that this has on users and on the environment. The
other aspects, related to Economy and Architecture are also recognized as fundamental in building design.
Evaluation criteria for Enegy concept
Economy
(life cycle costs)
CO2 emissions
Embodied energy
Energy need
Visual comfort
Active strategies
Passive
dehumidication
Earth
coupled
Orientation
(sun+wind)
ventilation
cowl
Exterior Wall
to Floor Area
ratio
venturi
rood
Architecture
(quality of a design)
Society
(acceptance)
Ecology
Thermal comfort
Indoor air quality
Acoustic comfort
Passive strategies
Daylight
Solar
Passive
access protection solar
night
ventilation
Stack eect
Fig. 3.1: Selection of aspects for intervention
40
Natural
ventilation
Cross
ventilatoin
Envelope
Thermal
protection
Solar
chimney
Thermal mass
Double
skin facade
Thermal zooning
single-sided
ventilation
However, these will not be taken into consideration in a detailed way.

Even though the best practice for a holistic sustainable design should also take into consideration both
active and passive aspects, especially for high efficient ZEB design, this approach is still not feasible in
common architectural and engineering practice, as it is shown in the questionnaire results in the background research. In order to evaluate the performance of a building design when still in its form finding
phase (concept phase), the proposed approach focuses specifically on the passive aspects and strategies,
to reach low energy consumption and human comfort goals. Regarding human comfort, thermal and visual
comfort were defined as focus of the proposed process. This choice comes from the well-known direct
relationship between geometry (and construction) of a building and its efficiency in providing thermal and
visual comfort passively. Next to these two aspects, also energy demand was set as evaluation criteria.
More information will be given in the paragraph performance evaluation criteria.
3.3 Methodology
In order to build a coherent process, the methodology was based upon the definition of building optimization analysis given by Maschairas et al. (Vasileios Machairas 2014). According to their research, a building
optimization analysis is basically comprised of 4 steps:
identification of the design variables and their specific constraints.
selection of building performance simulation tools and making of a building model.
selection of objective functions.
selection of an optimization algorithm.
Next to these steps, an analysis and selection of sustainable design evaluation measures was done. This
helped in coherently defining the evaluation criteria that will be considered, in order to set specific objective functions and define coherent inputs for the calculation models. Moreover, attention was paid
on building performance requirements, specifically for office buildings, in order to be able to set proper
objective functions.
It is important to clarify here that the computational process described in this chapter is hypothetical, because it slightly differs from the one that will be applied on the case study. This differentiation was needed
in order to overcome time related issues. More information is given in chapter 6.
Computational methodology
In order to be able to prove the benefits of embedding Natural ventilation in early stages optimization, a
computational algorithmic process needed to be built and tested. The fundamental idea for the developed
process is to integrate multiple evaluation tools and combine them with an optimization algorithm within
a parametric environment. The objective is to prove the possibilities that such a computational process can
have to be embedded within a design process.
For the development of the process Grasshopper (GH) for Rhinoceros was used. GH is a graphical algorithmic editor for Rhinos 3d modelling tool, which enables parametric modelling within the Rhino environment. Components belonging to GH, Honeybee and Ladybug (plugins for GH) were used and a number of
calculation tools were developed, in order to assess building performance. The tools for the evaluation of
Heating&Cooling need and Natural ventilation were programmed by using the VB.Net scripting tool in GH.
The adopted programming language is Visual Basic. More information can be found in the chapters 4 and
5.
41
3.4 Performance evaluation criteria

Performance criteria were selected based on the assumptions and decisions taken in previous paragraphs.
For the developed process, the criteria used for the evaluation of visual comfort, thermal comfort and
energy performance are respectively the daylight autonomy (%), the adaptive comfort model (hrs), the
annual heating and cooling need (kWh/m2a).
3.4.1 Daylight autonomy

Visual comfort can be assessed by evaluating the illuminance levels within a space. What is normally done
in computational daylight analysis is to set a group of test points distributed among a horizontal plane,
and evaluate the illuminance levels within an indoor space. A good evaluation criteria for assessing visual
comfort is the daylight autonomy. This type of analysis is a percentage that measures the annual daytime
hours that the test points has an illumination level above a specified threshold. It is a great innovation in
daylight analysis, because it considers weather information and specific geographic location. In fact, it is
also referred to as climate-based daylight analysis (Reinhart C.F. 2006). However, this method does not
take into account the possibility of glare. Even though glare problems could arise also due to other reason,
a good way to contain the glare probability is to set also a threshold for the maximum amount of lux that
the space should receive. Therefore, the proposed evaluation criterion is the Useful Daylight Illuminance
(UDI). (Nabil A. 2005)
UDI is a dynamic daylight performance that evaluates the period of time in which the test points have a
sufficient levels of lux, but not exceeding a maximum threshold set by the user. The proposed thresholds
come from the performance requirements for office building, therefore a minimum level of 500 lux and a
maximum of 2000 lux. The test points should be located on a plane lying at 1,0 meter height from the floor,
where a normal working plane is.
3.4.2 Heating and Cooling need

Heating and cooling in buildings accounts for a big part of the total operational energy. Therefore, heating
and cooling need was chosen as a performance criterion, in order to describe the efficiency of a building
geometry and construction. The selection of this parameter comes from the idea of detaching the design
performance evaluation from any kind of efficiency aspects related to active systems, that within the proposed process would not lead the optimization to any better result. The evaluation tool calculating this
performance can be expressed in kWh/m2a. This way of expressing energy need, with the same fashion as
the Energy Use Intensity, is useful to compare different results, which is fundamental for an optimization
study.
3.4.3 Adaptive comfort model

Several researchers have built models to predict the thermal comfort, and most of them come from surveys of people response to the thermal environment. There are three well-known international standards
related to thermal comfort: ISO Standard 7730 (2005), ASHRAE Standard 55 (2004) and CEN Standard
EN15251 (2007).
The Predicted Mean Vote predicts the mean comfort vote according to the AHSRAE scale based on six
parameters: air temperature, radiant temperature, humidity level, air speed, insulation of clothing and
metabolic rate (ASHRAE 2009). However, for naturally ventilated building, the ideal evaluation criterion
for thermal comfort is the adaptive comfort model, that takes into account the ability of humans to adapt
to a wider range of temperatures. In european offices with free-running mode, for example, the adaptive
42
comfort zone can range between 19 - 29C can be considered comfortable (Nicol F. 2012). This implies that
a lower need for cooling and heating can be achieved when the adaptive potential is considered.
3.5 Office building performance requirements

In order to correctly design a building, it is important to look at the performance requirements of the
typology of the building to be designed. Normally, when a new building is designed, the performance
requirements can either be set by national or local standards or by the client. The designed building must
meet the performance requirements of its typology. The Netherlands national standards for building performance requirements were used in order to formulate the objective functions of the optimization process, but also to set specific threshold set-points for the heating and cooling need calculations. Specifically
for the proposed process, the office building typology was investigated.
The selected performance criteria required taking into consideration the following performance requirements for office buildings: ventilation rates, light levels and temperature range.
Ventilation rates
Ventilation systems are designed in order to guarantee a good level of air quality in buildings. Even though
natural ventilation is considered as key aspect, the need for mechanical systems cannot be ignored. Thus,
research on ventilation rates was done.
The ventilation rate is dependent on the number of people that populate a space. The number of people to
take into consideration can be also retrieved by national standard, or by customized requirements.
Within the proposed approach, the minimum amount of ventilation rate with which the case study was
evaluated with is 0.65 liters per second per person. In order to be fed into the Heating&Cooling calculation
component, this value must be translated to 0.0065 (m3/s) (Bouwbesluit 2012). The number of people was
calculated by assuming an average 20m2 per person, for an office building.
In order to retrieve proper values for the energy need for space heating and cooling, a fixed supply temperature for the ventilation rate was set to be 20 C for the whole year. This is a good estimation of a mechanical system that supplies only ventilation (no heating and cooling) for air pollutants and moisture control.
Light levels
The Light Level or Illuminance, is the luminous flux incident on a surface per unit area. Since the work
plane is where the most tasks are performed in an indoor space, illuminance plays a key role in visual
comfort. Illuminance can be measured either in foot candles or lux (with the international System of Unit,
SI). Nowadays, for most indoor spaces, the levels range between 500-2000 lux, even though the specific
activities can require different ranges. For office spaces, the minimum illuminance level to ensure visual
comfort in the working environment is 500 lux (Bouwbesluit 2012). Moreover, if the illuminance levels are
too high there might occur glare problems. Therefore the range between 500 to 2000 lux was set as the
requirements for light levels. This range will be used for the definition of the objective function related to
visual comfort.
Temperature range
Thermal comfort is a fundamental requirement for indoor spaces. It is the indoor environmental issue that
has the highest impact on the feeling of people. Therefore, buildings need to provide a sufficient level of
comfort by artificially, or passively, heating or cooling the indoor air. Complying with the Dutch Standard
ISSO 74 (Vakbase 2015), a comfort temperature range between 20C and 24C can be used in office buildings. This specific comfort range is defined as good in the way it provides comfort for a mechanically conditioned building. Moreover, the same temperature range is a common range for the sizing of mechanical
system in office buildings in the Netherlands. In fact, for the building used as case study (chapter 6), the
same temperature range was used for the design of the mechanical system in the main office building.
43
For the application of the integrated process, this range will be used in Scenario (chapter 7), where it is also
combined with the PPD model for summer months. In Scenario 2, the temperature range used to calculate
the monthly energy need is dependent on thermal comfort level experienced in summer months within
the designed space. In this case, the setpoint for cooling will be set as the highest temperature considered
comfortable, according to the adaptive model. More information on this can be found in 8.2.
3.6 Objective functions

In order to assess the fitness of an evaluated individual within an optimization process, objective functions
needed to be defined. They can be described as the goal of an optimization analysis, and they guide the
optimization algorithm towards the definition of the Pareto front.
Objective functions are normally set in order to minimize or maximize the results coming from the performance evaluation tools. The proposed objectives and most of the engineering problems are conflicting
with each other, which means, according to literature, that the optimization process will lead to a set of
best solutions, but not to one solution encompassing the best result for each defined fitness.
Visual comfort
The objective function representing visual comfort should be set in order to maximize the result retrieved
by the Useful Daylight Illuminance analysis. This value (%) can be maximized, in order to increase the number of hours during which the defined test points are illuminated with a sufficient lux level, and also are
not over illuminated.
Energy need for heating and cooling
In order to decrease the dependency of the building on active systems to achieve a comfortable indoor climate, heating and cooling energy need must be minimized. The value resulting from the heating and cooling need calculation will become the objective function to be minimized by the optimization algorithm.
Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort is evaluated for snapshots of worst-case scenarios (warmest average temperatures in
summer). The goal is to improve the design of the natural ventilation strategy. The Adaptive comfort model
is used to assess thermal comfort, and its result is retrieved as the number of critical hours in which thermal comfort is not achieved. In order to passively increase comfort in the worst-case scenarios, the results
coming from the Adaptive model (hours with discomfort) should be minimized. The design would eventually provide comfort by balancing air velocity and air dry bulb temperature. The adaptive model is applied
in Scenario 2, while in Scenario 1 the PPD model will be used for its fast application. Also in this case, the
value retrieved from the calculations (%) needs to be minimized.
3.7 Design variables

The selection of the design variables comes from an extensive review done on optimization studies and
also from the literature review regarding Natural Ventilation strategies and calculation models. The approach described embeds aspects related to both building geometry and basic envelope design, while
trying to focus on the most important variables of a design that will influence future thermal and visual
comfort.
As previously stated, the architectural design process cannot be standardized. Therefore, here in this paragraph, a number of variables for new buildings (to be built) are illustrated at a low level of design specificity. A practical application and effects on a design are presented in the chapter regarding the scenarios
of the Case study.
44
Location on site
Nowadays, an increasing number of buildings are built within an urban setting. Therefore the designer
needs to consider the specific location on site, depending on a number of factors, related both to architectural and performance criteria. If we look at the performance criteria, some of these factors can be: shading effect of surrounding buildings, shading effect of the new design to existing buildings, wind pattern,
noise distribution.
In order to investigate the potential of different configuration of the building within the given site, a parameter to be set is the position of the center point (or center points) of a building. In this case, an important
aspect is the constraints that define the range of positions that this point can assume. This aspect will also
be discussed in the design constraints paragraph.
Orientation
The orientation has a very important role in energy optimization. Choosing the best orientation can maximize daylight, winter heat gains and minimize heat losses. Moreover, an optimized orientation can also be
beneficial for natural ventilation strategies, such as atrium or solar chimney. When considering surrounding buildings,
For the proposed process the parameter regarding the building orientation refers to the angle of rotation
around a user defined center point. The building can assume different orientations as a whole, or, when
the design intent allows for disaggregation, it can be rotated evenly between building parts (as shown in
the scenario 1 of the case study.
The parameter to be set is a rotation angle (degrees), and normally, the rotation axis lies at the mid-point
of the building volume.
Building Shape
A building featuring a compact shape has smaller exposed area per floor area, which reduces the effects of
the external environment. However, it may necessitate extra artificial lighting in its core, and also heavier
mechanical ventilation. On the other hand a taller construction can increase energy consumption because
of a greater exposure.
Building shape refers to those parameters that define the building geometry. It directly relates to the architectural intent, therefore it is not possible to strictly categorize it. However, it is possible to state that
the parameters related to the building shape will directly influence the building compactness, thus its
performance. A good way of dealing with this parameters is setting the total surface area as a fixed value,
in order to avoid that optimization would results in very small objects (Caldas 2008). Another way could be
to set the total building volume as a fixed value.
For office buildings, normally built around a distribution core or central open space (ref.), the implemented
parameters (within scenario 1) influencing the building shape are the floor shapes projection.
It is important for the designer to translate the architectural intent into variables that, once optimized, can
still express the design concept.
Number of floors
Setting the number of floors as a variable will also influence the building shape, therefore its thermal and
especially natural ventilation performance. It is important to notice that this parameter, either by setting
the volume or the total surface area as fixed values, will indirectly affect the shape of the floor projection.
Attention should be paid in order to constrain this variable within an acceptable range (e.g. local administration standards, solar envelope, etc.)
45
Window to Wall ratio (WWR)

WWR is a percentage representing the amount of glazed surface compared to the opaque surface. When
talking about window openings, it is important to notice that Heating and Cooling are only affected by the
size of the glazed surfaces (m2), and not by the geometry of the opening. However, window geometry is
another important parameter that should be taken into account, because it can results in different illuminance distribution patterns, and therefore in different visual comfort levels.
Atrium/solar chimney height
An important parameter to consider, when optimizing a naturally ventilated building, is the height of the
atrium or solar chimney (from the upper floor). It is related to the number of floors of the building, but also
by a specific input set by the user. This parameter will affect the stack effect and therefore the performance
of the selected ventilation strategy, in accordance with literature and with the used calculation model.
Ventilation openings
Another fundamental parameter for Natural Ventilation strategies is the dimensions of the ventilation
openings on both the outer envelope and in the. It directly influences the airflow rate within a storey
(therefore cooling loads), according to the developed calculation model (see chapter 5). This variable can
be expressed in m2.
Ventilation schedule
Ventilation schedule refers to the number of hours of a day during which natural airflow is introduced
within the building for passive cooling. During summer months, it is likely that most of the working day (8
hours) the building can be naturally ventilated. However, discomfort due to excessive cooling might occur
in the early morning and late evening, where the outside temperature could drop down to an uncomfortable level. A maximum of 8 hours of ventilation is suggested for temperate climates such as the Netherlands.
Shading geometry
When talking about building envelope, the shading geometry has a key role in the energy efficiency of a
building. When properly designed, It can protect the building from overheating due to solar radiation (in
summer), and still provide the indoor space of solar gains in winter, when they are most needed. As for the
building shape, this parameter cannot be standardized, because it refers to a parameter (or parameters)
that will not only affect the building, but also the performance of the faade construction and look. Therefore, the following example are related to the most common shading geometry in faade design, horizontal
and vertical louvers. Examples of variables could be the distances between lamellas, and their number.
Walls and glazing U-value
Another important aspect of the envelope design is the U-value of both glazed and opaque elements. It
is the total heat transfer coefficient, which defines how well protected the building is from heat losses
towards the exterior environment. U-value can be measured with W/m2K or Btu/hr-ft2-oF, and it is dependent on the material characteristics of the building envelope. The parameter to be set is a number
representing this design aspect. For example, windows U-Values can range between 0.4 and 3 W/m2K.
Glazing SHGC
Another important performance characteristic of glazed elements is the capability to control solar heat
gains. This parameter is called Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and it is represented by a number from 0 to 1
(even though the maximum and minimum values are practically never reached). A high coefficient means
46
high heat gains, while low values means low heat gains. This aspect is important to determine the cooling
load of a building. It is affected by the glazing type and number of panes. For instance, a clear glass can
have above 80% of solar gains, and highly reflective coatings can have down to 20%.
3.8 Design constraints

A design for a new building has always a certain number of constraints, set either by the architect, the
stakeholder or by local administration. These boundaries are set in order to confine the design space
within acceptable limits. Within the developed process, the constraints may represent a defined value
threshold for specific parameters. However, it is not possible to categorize every type of constraints, since
they can change drastically from one project to another and also be unique. A few possible constraints for
a new design are explained as follows.
Physical constraints
Physical constraints may be: building site dimensions and geometry, topography and existing surrounding
buildings. The designer should work on a design concept within these constraints and set the relevant
design variables within these boundaries, in order to not retrieve from the process any illogical and unsuitable solution.
Normative constraints
The design for a new building can have a number of constraints coming directly from the legislation of the
region in which it will be built, such as, for instance, the total amount of built volume, total built surface
area or maximum height from the street level.
Client needs
A designer must consider the needs of his client. Because of their nature, these needs cannot be explicitly
categorized. However, in order to achieve a good design they will need to be considered of high priority.
Technical aspects
Technical constraints may exist due to specific decisions that need to be taken already in the early stages,
which will eventually constrain the design freedom. An example for this type of constraints could be the
definition of a specific structural system that has strict constraints for its design, and therefore will affect
the overall building design.
Design aspects
Functions and aesthetics are only two of many possible design aspects that could constrain the design
parameters. It is important in this case, to select the design constraints early in the design process, in order
to be set together with the design variables.
Computational aspects
When designing within an optimization process, it is important to consider the computational time needed to achieve convergence. As will be more in detail explained in scenario 1 of the case study, levels of
approximation can be considered in order to reduce the computational time needed for one evaluation.
However, it is important to consider constraints that can reduce the dimensions of the search space, in
order to decrease the total time needed for an optimization. Attention should be paid in not defining too
strict constraints that would cut-out possible good solutions, which would jeopardize the overall results.
47
3.9 Optimization algorithm selection

The selection of a specific optimization algorithm comes from the related background research. Specifically, from literature it was found that stochastic algorithms do not guarantee that the absolute best solution
will be found, but they can obtain a good range of different design solutions in a reasonable amount of
time. Moreover, nowadays an increasing number of researches and tests are conducted with the use of GA
in building design for the search of better performing designs.
The reasons why GA are so used are many:
Ability in managing both continuous and discrete variables, and both types at the same time.
GA is naturally suited to solve multi-objective optimization problems with competing objective functions.
Robustness in handling highly constrained problems, without getting stuck in a local minimum. (Nguyen,
Reiter et al. 2014)
Many researchers investigated the performances of different optimization algorithms in solving building
optimization problems. For example Wetter and Wright compared the performance of a Hooke-Jeeves algorithm and a GA in optimizing building energy consumption. Their results showed that GA found a better
range of solutions and that the HJ algorithm was stuck in a local minimum.
Since the practical application on a case study will comprise highly constrained design parameters and
both discrete and continuous variables, a Genetic Algorithm was selected as a good match for the proposed optimization study.
Specifically, Octopus (plugin for GH) is the name of the Genetic Algorithm used for this research.
3.10 Steps of the computational algorithmic process

The developed computational process can be divided into steps. It is important to notice that within
an algorithmic environment, data may flow in an uneven way between different parts of a script. In this
case, the proposed steps try to represent and categorize the data flow within this process, by summarizing
which parts of the script work at the same time, and which are the ones that are actually waiting to be
fed by previous algorithms. Steps 1 and 2 are the parametric model definition, before starting the integrated optimization.
Step 1 is where the designer sets the basic parameters defining and affecting the shape of his design, for
both the main building and atrium volumes. In this phase, also SHGC and U-values for both opaque and
glazed elements of the envelope should be parametrically set (according to combinations of materials that
the designer wants to investigate). Information regarding density of internal heat gains, ventilation rates,
building time constant should be provided in order to estimate the energy need for heating and cooling (as
better explained in the chapter regarding the adopted calculation model).
Step 2 is the windows and ventilation openings definition. At this moment, the designer should parametrically set these variables, in order to complete the building model. Depending on the calculation type that
will be fed, these parameters can either be set by modelling (for daylight analysis) or by setting numerical
variables within certain constraints (for energy and natural ventilation analysis). For this reason, there is an
important point to be clear about. Computational time needed for a complete evaluation of the building
model (daylight, energy and natural ventilation analysis) can vary quite much depending on the level of
detail that the designer wants to apply for his design. As shown in the following image and also as shown in
the case study, the daylight analysis (which is the most critical in terms of computational time) can be confined to a small number of critical building fragments or storeys. In this way a smaller time will be needed
for both the parametric model generation and performance simulation.
Step 3 is where the specific definition of the model for the daylight analysis takes place. In this step, also
the analysis of wind pressure acting on the exterior faades of the building takes place. Also, the faades
extracted form the building geometry are here analysed for solar radiation. In step 4 solar heat gains, daylight levels and wind-driven pressure difference along the building are calculated.
48
Step 5 is the phase in which calculation for worst-case scenario in summer for natural ventilation, monthly
average ventilation rates are calculated. The monthly values are then fed into the Heating&Cooling calculation component. Step 6 is where the monthly heating and cooling loads are calculated. In step 7 the data
(airflow and indoor air temperature) are retrieved from the NaturalVentilation solver.
Step 8 is where the objective functions are set. Basically the values inherited from the UDI calculation
(%), heating and cooling need (kWh/m2a) and Adaptive comfort level are either maximized or minimized,
according to 3.6.
1
3
2
4
3
7
5
8
5
8
9
Fig. 3.2: Scheme of the integrated algorithmic process
49
12
7
10
11
6
3
1
2
Fig. 3.3 - Scenario 1, GH definition
50
3.11 Evaluation tools

In order to assess the selected performance criteria for office buildings, three evaluation tools were selected, two of which were developed within this thesis. The developed tools are two groups of sub-components, that can assess natural ventilation and heating and cooling loads. The selection criteria for their
calculation methods were computational time and detail of results. More information will be given in the
chapter 4 and 5.
The components group called Natural Ventilation solver is able to assess the airflow rate and relative air
temperature within an indoor space. It takes into consideration whether the applied passive strategy for
ventilation is wind pressure driven or stack effect. Because of its quick results for both airflow and temperature and its level of detail, this calculation method is suitable for early stages, where there is no need for
high precision but fast and good approximations, in order to be able to assess a large number of solutions.
The Heating&Cooling need components can evaluate the monthly need for heating and cooling, without
considering efficiency of mechanical systems. It calculates all the most affecting heat flows within a building, that will eventually influence its energy balance. The calculation method applied is the quasi-steady
state method, which is suitable for early stages because of the short computational time needed for its
calculations. The method also calculates dynamic effect of energy exchanges between a building and the
exterior environment, by using utilization factors. The lack of this type of calculations within a parametric
environment such as GH required the development of calculation components. More information will be
given in chapter 4.
Finally, for the daylight analysis of the indoor office space, the calculation method applied is the backward
raytracing, through the adoption of the simulation tool called Honeybee (plugin for GH). The choice was
driven by the conclusions from the background research on calculation types for daylight, in which backward raytracing appears to be the fastest analysis method with a very good level of detail.
3.12 Grasshopper definition

Finally, the algorithmic definition made in Grasshopper is here presented to show how the hypothetical
approach can be applied in a real parametric environment. It is important to notice here that there are
small differences between the proposed hypothetical process and the practical process, which will be applied on the case study of an office building comprising an atrium as main natural ventilation strategy. The
hypothetical process is characterized by a holistic approach derived from the research done in Literature
on sustainable design of office building for temperate and hot climates, and also on computational and
optimization techniques.
The approach is slightly detached by the real application, where more practical solutions needed to be
found in order to overcome time issues. These computational solutions are part of the levels of approximation that were discussed in the background research. The two approaches differ for the selection of design
variables, type of evaluations and objective functions. Detailed information on the applied objective functions, design parameters and simulation strategies are given in chapter 7 and 8.
Figure 3.3 shows the grasshopper definition for Scenario 1 of the case study, while the definition for Scenario 2 can be found in appendix C.
The first zone is the parametric definition of the building geometry of the floor shape. And the rotation
angle defining its orientation. The second zone is assigning the windows geometry and related parameters
Zone 3 is the definition of one storey for daylight analysis. Zone 4 is where the daylight analysis takes place.
Zone 5 is where weather data is extracted from the EPW data file. Zone 6 is where heat transfer by transmission, heat transfer by mechanical ventilation, internal heat gains are calculated with the set of tools
described in chapter 4. Zone 7 is where solar radiation falling on the building envelope is calculated with
Ladybug (plug-in for GH). Zone 8 is where wind pressure acting on building faades is calculated thanks
to the components described in chapter 5. Zone 9 is where natural ventilation is calculated for the three
summer months. Zone 10 is the assessment of natural ventilation in the warmest day of the year for the
worst-case scenario and the calculation of the PPD comfort model (for Scenario 1, while for Scenario 2
51
the Adaptive model is applied). Zone 11 is the zone in which the heating and cooling energy need calculation takes place. Finally, in zone 12 the outputs from the daylight analysis, PPD and Energy need for heating
and cooling are converted into objective functions by Octopus (plug-in for GH).
3.13 Conclusions
Energy concepts are built upon a number of different aspects. However, the proposed process needed a
specific focus. The focus is on buildings comprising atrium or solar chimney. The idea is to create a computational framework comprising the most important passive aspects affecting the future performance of
office buildings located in temperate and hot climates. Therefore, the potential of natural ventilation for
passive cooling can be investigated and optimized together with other conflicting aspects, such as solar
exposure, solar protection, daylight level. The focus on office building required a specific research on performance requirements for this typology and also a restriction of the design aspects to those that can be
more suitable for commercial buildings. Since a large number of office buildings in the Netherlands and in
other temperate and hot climates comprise atria as passive design strategy (not always used for natural
ventilation), this particular design aspect was considered for the practical application of the developed
process. Therefore, the hypothetical process described in this chapter will serve as a framework for the
practical application on a case study comprising atrium design.
Important for the proposed computational process is the evaluation tools for heating and cooling need
and natural ventilation described in this chapter and partially shown in 3.12. In the next two chapters, the
specific calculation methods and the components used within this thesis will be discussed in detail.
52
The developed optimization process necessitates calculation tools for the evaluation of energy performance related to heating and cooling need of a building. Because of the several evaluation steps required
by the process, it was very important the use of a simplified fast calculation model.
4.1 ISO 13790

An extensive description of the Quasi-steady state method for the calculation of monthly or seasonal heating and cooling need is given within the international standard SO/FDIS 13790, developed after the implementation of the EPBD in European countries (CEN 2007). This calculation model was used within this
thesis, to assess the energy need of the investigated case study. The equations were programmed within
the tools developed along this research. The reasons for the use of this specific Standard and calculation
model are:
It is an international standard, that complies with the EPBD
A energy performance
A requirements for new
A
buildings.
It uses a simplified calculation model, fast in providing a complete evaluation for monthly/seasonal energy need for heating and cooling
The described Quasi-steady state method takes into consideration dynamic thermal effects through utilization factors, instead of complex dynamic models.
1
Quasi-steady state method

c
As already explained in Chapter 2.4, this method calculates
the heat balances of spaces over a monthly pe- c
riod for the whole year, while using an utilization factor to take into account the dynamic effects associated
with its calculations. In this model, multi-zone calculation is possible, but without any thermal coupling
between zones. Therefore any heat transfer between zones by thermal transmission or by air movement is
neglected. Basically, the calculations must be performed for every zone, resulting in a series of independent single calculations, that can be summed up to obtain the overall energy need of a building. However,
for the practical application of this set of tools, the building will always be calculated as one zone. The main
principle of this calculation model is given by the following image.
pw
pl
Qsol, i
Qvent
(Qap+Qp) + (Qsol, d+Qsol, i) - Qvent - Qtr = 0
Qsol, d
Qap
Qp
Qtr
Fig. 4.1: Principle of heat balance equation
The basic principle governing the whole calculation method is the heat balance of a zone. The calculated
gains are solar and internal heat gains. The losses are due to heat transfer by transmission of the building
envelope and by ventilation. Furthermore, heating and cooling energy needs are calculated separately,
applying a utilization factor, which will account for dynamic effects.
Assumptions
The ISO 13790 standard uses the following assumptions for the its quasi-steady state method:
The heating set-point temperatures for heating and cooling should not be larger than 4C.
The building is considered as one zone. However, multiple zones can be calculated together, but heat
flows due to transmission or ventilation between zones is not considered.
The spaces have well-mixed indoor air temperature.
The spaces are all completely cooled or heated at any time.
These conditions need to be considered in the practical application on the case study.
54

In this paragraph, a detailed overview of the equations that will be embedded into the calculation tools is
presented.
The equation governing the exchange of energy, specifically heat, between a building and the environment
is the heat balance equation. In this equation, only sensible heat is considered, so temperature changes
due to difference of Relative Humidity are not taken into account. The equation is as follows:
1
W
W
W
Solar heat gains can be of two types: direct, when they are absorbed through windows, or indirect, through
absorption in opaque buildings elements. Internal heat gains are the sum of all the gains coming from internal sources, such as people, appliances, lighting etc.
Heat can be transferred through the building fabric, whenever difference in temperature between indoor
and outdoor air occurs. Thermal conduction is the physical phenomenon that causes heat loss by transmission. Thermal conductivity of the exterior materials define how large is the heat loss. Heat transmission is
calculated by using the U-values of the material.
Ventilation heat transfer (natural ventilation, or mechanical ventilation system) is governed by the temperature difference between the set point temperature and the supply air temperature (Kokogiannakis 2008).
The calculation that is used to estimate the energy need for heating is as follows:
2
In a similar way, the energy need for space cooling is calculated by using:
3
To calculate the heat flow due to transfer, the following equation is used:
4
to
55
The heat transfer coefficient by transmission can be calculated with the following:
5
where:
6
where:
The heat transfer by ventilation is calculated with the formula:

7
where:
(m3/s).
In order to calculate the solar heat gains for each element of the building that is exposed to sun, the following equation is used:
8
where:
The solar heat flux trough the element k is calculated by using:

9
where:
The effective collecting area of the surface k receiving solar radiation can be calculated by using two different equations, one for glazed elements, the other for opaque elements. The following is used to define
the effective area of glazed elements.
10
56
with:
The effective surface area for an opaque element k is described by the following equation:
11
with:
The heat exchange between the sky and exterior surfaces of the building, by thermal radiation, is given by
the following equation:
12
where:
According to the Standard, the external radiative heat transfer coefficient can be approximated with the
following equation:
13
where:
Calculating ss can be rather complex. However, according to the Standard, hr can be approximated to
5k .
The calculation used to determine the gain utilization factor (H and C) is performed for each month by
using the gain/loss ratio for the specific month and a numerical parameter (H) that depends on the inertia
of the building. These calculations are empirically derived from simulations done on a variety of buildings.
The gain utilization factor for heating can be calculated with:
57
14

15
16
17
where:
In a similar way, the gain/loss ratio for cooling is calculated with the following:

18
19
20
21
where:
The numerical parameters H and C depending on the building time constant () are defined by the following equations:

22
23
where:
The time constant of a building () is calculated with:

24
where:
The internal heat capacity of the building zone is calculated by summing the heat capacity of the surfaces
in contact with the air volume of the zone.

58
25
In order to calculate the intermittent energy need for heating and cooling, a reduction factor is applied to
the overall process just described. It might be used in order to estimate the impact of different schedules
on the building performance.
In this case the energy need for intermittent heating is calculated with the following:

26
where:
27
where:
The same procedure is used to determine the reduction factor cooling.

28
where:
For both total energy need and intermittent energy need, the results are normalized by the floor area and
converted to kWh (by multiplying the result by 0.277777778/Floor area). In this way, the output of these
calculation is converted to a value non dependent on the building dimensions. This output can be used to
compare different design performance.
59
4.3 Workflow
The workflow for the use of the developed components is divided in steps, as shown in figure.
Natural ventilation
average monthly rates
(hot months)
Requirements
for ventilation rates
(no hot months)
Building program
equipment, lighting +
people gains density
Internal heat gains

calculation
Total floor area

Interior surfaces
total area
Building geometry
Opaque surfaces
total area
Glazed surfaces
total area
Walls U-value
Opaque elements
Transmission heat
transfer calculation
Total
Transmission heat
Glazed elements
Transmission heat
Glazing U-value
Facades geometry
extracted
Heating&Cooling
need calculation
Monthly results
Solar heat gains

calculation
Solar radiation
calculation
Glazing SHGC
Weather data
Monthly average
temperatrues
Fig. 4.2: Workflow scheme
The first step is the extraction of data from the building geometry, envelope materials and weather data.
From the building geometry, opaque and glazed elements total surface area are needed in order to run
the calculation for heat transfer by transmission and solar heat gains. Envelope materials features, such
as SHGC of windows and U-values of glazing and walls are also inputs for these calculations. Weather data
is used to run the solar radiation calculation, which is performed through the Solar Radiation component
from the plug-in for GH (Ladybug). Furthermore, average temperatures are extracted from the weather
data file, also done through components from Ladybug.
Moreover, the internal heat gains are calculated according to the specific building program and total surface area.
The calculation is performed by a stand-alone component that outputs the monthly need for heating,
cooling, and the total need.

4.4.1 Methodology
The shown workflow refers to calculation components developed within this thesis, based on the equations presented in 4.2.
The components were all developed within Grasshopper, the parametric modelling plug-in for Rhino 3D.
The Visual Basic scripting tool was used in order to program the calculations with the VB.NET programming
language. The idea was to create simple tools to be embedded into the optimization process, focus of this
60
thesis. Even though the calculation components have a simple and clear interface, they are not intended
to be fully automated, but to serve the bigger picture described in chapter 2. Therefore, in order to work
properly, data needs to be manually extracted from the building geometry for any purpose.
4.4.2 Overview components

The calculation procedure is split in a number of components that need to be input with different information coming from both the geometry of the building, its materials and weather data file (EPW). The overall
energy calculation process is shown in figure.
The first zone is where envelope-related heat transfer by transmission takes place. The inputs of the components are fed by either material libraries (such as Honeybees) for U-value of constructions, and by
building geometry data.
Zone 2 is where solar heat gains are calculated. Data from the facade geometry is here also needed. SHGC
and U-values of th glazing are extracted from material libraries, or inputted manually.
Building program (inputted manually) defines the density of equipment, people and lighting, for the internal heat gains, calculated in zone 3. Once heat transfer and heat gains are defined, these are fed into
the Heating&Cooling components (zone 3), which will require also data regarding ventilation rates and
temperatures. The final output is a list of 12 values (monthly values) in kWh/m2, defining the heating and
cooling need of the analysed building or zone.
1.
2.
4.
3.
Fig. 4.3: Components for Heating and Cooling developed in Grasshopper for Rhinoceros
The components illustrated in figure 4.3 are here after described in detail.
61
Transmission Heat Transfer component

Inputs
_Wall/Roof/Glazed element total surface area (m2)
_U-value construction (W/m2K)
Outputs
_Heat transfer by transmission (W/K)
This component retrieves the surface area of all the elements of the exterior envelope sharing same U-value. The equation used here is number 5. This component should be used singularly for all the elements
having diverse U-values. If this is the case, the total heat transfer by transmission can be calculated through
simple addition. The same component can be used for either roofs, walls or glazed elements, such as windows.
Internal heat gains component
Inputs
_Building total floor area (m2)
_Equipment, Lighting, People power density (W/m2)
Outputs
_Internal heat gains (W)
This simple component calculates the amount of internal gains due to people, lighting and equipment
density. The total floor area can be extracted from the building model and the indoor gains density can be
set manually according to the building program typology.
Solar Heat flux component
Inputs
_Glazed element surface area (m2)
_Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (-)
_ Emissivity coefficient of glazed element (-)
_U-value glazed element (W/m2K)
_View factor (-)
_Solar incident radiation (W/m2)
Outputs
_Solar heat flux (W)
The solar heat flux component calculates the solar gains a space receive from a specific envelope glazed
element. Solar incident radiation for a element can be calculated through the use of Ladybug and inputted
as monthly average. This component should be applied a number of time equals to the number of envelope surfaces having different orientation/inclination.
The view factor is a value defining if the element is located on a wall or on a roof. If it is located on a vertical
surface, this input needs to be fed with a boolean definition as True, while in case of a horizontal roof, it
needs a False. The emissivity coefficient depends on the material of the glazed element (normally around
0.95) and defines the loss of heat through radiation.
62
Heating&Cooling need component

Inputs
_Monthly outdoor air temperature (average C)
_Total Heat transfer by transmission (W/K)
_Setpoint Temperature Heating (C)
_Setpoint Temperature Cooling (C)
_Ventilation Rate Heating (m3/s)
_Ventilation Rate Cooling (m3/s)
_Ventilation Temperature Heating (C)
_Ventilation Temperature Cooling (C)
_Ventilation Schedule Heating (hrs)
_Ventilation Schedule Cooling (hrs)
_Internal heat capacity of surfaces k (J/m2K)
_Total internal surface area Ak (m2)
_Total floor area (m2)
_Monthly Solar Heat flux (W)
_Total Internal Heat gains (W)
_Heating Hours per week (h)
_Cooling days per week (d)
Outputs
_Monthly Heating need (kWh/m2)
_Monthly Cooling need (kWh/m2)
_Annual Total energy need (kWh/m2)
_Intermittent total energy need
Heating&Cooling need component embeds the calculation model presented in 4.2. Specifically, it embeds
all the calculation excluded the heat transfer coefficient, internal heat gains and solar heat flux, which are
calculated by the other components.
This component can output the monthly energy need for heating and cooling normalized by surface area.
(kWh/m2). When the output values are summed, the annual need for heating and cooling can be collected.
This result can be used for comparison between different designs.
A component describing ventilation rates is missing. The reason for this is because the calculations for ventilation heat transfer rate is embedded into the Heating&Cooling need. Therefore, the user needs to provide a list of 12 values (in case of annual analysis) with the monthly average ventilation rates. For months
in which natural ventilation is expected, such as summer months, the ventilation rate can be retrieved by
the Natural Ventilation solver described in chapter 5.
The ventilation temperature also needs to be provided in form of list of 12 values. For the months in which
mechanical ventilation is provided, the temperature needs to be set at a constant temperature defined by
the building performance requirements (normally 20-22C). However, when natural ventilation is supplied,
external temperature needs to be considered for the hot months.
Intermittent total energy need relates to the number of hours the building is actually used by people and
requires energy for providing thermal comfort. Therefore, schedules in terms of hours and days per week
can be provided in order to retrieve more specific energy need due to scheduled occupancy.
The total internal surface in contact with air and internal heat capacity of the interior surface defines the
internal heat capacity of the building needed in order to calculate the time constant of the building, which
is used to account for dynamic effects. Dynamic effects are calculated through the use of utilization factors,
allowing the component to consider that not all the internal and heat gains contribute in the decrease of
energy need, but they can also contribute in overheating above the set threshold temperature.
63
4.5 Conclusions
The developed set of components is based on a reliable international standard, which is granted to have a
good level of precision especially for hot and cold months, while it might have a small distance from reality
for months at the beginning or the end of the cooling period (Kokogiannakis 2008). However, this calculation method can be a good basis for annual energy need analysis, especially in the early design stages.
Moreover, the possibility of inputting the values inherited from the Natural Ventilation solver described in
the next chapter will be fundamental for the research done within this thesis. The results coming from the
connection of these two set of tools can be interesting to understand the effect of natural ventilation on
the total energy need of a building. It is not unlikely to say that in a number of design solutions that will be
evaluated for the case study optimization, the output for heating need will result in loads also in summer,
when natural ventilation is used for passive cooling. Therefore, it is important to test the way these two
sets of components interact and what is the balance that the building needs to achieve in terms of temperature and airflow in order to have good results for the overall energy need.
4.6 Recommendations
The main recommendation about the developed set of tools is the automation of results. It is necessary
to remember here that data is extracted from the parametric model by passing through another step that
needs to be covered by the user, for a specific situation. Therefore, the process can become complex. A
solution for this could be the automation of the whole process in a fewer number of components capable
of be inputted directly with the building geometry and envelope materials features.
Moreover, the solar radiation calculation is currently done through the use of the plug-in for GH Ladybug,
but another approach could result in having the calculations for solar radiation embedded directly together with the solar heat gains calculation tool.
64
5.1 Introduction
The review done on existing tools for natural ventilation showed that there is a dominance of analysis
tools such as (Modelica, Comis, Contam) over design tool. However, it is well known that in the early
stage of the design, a fast feedback from the design choices is needed, in order to support the development of the design itself. Furthermore, it is not unlikely to say that most of the calculation software for
natural ventilation have a high computational time to give feedback. From the review done on analysis
software for natural ventilation, Coolvent by MIT appears to be the best in terms of computational time
and results, since it outputs both values for airflow and temperature of the indoor air.
Accuracy
Detailed
(slow)
Isothermal CFD
(Fluent, Phoenics, DB, etc)
CFD
(Fluent, Phoenics, DB, etc)
Zonal model
(E+, Esp-r, POMA, etc)
Rough
(fast)
Multi-zone model
(COMIS, CONTAM, etc)
CoolVent
(multi-zone model)
no
yes
Coupled airow and

thermal analysis
Fig. 5.1: Existing tools for calculating Natural ventilation
However, its simplistic interface and the absence of an actual building model make this software not easy
to be coupled with other evaluation tools, which is fundamental for the goals of this thesis. Therefore,
there was the need for the development of a simple and fast tool, capable of giving results both for airflow
and temperature, that could be used within a parametric environment and coupled with other evaluation
tools (such as the Heating&Cooling need discussed in chapter 4).
The selected calculation method includes a set of empirical formulas. The simplified nature of these equations makes them suitable for the early design stages. They define the bulk air displacement due to wind
pressure or stack effect, or a combination of both.
To be solved is the equations that govern the flow of air through openings throughout a building. In order
to give an output for both airflow and temperature, the calculation model will comprise also the heat
balance equation described in equation 1 of chapter 4. Regarding the opening area that allows air displacement, the principle applied is the one for single zone buildings. However, since the purpose was to create a
tool capable of calculating the effects of solar and heat gains and heat transfer on the natural airflow, each
zone should be calculated separately.
The principle behind this set of tools is in line with the concept of approximation described in 2.5.4, which
is specific for early stages optimizations, when a high number of evaluations are needed. By reducing the
level of accuracy of one evaluation, its computational time can be reduced. This is normally called problem
approximation. However, the outputs of the evaluations should still be considered reliable in terms of coherency, instead of high detail of results.
66

In this paragraph, the set of equations used are presented and discussed.
5.2.1 Basic equations for ventilation openings

The relationship between the flow rate through an opening and the pressure difference across it can be
expressed by using the discharge coefficient and the opening area. The formula that is mostly used is the
following:

where:
Qi is the airflow through the opening i (m3/s).
Cdi is the discharge coefficient (-).
Ai is surface area of the opening (m2).
pi is the pressure difference (Pa).
is the density of the air. It can be approximated to 1,2 kg/m3.
The discharge coefficient is a non-dimensional value depending on the area ratio and the Reynolds number
of the opening. Generally, a value between 0.60 and 0.8 is taken as standard, even though it could vary
noticeably with low values of Reynolds number.
5.2.2 Temperature difference effect

The density of the air is directly dependent on its temperature. When the flow occurs because of a difference in density (no wind effects), it has been shown that the pressure drop pi in equation 1 can be
derived with:

where:
PE0 is the external hydrostatic pressure at ground level (Pa).
PI0 is the internal hydrostatic pressure at ground level (Pa).
0 is the density difference at ground level (kg/m3).
g is the gravitational force per unit mass (m/s2).
zi is the height of opening i above ground level (m). This is the height where the flow leaves the opening,
normally the height of the opening.
The density difference at ground level is defined by:

where:
e and i are the densities of the external and internal air respectively (kg/m3).
Equation 2 can be applied to any opening having any direction, and can either describe an outflow or an
inflow. It is also independent of the fact that the indoor temperature can be either higher or lower than
the one outside.
67
5.2.3 Wind effect

When there is wind, the external pressure around an opening changes because the pressure exerted by
the wind is added to the one coming from the density difference. The pressure drop pi in this case can
be calculated by using:

Where pwi is the wind pressure at the point on the envelope where the opening i lies (Pa).
pwi is normally derived from wind tunnel test, and it is normally addressed in terms of wind pressure coefficient.

where: pref is a reference pressure (Pa) and U is the wind speed (m/s).
Therefore, the pressure difference across an opening, at which an external flow occurs, becomes:

where:
p0 is an abbreviation for: PE0 - PI0 - pref
This definition of pressure difference is taken from the CIBSE Applications Manual AM10. In this manual,
the equations used are derived on assumptions made in order to directly calculate the ventilation opening dimensions that satisfy a defined airflow pattern (CIBSE 2005). In case we want to evaluate a specific
design, this equation needs a numerical method, known as Newton-Raphson method, to solve both for
difference of pressure and airflow. The unknown term is the p0. This is what is solved in an Airflow Network model.
5.2.4 Simplified method

However, with the developed method, the goal is to quickly evaluate a design. The goal is also to combine
thermal analysis with the airflow analysis, which eventually determined the use of an easier approach.
The applied equation has been derived in several studies. It combines both the influence of wind and buoyancy for a single-zone building (Li, Delsante et al. 2000).

Where Aeff is calculated with equation 12. Pw is the difference of pressure over the whole building, due
to wind (Pa). It is defined by the following equation:

where:
Cpw is the wind pressure coefficient on the windward facade (-).
Cpl is the wind pressure coefficient on the leeward facade (-).
The sign is used because the wind can be either assisting or opposing. Therefore, + will be used for assisting, while - for opposing.
68
5.2.5 Wind velocity

The local wind velocity is dependent on surface roughness, surroundings and height. This dependency can
be calculated by using the power law equation:
9
where:
zG is the boundary altitude (altitude of the limit between the undisturbed air and boundary layer)
vG is the wind speed at the boundary altitude
is the constant dependent on the surface roughness
5.2.6 Wind pressure coefficient

The wind pressure coefficient Cp is a dimensionless value that describes the wind pressure on a specific
point of the building envelope. It depends on four parameters: the location on the building envelope, the
shape of the building, the surrounding obstructions and the wind direction. To estimate these dimensionless values, Swami and Chandra developed a mathematical model, for both low-rise and high-rise buildings, with correction values in case of neighbouring buildings. (Swami M. 1987)
For a low-rise building, the normalized surface pressure coefficient can be calculated (Swami and Chandra
1988):
Building front view

10
Where:
analyised point
NCp is the normalized Cp (-).
Z angle between the wind direction and the outward normal of the
As is the wind angle (radians). It is the
wall considered.
G = Ln (S) (natural logarithm of the side ratio S). The side ratio S is the ratio between the width of the considered wall and the width of the next wall.
ng top view
Building top view
Building top view
analyised point
facade normal
wi
nd
wi
nd
dir
ec
tio
dir
ec
tio
n
Fig. 5.2: Side ratio
The coefficients used in the equation are:

C0 = 1.248
C1 = -0.703
C2 = -1.175
C3 = 0.131
C4 = 0.769
C5 = 0.071
C6 = 0.717
From the normalized Cp value calculate the actual Cp by multiplying the normalized value by the Cp at zero
incidence for that wall. Use Cp at zero incidence to be 0.6.
69
For High-Rise buildings the following equation should be adopted:
11
Where:
Building front view
Cp is the Wind pressure coefficient on a specific point (-).
H
Xr=(XL-0.5)/0.5 (-).
XL is the Length Ratio: the horizontal position of a point on a wall, the ratio of the distance X of a point from
analyised point
the border of the wall to the length L of the wall considered (-).
AS is the wind angle (radians).
Z
S is the side ratio (-).
ZH is the Height Ratio: the vertical position of a point on a wall. It is the ratio of the distance Z of a point
from the ground to the height H of the wall considered (-).
Building top view
Building top view
Building topBuilding
view front view
S
H
analyised point
on
cti
ind
e
dir
analyised point
wi
nd
facade normal
AS
wi
nd
dir
ec
tio
dir
ec
tio
n
Fig. 5.3: Geometry ratios for Cp calculations and wind angle
The coefficients of the equation are:

Building top view
CO = 0.068
C2 = 1. 733
C4 = -0.922
C1 = -0.839
C3 = -1.556
C5 = 0.344
n
o
cti
Building top view
C6 = -O.801
C9 = 0.691
C7 = 1.118 analyised C10
= 2.515
point
C8 = -0.961
C11 = 0.399
wi
nd
facade normal
Building top view
C12 = -0.431
C13= 0.046
dir
ec
wi
nd
dir
e
cti
tio
X
e
onused to
In order to account
proposed a correction factor,
n
ASfor neighbouring buildings, Swami and Chandra
dir
L
nd
i
adjust thew Cp obtained with the previous formulas. The factor depends on the geometrical disposition of
L
the neighbouring buildings.
5.2.7 Effective opening area

For a multi-zone model, in order to simplify the calculations, it is assumed that all the openings are set parallel between each other. The effective opening area (Aeff) used in equation 7 estimates the total opening
area of a cross-ventilated storey (Santamouris, Allard et al. 1998).
12
where:
A1 is the area of the first opening belonging to the series of parallel openings (m2).
70
A2 is the area of the second opening (m2).

An is the area of the n opening (m2).
For the case of a building naturally ventilated through an atrium, the calculation involves multiple openings
of the inner faade of the building (opening to the atrium).
In this case an assumption is taken, so that the same formula as the previous one can be used. In this case
that formula looks like this:

13
In this case Aa is the ventilation opening area of the Atrium.
5.2.8 Conservation of mass

According to the principle of conservation of mass, the net mass flow into the building is equal to zero,
otherwise the envelope would either explode or implode (Santamouris, Allard et al. 1998). The principle is
described and implicitly applied in this calculation model through the formula:

14
An acceptable approximation of this equation would be ignoring the differences between densities. In this
way it can be simplified to:

15
5.2.9 Neutral plane

In line with the principle described in literature, the neutral plane of an atrium can be derived by the following formula (Kleiven 2003):
16
where:
hn is the height of the neutral plane from the bottom height of the atrium (m)
A1 is the area of the ventilation opening of storey 1 (m2)
An is the area of the n opening (m2)
h1 is the height of the center point of the ventilation opening 1 (m)
hn is the height of the center point of the ventilation opening n (m)
71
5.3 Workflow
The workflow for the natural ventilation solver shares many similarities with the one for heating and cooling need. However, the calculations done in this case are for the worst case scenarios in summer, that will
be used to evaluate the thermal comfort levels.
Wind pressure
coecient
Wind pressure
dierence
Eective opening
area
Building program
equipment, lighting +
people gains density
Internal heat gains

calculation
Total floor area

Interior surfaces
total area
Building geometry
Opaque surfaces
total area
Glazed surfaces
total area
Walls U-value
Opaque elements
Transmission heat
Glazed elements
Transmission heat
Glazing U-value
Facades geometry
extracted
Airow &
Temperature
average
airflow rate
Total
Transmission heat
Solar heat gains

calculation
Solar radiation
calculation
Glazing SHGC
Weather data
Monthly average
temperatrues
Fig. 5.4: Natural ventilation workflow scheme
As for heating and cooling the first step is the extraction of data from the building geometry, envelope
materials and weather data. After this, the calculations for heat transfer by transmission, solar heat gains
and internal heat gains are done. At the same time, wind pressure coefficients on the faades, pressure
difference along the building and effective opening area are calculated. These results are fed into the Airflow&Temperature component, which can output values of airflow and temperature for each calculated
zone. The output can be either a snapshot for a worst scenario in summer or a monthly average airflow.
As for heating and cooling need, solar radiation is calculated through Ladybug, an environmental analysis
plugin for GH.

5.4.1 Methodology
The components calculating natural airflow were all developed within Grasshopper, the same as for the
Heating&Cooling need components. Also for these, the Visual Basic scripting tool was used in order to
program the calculations with the VB.NET programming language.
The same approach used for the Heating&Cooling tools was used for the development of the Natural
72
Ventilation solver. This means that a set of calculation components was developed by programming the
equations found through the research done within this thesis on natural ventilation calculation models.
The main objective for the development of the calculation components was to achieve a fast tool, capable
of output values for both airflow and temperature, which will be needed to assess a worst-case scenario
for thermal comfort in summer. Therefore, the main focus was to find the set of equations that would give
the wanted results without compromising computational time and complexity of the script.
This results in a non-completely automated process, which will be illustrated and explained in the next
paragraphs. As the same for Heating&Cooling need component, data needs to be extracted by the building
model and fed in to the components by the user. Again, solar radiation calculation needed for the calculation of solar heat gains is done by using Ladybug. Moreover, the developed Natural Ventilation solver
needs calculations of heat transfer by transmission, solar heat gains and internal heat gains. For these, the
same components illustrated in chapter 4 will be used.
5.4.2 Working principle

When the ventilation pattern of a building is changed (e.g. by opening a window), its energy balance in
steady-state conditions also changes. In this case the internal pressures, air movement and temperature
adjust until balance is found. For this calculation, solar and internal heat gains and heat transfer by transmission are also considered.
In the developed calculation components the steady-state condition is calculated by iterate between the
heat energy balance of all the building zones and the airflow calculations. In this way, it is possible to approximate in a fast way the heat transfer due to natural ventilation, and thus the resulting temperatures of
the building zones. In order to have a good estimation of the indoor temperature, the governing equation
is the heat balance equation, where only sensible heat is considered.
This equation is applied to each zone, together with the ones for the airflow through the atrium and the
zones. The new temperatures will affect the airflows, which will result in new temperatures. This process
is iterated until the temperature difference between the previous and the current iteration is small enough
(<0.1C).
T zone 1
Q zone 1
T zone 2
Q zone 2
T zone 3
T zone n
Q zone 3
Q zone n
T atrium
Heat balance building

Q atrium
New
Q zone 1
New
T zone 1
New
Q zone 2
New
T zone 2
New
Q zone 3
New
Q zone n
n iterations
New
T zone 3
New
T zone n
Atrium-Environment
pressure difference
T Atrium
Q Atrium
Fig. 5.5: Airflow&Temperature component, calculation steps
5.4.3 Assumptions
The Natural Ventilation solver components are built on a number of assumptions.
The main assumption regard considering the building as one unique zone, while calculating separately the
air displacement for each zone, considering also the effects of internal and solar gains and heat transfer
73
by transmission.
The size of the opening is assumed to be small enough for the calculation of the pwi at the specific point to
be appropriate. This assumption can be reasonable for small openings such as vents and normal window
sizes, but it can result in low precision for larger openings.
Within the developed calculation tool, the total amount of air leaving the atrium or solar chimney is always
split among the number of zones connected to it. This is an approximation necessary since it is not easy to
predict the exact behaviour of the air distribution along the building height, because the exact difference
of pressure between the zones and the atrium zone is unknown. Such a detailed simulation is performed
by software like CoolVent (which uses a set of complex Airflow Network calculations), which predicts the
differences of pressure between building zones.
Equations number 13 shows the way the effective opening concept is extended to multiple openings
placed in parallel. However, this equation is an assumption taken in order to calculate the total opening
area of the building. With this assumption it is possible estimate the building capacity for natural airflow.
5.4.4 Components overview

The following image shows the set of components belonging to the Natural Ventilation solver. As for the
Heating&Cooling need components, data extraction from the building model is needed as first step in order to fed the calculation components.
Fig. 5.6: Grasshopper workflow
Wind pressure coefficient component

Inputs
_Wind angle (radians)
_Side ratio (-)
_Length ratio (-)
_Building height (-)
_Height ratio (-)
Outputs
_Wind pressure coefficient (-)
This component calculates the wind pressure coefficient (Cp), which is a dimensionless value describing
the effect of the incident wind on the building facade analysed. Building height needs to be provided in order to either calculates the wind pressure coefficient for high-rise or low rise, according to the used calculation described in 5.2.6. Wind angle should be considered as the angle defined by the wind direction and
normal of the building facade. Side ratio is the ratio between the width of the facade and its side length.
74
Height ratio is the ratio between the height of the point on the facade and the total building height. Length
ratio, Height ratio and Side ratio need to be manually provided by the user.
Pressure difference due to wind
Inputs
_Wind pressure coefficent windward facade (-)
_Wind pressure coefficient leeward facade (-)
_Wind speed (m/s)
Outputs
_Wind pressure due to wind (Pa)
The pressure difference due to wind (equation number 8) is calculated by this component, whose output
will be fed in to the Airflow&Temperature component. In case of atrium and assisting wind, the wind pressure coefficient on the leeward facade (which belongs to the atrium in this case) should be considered as
negative and set as an average value for horizontal surfaces. In case of opposing wind, the wind pressure
coefficient for the atrium openings can be considered as positive. The wind speed (m/s) is retrieved from
the environmental analysis components belonging to Ladybug (plugin for GH), which extracts the data
from the EPW file.
Effective opening area component
Inputs
_Exterior Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Interior Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Opening Area Atrium (m2)
Outputs
_Effective Opening Area (m2)
This component runs for a specific number of zones (this image shows only 3). The effective opening area
will be fed into the Airflow&Temperature component and it defines how much the building is capable to
be natural ventilated. Multiple openings in parallel should also be defined by feeding both the exterior and
interior opening area of each zone. The dimensions of the ventilation openings (either windows or vents)
can be provided by extracting geometry data from the building model.
Neutral plane component
Inputs
_Opening Area zone n (m2)
_Opening Height zone n (m)
_Opening Area Atrium (m2)
_Opening Height Atrium (m)
Outputs
_Neutral plane height (m)
The neutral plane component has one main output: the height at which the neutral plane of the atrium/
solar chimney lies above the ground. The inputs needed is the surface area of the interior ventilation
75
openings and their height for each storey. The same information are needed for the Atrium openings. The
equation used for this component is number 16.
Airflow&Temperature component
Inputs
_Outdoor temperature (C)
_Solar heat gains zone n (W)
_Solar heat gains Atrium (W)
_Internal heat gains zone n (W)
_Internal heat gains Atrium (W)
_Heat transmission zone n (W)
_Effective opening area (m2)
_Atrium Height (m)
_Difference of pressure due to wind (Pa)
Outputs
_Airflow rate zone n (m3/s)
_Airflow rate Atrium (m3/s)
_Air temperature zone n (C)
_Air temperature Atrium (C)
The Airflow&Temperature component can differ according to the calculated scenario (as better explained
in the next paragraph). It gives an output for both ventilation and temperature for each zone. It embeds
the equations presented in 5.2. The evaluation is for a specific moment of the year, as a snapshot. The
inputs needed, such as solar heat gains, heat transfer by transmission and internal heat gains need are
considered as average for each storey. They can be retrieved by the other components presented in chapter 4. The number of zones is specific for the design assessed. The component developed for the practical
application within this thesis comprises 30 storeys/zones. Therefore, the number of floors is needed as
input, in order to split the airflow leaving the atrium within the right number of floors that the building
has. Moreover, the airflow rate can be affected by the difference of pressure along the building, therefore,
in order to account for it, the input for difference of pressure due to wind should be fed.
5.4.5 Calculation scenarios

Different scenarios for the Airflow&Temperature components were developed, in order to assess different
possibilities for natural ventilation to be applied to a design. Eventually, only the calculation scenario 1 will
be used for the practical application on the case study optimization.
Calculation scenario 1
In scenario 1, the building uses an Atrium (but it cam also be a solar chimney, since the air displacement
principle is the same), as main ventilation strategy. In this case the air movement through the storeys
will be derived from the total amount of the air leaving the atrium outlet. Each storeys is considered as
separate zone, and its indoor air temperature is affected directly by the outdoor temperature. The atrium
temperature will be affected by both internal gains, solar gains and the heat received by exhaust air from
the building storeys. The natural airflow is not only affected by internal and solar heat gains, but also by the
wind pressure difference along the building, which can be assisting or opposing the airflow.
76
A1 + A2 + A3
A1 + A2 + A3
Aa
cpl
cpw
igh
ogh
Fig. 5.7: Principle of calculation scenario 1
Calculation scenario 2
In scenario 2, the building uses both an atrium/chimney and a Double Skin Faade (DSF), as ventilation
strategy. However, the natural ventilation calculation is only affected by the atrium. In order to simply the
calculation, no effects related to air displacement within the DSF are accounted. However, it is important to
notice that the gains coming from the DSF will be influencing the temperature of the building zones, which
is important to investigate the potential in extending the natural ventilation period of a building. However,
the DSF should be shaded in summer to avoid overheating of the incoming air.
Also in this case the natural airflow can be affected by wind pressure on the facade of the DSF and atrium
roof.
Ad A1 + A2 + A3
A1 + A2 + A3
Aa
cpl
cpw
igh
ogh
Scenario 3
In scenario 3, the building is cross ventilated. In this case the buoyancy driven flow can be neglected from
the calculations. Therefore the calculation model in this case only considers the difference of pressure due
to wind, acting on the windward and leeward faades, and the effective opening area of each storey. In
order to account for the changes in temperature between zones, once again the internal and solar heat
gains are taken into account, as well as the heat transfer by transmission and ventilation. The airflow output of each zone is affected by the height above the ground of the zone, because the wind speed follows
the principle explained in 5.2.5.
77
A1
A2
A3
cpw
cpl

Qsol, i
5.5 Comparison with QOasys BEANS (Arup built-in software)

vent
Qap Qp
Qsol,interpret
d
(QapIn
+Qorder
p) + (Qsol, d+Qsol, i) - Qvent - Qtr = 0
to compare and better
the results
of the developed tool, a comparison with the Arup

built-in software BEANS was performed, from the OasysQ suite. BEANS is a tool used to perform dynamic
thermal analysis. It comprises solar and internal heat gains analysis, U-values and admittance, comfort and
ventilation. It only allows the user to build a single room analysis. However, in case of special rooms, such
as Atria, this stool can be quite reliable, and this is why it is widely used in Arup. The software incorporates
calculations for the ventilation heat transfer, coupled with detailed thermal analysis calculations. Therefore, it was possible to compare the results coming from the simulation done on the atrium of tower A of
the Atrium building. This office building will serve as case study for the developed optimization process, in
chapter 6 and 7. The simulation performed in BEANS describes the current indoor climate of the atrium,
in order to be able to know the cooling capacity needed for the new design for the mechanical cooling
system.
tr
Fig. 5.10: BEANS calculation from Arup
The BEANS software is able to cut slices of the thermal stratification and give an output for any analysis
height that is set by the user. From the results of the analysis done for a height of 5 meters (low figure)
from the ground level of the atrium, the mean temperature is 26C. However, the highest temperature
given at a height of 20 meters is about 36C.
78
A model representing the Atrium Building was created in Rhinoceros and imported in Grasshopper. By setting the ventilation openings (Effective opening area) in a way that the results coming from the component
would match the same amount of airflow calculated by the BEANS software (mechanical ventilation), it
was possible to get a comparable result for the temperature. In this way, it was possible to spot eventual
major differences between the two simulation tools. However, the validity of this comparison was only
restricted to the thermal calculation involved in the Natural Ventilation solver.
Fig. 5.11: Results retrieved from the Airflow&Temperature component
The output for the atrium temperature coming from the developed calculation tool shows similar result to
the peak temperature calculated by the software. It was deducted that the temperature output given by
this component is actually an approximation of the highest temperature within a zone.
When an atrium design is involved, a more detailed thermal analysis should be conducted, especially if the
occupants of the building use the atrium. However, for the goals of this thesis, a good approximation of
the highest temperature can be good enough to roughly determine the amount of airflow that is leaving
the atrium/solar chimney.
79
5.6 Comparison with CoolVent (MIT software)

CoolVent is an airflow network calculation tool that couples thermal and airflow calculations to model the
effects of stack ventilation, cross ventilation and a combination of both. Its results are quite detailed and
the software validity was assessed by comparing it to other tools (also CFD). This means that for the case of
the calculation tool developed along this thesis, the comparison with CoolVent will be considered good to
establish the coherency of the tool, instead of its level of detail, which is not necessary in the early design
stages of the design. In order to understand the potential of the Natural Ventilation solver and its validity
for different design (which will be essential for the practical application), several different scenarios are
modelled and the results compared with CoolVent.
5.6.1 Case 1 - Central Atrium, no wind

A case for a central atrium design was modelled in GH, in order to obtain a 3d model from which it would
be possible to retrieve the specific information needed by the Airflow&Temperature component to run.
The dimensions of the building and the ventilation openings were set to be the same as the ones taken
from one of the CoolVent base cases.
Fig. 5.12: Case 1, Airflow&Temperature outputs
The results coming from the component show a zone temperature ranging from 27.10C (top storeys) to
25.90C (lower storeys). It is important to notice the neutral plane calculation, which outputs a value of
7.35 meters. This means that the neutral plane of the atrium is at a height lower than the vents of the top
storeys. As shown in literature, this can result (under specific condition) in an inflow at the top storeys (fig.
5.12). The results coming from the component needed then to be updated in case of an inflow coming
from the top storeys. The total airflow leaving the atrium vents is 6.37 m3/s.
Fig. 5.13: Case 1, CoolVent output
80
The results from CoolVent confirm the prediction of the Airflow&Temperature component, giving a total
airflow of 6.33 m3/s, and an inflow at the top storeys. However, the specific airflow rates per zones are
different. This is related to the assumption of splitting the total airflow among the number of floors, which
was taken in order to simplify the calculations within the component. This affects also the output temperatures. It can be observed in CoolVent that the lower temperatures are found at the bottom storeys, which
can also be seen from the Airflow&Temperature tool.
5.6.2 Case 2 - Side Atrium/Solar chimney, no wind

A 3 storey building with attached an atrium is used for the comparison. Once again the same settings were
used for ventilation openings, overall size and orientation. The openings dimensions are as follow: 5m2 per
floor for the exterior openings, 3m2 per floor for the inner openings, 5m2 for the atrium vents.
According to the results from the Airflow&Temperature component, the neutral plane lies below the top
vents, meaning that an inflow can occur at the top floor. The total airflow leaving the atrium is 3.76 m3/s,
while the zone temperature is 20.70C. In this case, the total airflow shown in figure 5.14 is not affected by
the neutral plane. The intention is to show the similarities between the two calculators, in case the neutral
plane results would have matched the results from CoolVent.
For this simulation, CoolVent shows an upper storey airflow rate close to 0 m3/s, and a total airflow of 3.60
m3/s. This case is a good example to show the limits of the developed component. If the neutral plane calculation does not allow for an accurate result, the component would give slightly diverse results from the
CoolVent ones. The zone temperatures from the Airflow&Temperature component are also slightly higher
than the ones retrieved from CoolVent.
81
5.6.3 Case 3 - Side Atrium/Solar chimney, no wind 2

In this case the same building was evaluated, but with changed settings for both the outer and the inner
openings and the one of the Atrium. In this case the vents dimensions are: 4m2 per floor for the exterior
openings, 4m2 per floor for the inner openings, 8m2 for the atrium vents.
The results from the Airflow&Temperature component show a neutral plane higher than the top vents, and
a total airflow of 4.59 m3/s. The zones temperature is in average 20.28C. CoolVent results show similarities, since the total airflow is 4.48 m3/s. Once again, the temperature results show dissimilarities, because
of the different airflow rate occurring at each floor.
5.6.4 Case 4 - Side Atrium/Solar chimney, assisting wind

The same building with the same dimensions as in the case 3 was simulated in case of wind effect, as it is
shown in figure.
Fig. 5.18: Case 4, Airflow&Temperature output
82
The results from the component show an increase of airflow and a decrease of average temperature, with
a total airflow rate of 8.92 m3/s.
The results in CoolVent show that an increase of the ventilation rate is confirmed. However, a dissimilar
result for the total airflow is given. This might be due to the wind pressure coefficients that are considered
as average for the whole building faades (Cp windward and Cp leeward). As shown in the last case of
comparisons, the CoolVent software does not consider changes in wind speed related to the height above
ground. This might bring slightly different results from the ones output by the Airflow&Temperature component.
5.6.5 Case 5 - Side Atrium/Solar chimney, 6 storeys

A case for a 6 storeys building was also built and compared with the CoolVent software.
It can be observed from retrieved from the developed component that the neutral plane height above
ground is 14.30 meters, which is higher than the last two upper storeys. This means that the output of
the total airflow must be adjusted accordingly. The total airflow rate is then 6.00 m3/s, while the zones
temperatures are around 23C.
83
Similar results can be retrieved from the CoolVent model, since the output for the total airflow is 7.67 m3/s,
while the temperatures range from 20.8C to 24.3C.
5.6.6 Case 6 - Cross ventilated building

In order to explore all the potential of the developed component, also a case addressing only cross ventilation was built. As it can be observed, the airflow rates change in relation to the height of the building,
because the wind speed changes according to it, as it is described in literature. This also results in a gradient of temperature.
At the upper floor, where the wind speed is higher and the airflow rate is the higher, the temperature is
lower. Moreover, the left side of the building has lower temperatures, since the external temperature only
affects it. On the other hand, the right side is affected also by the gains of the zone on the left side of the
84
building, resulting in a higher temperature.

In the figure from Coolvent, it seems that changes of the wind speed in relation to height above ground is
not considered, since each storey show similar results. This results also in similar temperatures for different storeys.
5.7 Overview comparisons and Conclusions

A chart representing the results from the 6 comparisons is here shown.
Fig. 5.24: Overview of the comparisons
The graph shows that the two tools generally share similar results and a good match in terms of coherency.
Precise results appear to be the ones retrieved from the first three scenarios, in which also the central
atrium configuration was tested. It is good to know that this tools can have good results in terms of central
atrium scenario, since it is going to be used for the application on the case study within this thesis.
Moreover, it is shown in case 4 that the increase of airflow due to wind effect is coherent with the result
retrieved from CoolVent, even though with relative difference. The comparison of case 5 shows that the
tool outputs similar values also in case of a tall building. This is also a good result for the future application
on the case study, which comprises high-rise blocks.
In general, the results of specific zones can be relatively different, but always within an acceptable limit.
This is due by the assumption taken in dividing the total airflow leaving the atrium within the number of
storeys. However, from literature it is well-known that this situation should be the best design situation,
because the design would be delivering the same thermal comfort for each storey. Moreover, this situation
can be achieved with an increasing ventilation openings area increasing along the building height.
The application of the Natural Ventilation solver can be considered a good level of problem approximation, useful to overcome time issues typical of early stages of a design. This set of calculation tools are
very quick in providing a result, especially when data are inputted manually. Since more reliable results
are given when solar radiation analysis and calculation of solar heat gains are done, the overall calculation
can take longer (depending on the geometry to be analysed) due to the computational time needed by the
solar radiation analysis provided by Ladybug (plug-in for GH). However, the same solar radiation analysis
needed to run the Heating&Cooling need component can be used for the purpose of natural ventilation
analysis.
85
5.8 Recommendations
The same recommendations as for the Heating&Cooling need calculation tools can be given for the Natural
Ventilation solver. An important future step for these sets of tools is the automation of data for input. At
the moment, the tools need to be fed for any kind of data. A future possibility would be to retrieve the
geometric information directly from the building model geometry. This would result in a faster execution
of the preparation of an optimization analysis.
Furthermore, the neutral plane and effective opening are calculations could be embedded into one unique
component to be fed into the Airflow&Temperature component. In this way, an automated result considering the position of the neutral plane might be performed.
86
A practical application of the developed optimization process is tested on a case study of an existing office
building. The objective of this investigation is to show the potential of an integrated approach for optimization by re-shaping an existing building, whose design was not developed trough the use of computational
analysis. The case study was provided by Arup (Amsterdam), which has worked on the re-design of the
technical installations of the current building.
6.1 Location
The building used as a case study is the Atrium Building. It is located in the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, specifically in the district of Zuidas.
Fig. 6.1: Building site location in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Zuidas is a business district, also known as the Financial Mile that is fatly developing, where several large
multinationals have built their headquarters. It is expected to develop more and have the second largest
train station of the city of Amsterdam within a few years.
The building shares its site with two other tower buildings, both featuring 16 storeys. The highway A10,
which stands at a distance of about 100 meters from the building faade, prominently characterizes the
south side.
Fig. 6.2: Building site location in Zuidas district, Amsterdam
88
6.2 The Atrium Building

The shape of the building is compact and it is defined by a decentralized floor plan. It is characterized by 3
main blocks, which will be called within this thesis as blocks A, B and C. These blocks are easily recognizable
because of the difference in height. It seems to be an architectural intent of dividing the building both in
height and in plan. Moreover, this layout creates three spaces left-overs of the building site. Two of them
are used as pre-ingress to the building, while one has a more practical use as parking for cars.
The main feature of the building is its three wide atria, which serve as good natural daylight strategy, and
also as design expression, defining an interesting interior space that can reflect the intention of visual
connection between floors and different functions. The most prominent atrium, which belongs to block A
represents the main entrance of the building, and it is located in front of the main semi-public courtyard.
B
Fig. 6.4: Atrium building, atrium of block A
Fig. 6.3: Atrium building, blocks A, B, C
6.3 Building program

The Atrium building presents the program of a typical modern office building. The program is distributed
around a central axis where the elevator shafts, stairwells and services are located. This can be defined as
the core of the building, which is in important component of office building design. It normally gathers all
the services that will serve the usable area (A. Eugene Kohn 2002). It used to be a dispersed element in
office designs, but in modern examples such as the Atrium, it has become a more compact element, that
is used also as structural mean, to help resist wind loads.
Fig. 6.5: Ground floor, program distribution
89
Currently, the program at the ground floor is characterized by: catering areas, restaurant, commercial
rooms, atrium space (for block A), service core and a large technical space. The main entrance, belonging
to block A justifies its shortest height and the south-facing atrium.
Fig. 6.6: First floor, program distribution
The first floor presents office, meeting and commercial rooms, while having also one of the three blocks
completely occupied by technical rooms.
It is important to notice here, that the atrium of block C does not reach the first floor, but it starts cutting
the building slabs only from the third floor. Small meeting rooms and open office layouts characterize the
third floor and the ones above.
Fig. 6.7: Third floor, program distribution
Also important is the layout of block B, where as for the block C, the building features the atrium void only
starting from the sixth floor. This is also due to the distribution of technical rooms at the first floors of block
B.
90
6.4 Site analysis

Sun path analysis
By analysing the sun path, it appears clear that the building is mainly south-facing. Both blocks A and B
have their major axis perpendicular to the North-South direction, and especially the atrium of block A is
completely exposed to South.
It is also clear that one of the two tall towers located next to the Atrium has been built very close to the
building. From a first analysis this tower seems blocking daylight for the block A, and also important heat
gains for the east faade
Fig. 6.8: Sun path
Wind pattern analysis

Based on the data extracted from the Energy Plus Weather data for Amsterdam the main wind directions
are from the South (in winter) and from the North-West (in summer). Since the focus of this investigation
is on Natural ventilation potential for passive cooling during hot months, the North-West direction will be
taken into account for wind pressure analysis later on.
The main direction in summer shows that surrounding buildings must reduce the average wind speed, thus
affecting possible strategies involving wind pressure.
Fig. 6.9: Wind pattern in summer months (June, July, August)
91
Noise pollution
From the analysis done on the surroundings of the Atrium, the greatest noise source that could cause pollution is the highway facing the building on the South side. It seems clear that the distance is not enough
to guarantee a natural dissipation of the noise coming from the car traffic, which could cause discomfort
within the office environment. Therefore, the use of faade strategies to decrease the impact of noise
could be a good solution for this problem.
6.5 Current problems

Arup (Amsterdam) provided both architectural drawings of the Atrium and information regarding the current indoor climate issues. For the existing office building, the building consultancy firm was asked to improve the indoor climate of one of its atria. Arup mechanical engineers performed thermal analysis on the
atrium of block A, in order to be able to correctly size the future cooling system and mechanical ventilation.
The analysis was carried with Beans, a built-in software of the firm.
Thermal comfort
The existing building has one main thermal issue, regarding the atrium A. The problem occurs in summer months. Because of high transparency of the atrium facade facing South, the indoor air temperature
Fig. 6.10: BEANS analysis, temperature (C)
Fig. 6.11: BEANS analysis, PPD (%)
92
reaches 31 degrees at the lower level, which is uncomfortable.

Therefore, the design from Arup was done on the sizing of the cooling capacity needed in order to reach
thermal comfort at the ground level of the atrium in the worst case scenario. The image below shows the
initial sizing of the cooling capacity needed in summer.
Fig. 6.12: Cooling capacity scheme for Atrium of block A
Visual comfort
Another indoor environmental issue is found within the design of block B. This building block is characterized by an atrium that does not reach the ground floor, resulting in a number of deep floor storeys. Specifically, the first six storeys are not reached by the atrium, as shown in the following image.
Fig. 6.13: Atrium of block B
Even though the first three storeys are occupied entirely by mechanical rooms, the need for extra artificial
lighting requires extra energy consumption. Furthermore, the fourth and fifth floors are occupied by office
space, which will especially require a constant need for artificial lighting. The deep plan layout of the first
six storeys does not allow easy penetration for natural ventilation. Moreover, this building is not naturally
ventilated and its atria are therefore only a mean of passive daylight.
93
6.6 Conclusions
The Atrium building results to be a good base for an optimization analysis. Its shape suggests specific architectural intents that can be traced and translated back to initial early stages decisions. Moreover, the
buildings main feature, the three Atria, are a beautiful example of sustainable architecture, even though
currently they are not used for passive cooling goal.
As explained, the current building design presents indoor environmental issues that are also confirmed
by thermal analysis. Therefore, it is not unlikely to say that the existing building design can be improved.
The found issues helped in defining two different scenarios for the re-design of the case study. These two
scenarios comprises different aspects of energy performing building design, both with a focus on natural
ventilation as strategy for passive cooling.
Scenario 1 - Whole building optimization
The first scenario is the most complete one, since it will eventually provide answers for all the proposed
research questions. The focus is on the main design aspects and variables affecting building geometry and
basic envelope parameters discussed in chapter 3. The goal is to find new building and atria configurations
that can lead to higher performances.
Scenario 2 - Optimization of Atrium A
The second scenario focuses on simple facade design aspects, such as facade materials and shading devices geometry. The goal is to show the potential on integrating shadings into the practical application of the
proposed holistic process, which is not accounted for in scenario 1. The reason for this is the difficulty, with
common computational means, to parametrically model a whole building comprising also shading devices,
especially when several evaluations are to be performed.
94
7.1 Methodology
As shown in the following figure, the methodology applied for the development of Scenario 1 comprises
7 phases.
Current issues
Optimization strategies
Evaluation criteria and objective functions
Base case analysis
Opt. without NV
strategy
Opt. with NV
strategy
Results analysis and comparison
Final discussion
Opt. with NV strategy +

Envelope design
Phase 0 comes with the analysis of the current situation of the case study, the Atrium building.
During step 1 fundamental decisions related to the re-design of the office building were taken, such as
variables, constraints, which will guide the optimization study for the current Scenario.
After, evaluation criteria and objective functions are selected and incorporated in order to assess the fitness of the individuals. Differences between the hypothetical process and the applied one will be explained in paragraph 7.3.
In order to be able to compare the results of the optimization against an initial design, a base case is proposed. It is important to notice here that the base case is taken as a good approximation of the original
design. A complete analysis of this base case is done and it will be used as starting point (to be improved)
of the optimization.
The next step is the application of the tested optimization process within the specified boundaries and
objectives and retrieving the results from three tests: one comprising Atria as natural ventilation strategy,
one without any natural ventilation strategy but keeping the Atria as natural daylight strategy, and one test
done following the guidelines of the hypothetical process in terms of variables to be set (with a holistic
approach). These three tests are done in order to be able to spot whether and in what extent natural ventilation strategies can affect the design in its early stages.
The results retrieved from the optimization studies are then shown and compared with each other and
also with the base case analysis. More information about the specific methodology applied on Scenario 1
is presented in paragraph 7.6.1.
Finally, a discussion about all the data retrieved from the optimization studies done within the Scenario 1
is presented.
96

From the current situation, the goal is to set variables and constraints to the design that can be used as
mean of optimization. The starting point for the Scenario 1 is the proposal of a base case, which will be
used as an approximation of what is the overall performance of the existing Atrium building.
The proposal of a specific base case is done in order to be able to perform comparisons of the optimization results. The building layout was slightly changed in order to simplify the current geometry and to be
able set meaningful design variables. Therefore, the performed comparisons will consider the fitness of
the base case and not of the actual existing building. The design strategies for the design of the base case
involve:
moving the atrium of block A to the middle of the building block
slightly reducing the size of block C
having the building split in three blocks, capable of parametrically have larger empty space between each
other.
Fig. 7.1: Current situation and new design/optimization strategy

10 m
20
Fig. 7.2: View of the base case design
7.2.1 Design variables

The choice of variable is a fundamental step within an optimization process, because it will affect the
overall optimization results and the design itself. It is important, as stated in chapter 3, that the variables
are set according to the architectural intent, to specific passive strategies and to the adopted constraints.
In this scenario, the variables used regard each tower singularly. Therefore each block will have its own set
of parameters to be optimized. The specific design strategies are the three Atria, a passive strategy providing daylight and natural ventilation for the whole building. Moreover, the variables regarding the building
97
morphology and layout can be considered as passive strategy, since it can assume different configurations
allowing for different passive performance.
Independent design variables
B
Block shape
The shape of each building block is set as continuous variable. The parameter is defined until its first decimal number. Specifically, the design variable affecting a block shape is the ground floor rectangular shape.
The rectangle defining the ground floor and therefore the whole building block can be scaled within deC
fined limits (10 m towards the center of each rectangle)
10 m
Fig. 7.3: Shape variables
Atrium roof height

20
The height of the
roof of the atrium is set as a discrete variable ranging between 2 and 5 meters, with
integer intervals. This strategy is given in order to extend the atrium height, and therefore the resulting
stack effect.
B
xed
te
atrium roof height variable
10 m
Fig. 7.4: Atrium roof height variable
Block orientation
The orientation of each block can individually change by rotating around their central axis, as described in
the following image. The range, however, is restricted by both site geometry constraints and ground floor
border geometry. The rotation angle ranges between 20 and -20 from the initial position. The variable is
set with integer intervals.
m3/s
xed spacing
0.8% WWR (max)

0.6% WWR
0.2% WWR (min)
20
xed vent size
Fig. 7.5: Rotation angle
98
center point of
scaling
m2
Windows opening
In the developed scenario, the windows geometry is set as dependent parameter, but their relative dimensions are design variables that need to be optimized. The range of their dimensions is given by a continuous definition of the percentage of the wall surface that they take. The variable has a continuous range
between 20 and 80%. Moreover, there is a distinction between the blocks faades, which are dependent
on different parameters. Thus, the results can lead to optimized configurations for specific faade orientations. Since the three blocks have rectangular shapes resulting in 4 sides, the total number of parameters
roof height variable
affecting the windows opening of the whole building is 12. Each atrium
faade
will have the same window configuration for all its windows.
The shape of the windows is a dependent parameter because it is derived by the blocks faade width,
which is also dependent of the ground floor shape variable. In this scenario, the windows were defined by
a fixed number of sub-surfaces dividing each storeys faade. Therefore, the shape will always be a rectangle, scaling around its center point. Furthermore, the position of the windows does always leave a bottom
space on a storeys faade, that will be used for ventilation openings. However, it is important to notice
here that ventilation openings were set as fixed parameters.
m3/s
xed spacing
0.8% WWR (max)

0.6% WWR
0.2% WWR (min)
xed vent size
center point of
scaling
Fig. 7.6: Window definition
U-value envelope
The U-value of the envelope is set as a discrete variables having different ranges, if considering the opaque
surfaces or the transparent ones. The opaque elements, the exterior walls, can have a U-values of 0.2, 0.3,
0.4, 0.5 W/m2K. The window glass can have U-values equals to 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 W/m2K, as most common
window glasses have.
SHGC windows
The Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of the windows was set as continuous variable with a range between 0.4
and 0.9.
Dependent parameters
A number of dependent parameters can be identified for this specific case study.
One of the design variables explained in chapter 3 was set as fixed parameter, not capable to parametrically change. This is the ventilation opening dimensions, set as 4 m2 per storey. The area set for the vents located in both the outer envelope and in the interior side of the atria is set as constant for each storey. However, this parameter is better defined as dependent, because by increasing the number of storeys, the
number of vents will follow along. The vents are located on the South-facing faades of the three blocks.
99
xed spacing
0.8% WWR (max)

0.6% WWR
0.2% WWR (min)
xed vent size
center point of
scaling
Fig. 7.7: Ventilation openings geometry
Number of storeys
Even though a maximum number of floors can be defined according to local legislation or other factors, in
this case the maximum number of storeys is dependent on the ground floor shape dimension, which will
result in different building shapes. This is due to the fact that each tower cannot exceed or have smaller
surface area that the one set as constraint.
Atrium shape and size
The three atria shapes and size are dependent on the main block shape and size, because they cover 40%
of the total usable floor area of each storey, without being defined by specific parameters. This value was
set as a good estimation of the ratio of atria area against usable floor area of the existing building.
7.2.2 Design constraints

In order to retrieve good design solutions in line with a possible design concept for the Atrium building,
important design constraints are set. These constraints define the design space among which the optimization algorithm will search for the best set of solutions.
Ground floor shape and site geometry
The shape of the ground floor of the existing building and the site geometry were used as boundary of the
design space. Thus, the new configurations that will be outputted from the optimization process will never
be completely or even partially outside these limits. Therefore, the orientation variable is set in a way that
allows the restrain the building to not rotate outside this border. Also, the possible changes of scale for the
blocks shape cannot exceed these limits.
In this case, this constraint criterion can be associated with the architectural expression, because it results
in the definition of the three existing courtyards serving the building.
Total surface area
The total surface area of the building is considered as fixed constraint that cannot be exceeded and it
cannot be below a certain value. The value used as limit is 50.000 m2, which is the current Atrium building
total floor area. The building will be constrained within this limit, but the total area can slightly change for
each individual.
This constraint is good in defining the limit of building area, which also affects its exposed envelope area.
Storey height
The storeys height is set as 3,0 meters for every floor. Only the ground floor differs by having a fixed height
of 5,0 meters. This differentiation was done in order to visually define different program purposes.
Building program
The building program distribution within the three blocks was set as fixed. The ground floor is the only
floor having different functions than the rest of the building. It comprises different services, such as lobby,
cafeteria, meeting rooms and commercial rooms. However, the program requirements used for the ground
floor are the same as the ones applied to the office storeys. The rest of the building storeys is characterized
by office program.
100

In order to evaluate and optimize the Atrium building, the evaluation criteria approach described in chapter 3 is here applied with some differences, in order to execute the optimization tests within a shortest
time window. Therefore, the applied optimization process will be called practical, against the best situation described in chapter 3, which will be defined as hypothetical.
Thermal comfort model and related objective function
The goal of this evaluation criterion is to estimate the thermal comfort level in average within the indoor
spaces of each optimization individual. Especially, the calculated situation is a snapshot of the average
warmest day in summer retrieved by the Weather Data file (EPW). As already explained, this method is
xed number of
used in order to assess the ability of the designed natural
strategy in providing passive cooling,
test ventilation
points
by replacing
indoor air with fresh outdoor air, in the worst case scenario of a specific climate. Therefore,
atrium roof height
variable
the optimized design for the worst case will have good chances of succeeding in providing comfort during
the other warm months where natural ventilation is needed. As explained in the following image, the cubic
1m
meters per second of air displacement retrieved by the Airflow&Temperature component is divided by
the interior cross area of the ventilated space. In this way, the m3/s can be translated in to air speed, thus
be used for the calculation of thermal comfort, together with dry bulb temperature and humidity levels
(retrieved from the EPW data file).
m3/s
m/s
m2
Fig. 7.8: Calculation of air velocity
xed vent size
In order to predict with a good level of approximation what the level of thermal comfort inside a space
is,
number of calculation models were developed by researchers in the last decades. According to the
xed a
spacing
research done, the most suitable model for naturally ventilated buildings is the Adaptive comfort model.
However, in order to explore different possibilities and because of its fast application, the Fangers Percentage of People Dissatisfied (PPD) was the model applied for Scenario 1, while for Scenario 2 the Adaptive
0.8% WWR (max)
model was investigated.
The retrieved result from Fangers method is a number representing the percent0.6% WWR
WWR (min)
age of people0.2%that
will probably be dissatisfied.
It is clear that the value retrieved by the PPD calculation (%) must be minimized. According to the literature,
objective function is then:
center point the
of
scaling
Minimize F(x1, , xn)
With F being the function resulting in the PPD, and x1, , xn the variables affecting it, such as Dry bulb
temperature, wind speed. The other parameters affecting PPD (Relative Humidity, Clothing level, Metabolic rate) are considered as constant. For Relative humidity, the value is retrieved from the EPW data file for
the average warmest day in summer. Clothing level and metabolic rate are fixed as typical values for an
office space in summer (0.7 clo and 1,2 met).
Visual comfort and related objective function
As already explained in previous chapters, visual comfort can be assessed by analyzing the illuminance
level and distribution within a space, on a surface lying at 1,0 meter from the ground level. The number
of points defined for a good estimation of the indoor lux distribution for this design is around 174 points.
101
However, due to changes in the blocks layout, this number can slightly change.
Especially, for the proposed hypothetical process, daylight is evaluated according to the UDI (Useful Daylight Illuminance) definition. However, UDI calculations can become time consuming, depending on the
complexity of the model, because they analyse the daytime illuminance levels over an entire year. Because
of the relative complexity of the Atrium design and the need of performing three calculations instead of
one (three detached building blocks), a simplified method is proposed, which brings a lower level of detail,
xed number of
test points
atrium roof height variable
1m
Fig. 7.9: Analysis grid for daylight calculations
but a faster evaluation. The assessment of daylight levels will be done only for two snapshots of the entire
year: for January 21 at 12:00, and for June 21 at 12:00.
However, the principle of UDI is conserved. The objective function is built upon the idea of maximizing
the number of test points on which the lux value is above 500 lux (minimum comfortable level for office
buildings), but it does not exceed the 2000 lux (where glare problems could occur). Therefore the optimization algorithm will try to findm3/s
the solutions with them2higher number
of test points within this range. This
m/s
particular evaluation criterion will be indicated from now on as UDI*.
The related objective function is:
Minimize F(x1, , xn) > 2000 lux
F(x1, , xn) < 500 lux
xed spacing
Where F is the number of points resulting from the raytracing analysis. This fitness function is influenced
by many factors (specific for this scenario), such as orientation, floor depth, window geometry and sizes,
atrium geometry and size.
As explained within chapter 3 (in line with the concept of approximation), daylight analysis can be re0.8% WWR (max)
stricted to those
0.6% WWR critical spaces in which is expected a lower level of daylight. In this case, the first floor
0.2% WWR (min)
of the Atrium
building is defined as the test floor, because it is the level less exposed to sunlight, and
more likely to receive less illuminance levels. Since each storey has the same opening dimensions (for each
faade),
it is assumed that if the design is optimized for the first floors illuminance levels, also the daylight
center
point of
scaling
levels of the whole building will be improved.
Moreover, the reflectivity of the interior surfaces was set as 0.7, (clear surface), while the LTA of the glazing
was set as fixed throughout all the analysis, with a value of 0.6.
Heating and Cooling need and related objective function
In order to assess the performance of the overall building geometry, the evaluation criteria regarding operational energy (with a focus on heating and cooling loads) is the Heating and Cooling need. This value
indicates the amount of energy that is needed to be provided to or extracted from an indoor space, in order to deliver a comfortable temperature range. As defined in chapter 3, for an office building the comfort
range is generally set between 20C and 24C, according to Dutch standards.
Moreover, the ventilation rates play an important role for this evaluation, which can widely affect its results. The ventilation rates are partially (in June, July and August) calculated by the NaturalVentilation solver and for the rest of the year are defined by the Dutch national standard in matter of minimum ventilation
rates for healthy indoor air quality (0.65 l/s per person). The only months calculated for natural ventilation
are the summer ones, because it is the period (especially in the temperate climates such as the Netherlands) in which natural ventilation strategies can deliver thermal comfort without causing discomfort due
102
to over-cooling.
For the case study of the Atrium building, the evaluation will be done on the three blocks as separated
entities and the average of their energy need for both heating and cooling will determine their fitness.
Heating and Cooling need is evaluated on monthly basis, and can also be retrieved on annual basis (chapter 4). Therefore, the objective function must minimize the output result coming from the annual energy
need (average of the three blocks).
The objective function is then:
Where F is in this case the energy need (kWh/m2a) resulting from the Heating&Cooling calculation tool
developed within this thesis. This fitness is affected by many aspects, such as orientation, glazed elements
dimension, Envelope surface to Floor area ratio, ventilation rates, envelope U-value, SHGC of glazed elements, etc.

An analysis of the base case was done according to the selected evaluation criteria. It is important to underline that the proposed base case is a surrogate of the existing building. Moreover, the building used as
base case will be evaluated by introducing natural ventilation. In this way, a more objective comparison can
be done between the optimized solutions and their base case.
Daylight
The base case show a poor natural lux level distribution, especially in summer months, as shown in the
following picture representing the daylight analysis done for a snapshot in July 21, at 12:00. The buildings
tower morphologies and relative locations result in a deep floor building in the central core of the whole
building.
The overall UDI* fitness, as retrieved by the same analysis shown in figure is of 43/174 points. This value
554.78 lux
533.29 lux
7.33 lux
14.38 lux
676.57 lux
23.08 lux
Fig. 7.10: Daylight levels in July 21, 12:00.
103
means that 43 points out of 174 are out of the defined range for visual comfort, which equals to almost
25% of the total floor area.
Heating and cooling
The following graphs show the annual need for heating and cooling of the base case, retrieved from the
developed calculation components.
Block
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Block
Block
Block
Block
Block
Fig. 7.12: Cooling need of base case
Fig. 7.11: Heating need of base case
It is important to notice that these graphs show a relatively high need for heating also in summer months,
such as June, July and August. This is due to the calculation model, which considers the heat transfer by
ventilation beneficial in reducing cooling loads, but also its negative effects that might occur especially in
the early morning or late evening, when ventilation can actually increase the need for heating. However,
these results are considered not reliable, because it is very unlikely that heating loads in summer can ever
overcome those in winter months. More information on the changes adopted for the calculations is given
in 7.5.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Eventually, the calculations for heating and cooling were slightly modified, and the results are shown in
the next graphs.
Fig. 7.13: Reviewed heating need of base case
Fig. 7.14: Reviewed cooling need of base case
As figure 7.14 shows, the cooling loads for the base case remain high even by introducing natual ventilation
in summer months. This is because embedding natural ventilation was not a design intent of the existing
building and its non-optimized design leads to small overall improvements.
PPD
The result retrieved by the thermal comfort analysis shows that PPD is 42.37%. The reason for such a low
score is because of the too high airflow rate and the relative low air dry bulb temperature.
104
7.5 Improvement of the calculations for heating and cooling

As partially explained in the previous paragraph, the results retrieved by the developed components always showed defections regarding the heating need in summer months. The graph shown a high need for
heating in July, when the average outside temperature is the lowest among the three summer months, in
the Netherlands.
This can be explained by considering the way the heating and cooling calculations work. According to the
calculations, not all the heat transfer by ventilation helps in decreasing cooling loads, but also disadvantageous because it can affect thermal comfort and require heating. This can be true when natural ventilation
is supplied also very early in the morning or late in the evening, for a temperate climate such as the Netherlands. However, the results for heating are too high to explain this need.
Therefore an important improvement to be done was the coupling between the average natural airflow for
summer months and the heating and cooling need calculations. Specifically, since the calculations for heating and cooling are normally separated, the solution was found in feeding them with different ventilation
rates. The monthly natural ventilation rates for summer months were fed into the calculation components
for the cooling calculation, while for the other months, the rates for national standard compliance were
provided. The same standard values (pollutants and moisture removal) for mechanical ventilation were
supplied for the heating calculation for all months. In this way, the components calculate the passive cooling benefits of natural ventilation, without increasing the need for heating in hot months.
WHOLE YEAR
SUMMER MONTHS
National standard mechanical

ventilation rates
Calculated rates of natural

ventilation
Heating calculation
Cooling calculation
Total energy need
Fig. 7.15: Scheme of the improved calculation method
For Scenario 1, the optimization studies were conducted with the previous calculation method, where the
natural ventilation rates were used also for the heating calculation. However, the improvement on the
calculation method was applied to the solutions found by the algorithm for the three performed analysis,
and the results shown partially within this chapter and in appendix C.
On the other hand, this improvement is applied since the beginning of Scenario 2, together with other
aspects not included within Scenario 1, as better explained in 7.8.
105

In this paragraph the practical optimization process is applied and the results retrieved. A specific methodology was developed in order to properly read the results and understand the potential of embedding
natural ventilation within an integrated optimization process.
7.6.1 Methodology
The Atrium building is a mechanically ventilated building, whose Atria are only used as architectural and
daylight strategy. Since the three Atria are not used as natural ventilation strategy, the idea for the optimization studies was to set three different optimization analyses. The three performed tests have either
different objective functions or design variables. The stopping criterion for the computational process of
all the tests is the number of generations, which was set as 5. Moreover, the mutation rate and crossover
will be kept as fixed for all the tests. Mutation rate is set as 0.5 and mutation probability as 0.1. Crossover
rate is set as 0.8, in order to have better chances of achieving diversity in the results, with a wider set of
genomes evaluated.
The first study tries to optimize the building, without comprising any natural ventilation strategy. The building will be mechanically ventilated throughout the whole year. The parameters set are the ones related to
the main building geometry, as shown in paragraph 7.2, and the objective functions are Heating and Cooling need and UDI*. In order to be able to compare this analysis with the one comprising natural ventilation,
a further analysis of one solution belonging to the Pareto front will be presented.
The second study presents the same design variables as the first, but the evaluation comprises natural
ventilation and the fitness functions are calculated upon: Heating and Cooling need, PPD and UDI*. The
building is naturally ventilated in summer months (June, July and August).
The third study shares the same objective functions of the second case, but the design space is described
by a larger number of design variables, also the ones comprising basic envelope design parameters (SHGC
and U-values).
The selection of one optimal solution per each optimization study will be executed in order to be able to
compare the overall results, without the need of comparing all individuals. The selection criterion will be
the distance between the utopia point and the individuals belonging to the Pareto front. The individual
having the shortest distance will show a good fitness for all its objective functions, thus it will be selected
for comparisons. Moreover, in order to answer the initial three research questions of this research, three
comparisons will be presented.
Opt. analysis 1
Closest solution to
utopia point
Opt. analysis 3
Opt. analysis 2
Closest solution to
utopia point
Base case analysis
Closest solution to
utopia point
Assessment of natural
ventilation strategy for
the selected individual
Comparison 2
Comparison 3
Comparison 1
Fitness solution x
Fitness solution x
Fitness solution x
Results
Specifically, a comparison between the optimization analysis 1 and 2 will be presented, in order to show to
what extent embedding natural ventilation can improve energy performance and thermal comfort in office
buildings. It is important to specify that the selected solution from analysis 1 will be further investigated by
106
introducing natural ventilation. In this way a more fair comparison can take place. This will also quantify
the benefits of introducing natural ventilation early in the optimization of office building performance.
A comparison between the base case and analysis 3 will be done, in order to estimate the potential of
integrating natural ventilation strategies within a design for an office building.
In order to assess to what extent a holistic approach can be beneficial in optimizing energy performance in
early stages of a design, a comparison between analysis 3 and analysis 2 will be presented.
7.6.2 Analysis 1
The first analysis focuses on the building layout and opening dimensions as design variables to be optimized. The objective functions applied in this case are heating and cooling need and UDI*, as described in
6.3. The goal is to reduce the energy need of the Atrium building for heating and cooling and to improve its
daylight levels. In this case, the building will be evaluated without any natural ventilation, but considering
mechanical ventilation as main supply of fresh air throughout the whole year, with a constant temperature
of 20C and flow rate of 0.65l/s per person.
For this analysis, the following parameters were set (explained in detail in 7.2.1) :

Blocks shape

Blocks orientations

Windows openings
The design variables that will be set as fixed are:

Walls U-value (0.4 W/m2K)

Windows U-value (3 W/m2K)

Windows SHGC (0.7)
Because natural ventilation will not be assessed, the parameters related to the natural ventilation strategy
(the atria roof height) are not considered.
The following image shows the results retrieved from the optimization algorithm.
13
9
3
4
6
8
11
1
2
9
14
Utopia point
5
10
12
Fig. 7.16: Search space, UDI* vs Heating and Cooling
107
The image represents the evaluations performed for this first analysis, during which hundreds of evaluation were performed (calculation time: 16 hours). The dashed red line represents the specific Pareto
front, which comprises 14 solutions. Above this line are all the dominated solutions of the search space.
By moving along the imaginary line of the Pareto front, the phenotypes belonging to the optimal set show
different morphologies and window dimensions.
kWh/m2 - Number of points (UDI*)
The objective fitness of the Pareto front is shown in the following graph.
Fig. 7.17: Objectives of the non-dominated solutions
It is clear from this graph that energy need for heating and cooling increases when a better daylight distribution occurs. Therefore the Pareto front forms a set of trade-offs among which there is not one best
solution.
The phenotypes of solutions 13, 9, 10, 7 and 11 is shown in the following images. Solutions 13 and 9 have
the highest fitness in terms of heating and cooling, but the lowest in terms of UDI*, while solution 10 and
7 represent the highest fitness in terms of UDI*, and lowest in Heating and Cooling.
Fig. 7.18: Solution 9, isometric view
Fig. 7.19: Solution 9, plan view
It can be observed that the solutions with highest fitness in terms of UDI* tend to have larger openings and
slender shapes. On the contrary, the solutions with better results in terms of heating and cooling need are
the ones with more compact shapes and relatively smaller openings.
108
109
The overall conclusion from this first analysis is that the three blocks tend always to be more detached
from each other (compared to the base case) in order to increase daylight and have better chances to get
passive solar heating in winter. On the other hand, this is not happening with the same magnitude for each
solution (solution 13).
As part of Analysis 1, one of the Pareto solutions is selected and analysed. For its short distance from the
utopia point of this optimization, solution number 11 is selected. The phenotype shows more balanced
window dimensions between the south and west facing faades.
kWh/m2
The need for heating and cooling for solution 11 are shown in the next graphs.
Block
kWh/m2
Block
Block
Block
Fig. 7.28: Heating loads of solution 11
Block
Block
Fig. 7.29: Cooling loads of solution 11
As it can be observed, the energy need for cooling for block B is high compared to the others (with peaks
of almost 7kWh/m2 per month), while it has the lowest heating need among all. This is due to the shape of
the block, which appears to be the most compact among the three.
Solution 11 is further investigated by calculating heating and cooling need in case the building allows for
natural ventilation in summer months (June, July, August), not relying only on mechanical ventilation for
the whole year. In this case, the building will be passively cooled down in summer by using its atria as mean
of stack effect. The vents dimensions are the ones used for all the other analysis, as explained in 7.2.1. The
results, regarding energy need for heating and cooling are shown in the next graphs.
110
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Fig. 7.31: Cooling loads of solution 11, with Natural ventilation
Fig. 7.30: Heating loads of solution 11, with Natural ventilation
kWh/m2a
As expected, the overall energy need for heating and cooling is slightly decreased, compared to the previous results not involving natural ventilation. The overall reduction of energy need is due to the passive
cooling effects of natural ventilation in summer months. However, the only block having a good improvement in terms of cooling loads is block B. Moreover, the overall energy need decrease is not very high.
Fig. 7.32: Comparison of total energy need for heating and cooling
This can be due to the fact that natural ventilation was not optimized together with the other aspects,
resulting only in slightly better results for cooling loads.
In paragraph 7.6 solution 11 embedding natural ventilation strategy is used for comparison with the selected solution of analysis 2.
7.6.3 Analysis 2
The second analysis is carried by setting the same variables as the first one. The difference is on the selected objective functions, which in this case will be Heating and Cooling need, PPD and UDI*. In this case, the
building is naturally ventilated in summer months, such as June, July and August.
For this analysis, the following variables were used (explained in detail in 7.2.1):

Blocks shape

Blocks orientation

Atria roof height

Windows openings
The design parameters that will be set as fixed, the same as the base case:

Wall U-value (0.4 W/m2K)

Window U-value (3 W/m2K)

Window SHGC (0.7)

Ventilation openings (9 m2)
111
pia point
t
Regarding the ventilation openings, their number was set to follow the number of storeys, but without the
possibility of assuming larger configurations than the given values.
The following picture shows the results retrieved from the optimization algorithm.
12
12
1
3 2
4
1
3 2
4
11
18
10
17
11
18
13
13
9
16 15
Fig. 7.33: Front view - UDI vs Heating & Cooling

6
13
18
12
7
5
14
8
11
1
3 2
4
11
18
13 6& Cooling
Fig. 7.34: Top view - PPD vs Heating
10
17
9
16 15
6
16
13
18
12
7
5
14
8
1
3 2
4
16
11
11
18
13
Utopia point
16
Fig. 7.35: Side view - UDI vs PPD
Fig. 7.36: Isometric view
The search space in this case has three dimensions representing the three objective functions. Also in this
case the search was done among hundreds of individuals. The resulting Pareto front comprises 17 solutions. In the top view of this optimization analysis is interesting to notice how the PPD and Heating and
Cooling fitness of each individual move along the same path. The reason for this is because in most cases,
a solution having a good fitness for thermal comfort in the worst case scenario in summer is likely to have
also lower cooling demand in summer months.
112
16
kWh/m2 - Number of points (UDI*) - %(PPD)
The comparison of the fitness belonging to the Pareto front is shown in the following graph.
Fig. 7.37: Objectives of non-dominated solutions
As expected from the comparison of the fitness of the Pareto front, the UDI* is still a conflicting objective
for an optimization comprising also natural ventilation, while we can observe how PPD and heating and
cooling move with the same pace. An overall improvement can already be observed compared to analysis
1.
The phenotypes of a few solutions belonging to the Pareto front (6, 13, 10, 17) are presented in the next
images. Solutions 6 and 13 show a high fitness for UDI* while lowest for heating and cooling and PPD. On
the other hand, solutions 10 and 17 have the highest fitness for PPD, Heating and Cooling and the lowest
for UDI*.
Solution 13 shows high window openings for all south-facing faades. The same goes for solution 6, which,
however, shows a block C more slender and aligned to north-south direction, trying to decrease the effect
of solar radiation for the south-facing facade. In general, these solution tend to have higher heights than
the others.
Solutions 10 and 17 share a similar layout for the single blocks, assuming more compact shapes and a
wider south-facing envelope area. Also, they are characterized by smaller windows dimensions especially
for the south-facing side. Moreover, solution 17 shows rotated blocks, which can be due to the effect of
wind on the buildings faades or resulting in a better energy performance in combination with the specific
window openings.
113
Compared to the overall impression from analysis 1, the blocks of one of the solution with highest fitness
for heating and cooling drastically rotate around their axis. This must be due to the wind direction, which
is acting on the building faades, assisting the stack effect of the atria for natural airflow.
114
For its distance from the utopia point, solution 16 is selected for further analysis (heating and cooling
loads are shown in Appendix C) and comparisons.
The phenotype shows a good balance of windows dimensions while its blocks tend to be more compact
than all the other solutions.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The heating and cooling loads show an overall reduction compared to analysis 1. Especially, blocks A and C
benefit from a relatively high reduction in cooling need over the whole year. This can be due to the smaller
window openings. Block B has also good reduction of cooling, which can be due to its height and also the
increased atrium roof height, taller than the other blocks.
Fig. 7.49: Solution 16, cooling loads
Fig. 7.48: Solution 16, heating loads
7.6.4 Analysis 3
The third analysis has the same objective functions as the second analysis. Therefore they are heating and
cooling need, PPD and UDI*. Also in this case, the building will be naturally ventilated in summer months,
(June, July and August). The difference is in the selection of the design variables.
For this analysis, the parameters set as continuous variables were (explained in detail in 7.2.1):

Block shape

Block orientation

Atria roof height

Windows openings
Each block has its own set of parameters that needs to be optimized singularly. The design variables regarding the building envelope are:
115
Wall U-value
Window U-value
Window SHGC
The design variables kept fixed were the ventilation openings. As for the previous analysis, it is important
to consider that, even though the dimensions of the vents were not parametrically set, the number of
vents was set to follow the number of storeys. This was done to ensure a more realistic situation.
The results from the optimization analysis are shown with the following images
6
8
2
6
8
7
6
8
45 1
101
9 3 5
10
9 3
Fig. 7.51: Top view - PPD vs Heating & Cooling
As expected, the distribution of the solutions within the search space shares similarities with the second
analysis. This is due to the use of the same objective functions. As for the second analysis, PPD and heating
and cooling are not considered conflicting criteria, while UDI* and heating cooling are evidently conflicting
criteria.
116
The comparison of the fitness of the Pareto front is here presented.
Important to notice is that the third analysis yields to a higher variety of results, with ranges of fitness from
25 to 47 kWh/m2a for heating and cooling, 32 to 39 UDI* and 25 to 40% for PPD.
The phenotypes belonging to solutions 6, 2, 9, 10 are shown in the following images. Solutions 6 and 2
scored the highest fitness for Heating and Cooling and for PPD, while solutions 9 and 10 have the highest
score for UDI*.
As it is presented in figure 7.55, solution 6 has slender blocks shape with emphasized atrium roof heights,
in order to counterbalance the need for cooling due to high transparency of the envelope. However, this
delicate balance does not result in good fitness for UDI*, which is elevated because of a high number of
points with lux values higher than 2000. Solution 2 has partially the same features, but smaller window
openings in every side, which results in slightly higher fitness for UDI*.
117
Solution 9 and 10 show the tallest sets of blocks of the three analysis. Also the blocks tend to be more
detached between each other. This results in a higher energy need because of a larger surface exposed to
outdoor environment. At the same time, as we can see in the objectives of solution 10, the score for UDI*
is one of the best among the Pareto front.
118
The solution selected for further discussion is number 4. The phenotype in this case is different from any
other individual retrieved so far. The buildings assume almost all the same height and the same disposition
but block C, which is slightly rotated. The main feature of the floor shapes is that their elongated configuration is perpendicular to South direction. The openings dimension is more balanced than the other solutions belonging to the Pareto front. Furthermore, the U-value of the walls for block A, B, C are: 0.2, 0.4, 0.3
W/m2K, while the SHGC are: 0.4, 0.5, 0.6. It seems that this solution is characterized by a balance between
solar heat gains and heat transfer by transmission. This is especially true because this solution has the best
PPD results retrieved from all the optimization analysis.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The low heating need, as shown in fig. 7.65, must be due to a low U-value of the blocks envelope, while
the reduction of cooling loads due to natural ventilation in summer is also effective. Moreover, the generally lower SHGC prevents high overheating in non-summer months. For block B the higher percentage of
window to wall ratio is requiring higher need for cooling, while heating loads are kept very low throughout
the whole year.
119
7.7 Comparisons of results and Conclusions

As already explained, comparisons of the three optimization studies are needed in order to properly assess
the potential of this approach for different aspects.
Comparison 1
The first comparison is done between the selected solution from analysis 1 (number 11) and analysis 2
(number 16). Specifically, the solution with evaluation of the natural ventilation effects from analysis 1
is used. Therefore, an estimation of the potential of embedding natural ventilation within an integrated
approach can be estimated.
The comparison of the evaluation criteria of the two design solutions is here shown.
The graph shows a reduction of energy (cooling) need, a reduction in PPD and a small improvement in
terms of UDI*. The overall distance between the heating and cooling need between the compared solutions is 9 kWh/m2a. The reduction is small if compared to the total amount of energy still needed for
heating and cooling and also the overall improvement of UDI.
Fig. 7.67: Comparison 1, objectives of the selected solutions
Comparison 2
The second comparison is done for the selected solution of the second analysis and the third. The individual compared are respectively number 16 and number 4. The comparison is shown in the next graph.
From the graph is possible to retrieve an improvement of 5 kWh/m2a for heating and cooling need with
the third approach. Also the overall Percentage of People Dissatisfied score is lower of about 5% than the
second approach. The results of the comparison lead to small improvements with the third approach.
120
Comparison 3
The third comparison is meant to show the distance between the performance of an optimized design with
an integrated approach versus the performance of a base case representing the current situation. The solution used for this comparison is the one retrieved and selected from analysis 3, where also the envelope
parameters were optimized.
The graph shows an important decrease on the overall need for heating and cooling of about 20 kWh/m2a.
Also, an improvement of thermal comfort can be observed. 15% is the reduction in PPD.
Conclusions
In comparison 1 it appears clear that a design optimized by integrating natural ventilation evaluation can
yield to better results in terms of energy performance and thermal comfort than a design optimized without comprising natural ventilation. The same conclusions derived in the first analysis can be derived here.
When a design comprises a strategy of natural ventilation, if the specific strategy is not optimized together
with other design aspects, the overall potential in energy need reduction and future passive thermal comfort can be compromised.
From comparison 2 it is possible to conclude that an integrated approach comprising also variables for the
building envelope can be beneficial in improving the overall energy performance and thermal comfort of a
design. The small differences in the results can be due to the highly constrained search space.
Comparison 3 shows the potential of an integrated approach for optimization compared to the base case
design (involving natural ventilation strategy). The potential, which can differs depending on the design
typology, dimensions, climate, defined variables can be high.
The general conclusion is that natural ventilation seems to lead to better energy and thermal comfort
performance when integrated within the optimization process. Therefore it is likely to say that the building
having its natural ventilation strategy early in the design process has more chances to have better energy
and thermal comfort performances.
7.8 Recommendations
The optimization studies done on Scenario 1 can be seen as a work in progress optimization scenario.
It helped in spotting defections and defining limitations of the developed process. These defections are
of two types: one related to the evaluation criteria and one related to the developed calculations. As ex121
plained in paragraph 7.5, the calculations that needed to be changed are the ones for heating and cooling
and the way the natural ventilation calculations are integrated with them. Moreover, the approach that
needs to be changed is the assessment of thermal comfort in summer. Since the office building is naturally
ventilated, the best practice is to use the adaptive comfort model, which in this case would output more
reliable results than the PPD calculation.
Therefore, as an improvement of these aspects, Scenario 2 will be provided of the new calculations and
adaptive comfort assessment, as described in the following chapter. Moreover, its smaller scale intervention makes possible introducing also new types of parameters for optimization, such as shading geometry.
A possible further step for the re-design of the Atrium building is also presented.
Since this building is located in a temperate climate region such as the Netherlands, the temperature
range, also in summer, can lead to discomfort due to cold outdoor temperature. A bioclimatic solution for
this problem can be the application of glazed buffer zones, also called sunspaces. This architectural and
technological element can also passively extend the range of use of natural ventilation, by supplying the
incoming fresh air of heat gained through passive solar exposure. However, also in this case the size and
location of the buffer zones could be optimized in an integrated approach. Important, in this case, would
be the overheating of this buffer-zones, which would cause too warm air to flow inside the building, thus
causing discomfort.
122

The focus of this optimization study is on one of the three atria characterizing the building used as case
study. As explained in chapter 5, the existing building comprises an Atrium (A) with a south-facing faade,
without any solar protection, which leads to overheating and thus high discomfort in summer months.
Therefore this second optimization scenario focuses especially on envelope features of Atrium A.
An important aspect to be investigated is the use of sun shadings as mean of solar protection for both solar
heat gains and glare problems. The use of sun shadings is well known in sustainable architecture for its
benefits, and its design could be optimized together with other aspects of the building envelope.
In this scenario wind effects on the atrium are not taken into account. This is due to the shielding effect of
block C onto block A.
Fig. 8.1: Block A, current situation
Fig. 8.2: Block A, optimization strategies
8.1.1 Design variables

Shading geometry
A shading system was parametrically set. When shadings are designed to be facing south, a good rule of
thumb is to use horizontal devices, thus horizontal surfaces were modelled. Geometry parameters were
set as variables, with specific constraints. Three parameters were defined: spacing, depth and rotation angle of the lamellas. The distance between lamellas was set as variable, in order to parametrically increase
or decrease direct daylight within the atrium space. A minimum value of 0.4 meter and a maximum of 1.5
meters were given as boundaries. The lamellas depth was set as main geometry parameter. The minimum
dimension was set as 0.1 meter and the maximum as 0.6 meter. The rotation angle was set between 45
and -45, with 0 defined as the horizontal position. Different rotation angles can lead to different light
diffusion and reflections.
45
spacing
0
-45
Fig. 8.3: Shading devices variables
124
depth
U-value of the atrium envelope

The U-value of the glass used for the vertical facade and for the curved roof was set as variable, with a
range between 0.5 and 2 W/m2K.
SHGC of the atrium envelope
The Solar Heat Gains Coefficient of the glazing covering the atrium space was set as variable, with boundaries of 0.2 as minimum and 0.8 as maximum.
U-value of block A envelope
The U-value of the block A envelope was set with a range between 0.2 and 0.8 W/m2K.
SHGC of block A glazing
In order to investigate the potential in shaping future performances of the atrium design, the SHGC of the
windows belonging to block A was considered as variable. The range was set between 0.2 and 0.8.
Ventilation openings were set as variables. The main openings are: the ones on the exterior surface of
block A, on the North-facing faade, the ones belonging to the interior walls of the atrium, and the atrium
top openings. The dimensions were set to range between 1 and 18 m2 for the exterior and top openings,
while between 1 and 10 m2 for the interior openings.
Ventilation schedule
The schedule for mechanical ventilation was set as fixed, with 8 hours of operation per day. On the contrary, natural ventilation during summer months (June, July, August) was set as variable for one of the two
analysis. The range defining this parameter is between 0 and 8 hours per day.
8.1.2 Design constraints

Physical constraints
The only physical constraints, in this scenario, were the physical boundaries of the Atrium facade shape
(8.4a). The parameters defining the lamellas were set in order to not overcome this boundary and to adjust
the length of each lamella accordingly (8.4b).
a)
Fig. 8.4 (a, b): Lamellas configurations
b)
125
Moreover, the faade width suggested a maximum value to give to the top ventilation opening area of
the natural ventilation strategy. The same constraint was given to the ventilation openings of the exterior
envelope of block A.
Ventilated storeys
Even though the main focus of Scenario 2 of the case study is the optimization of the atrium design, the
storeys belonging to block A were modelled and their steady-state situation in summer calculated for the
worst temperature ranges. In this way it is possible to improve the atrium design also according to its effects on the existing storeys. In order to foresee how the new design for natural ventilation would work, a
study was done on the possible behaviour of the neutral plane of the atrium, according to different openings configurations.
The ventilation openings of each storey are located at a height of 3,5 meters from the floor level. As it can
be seen in figure 8.5a, the neutral plane lies at a height of about 19 meters when the top openings have
the highest values of the selected range (18 m2 for the top openings and 10 m2 for the interior openings
of the atrium). In this case the fifth and sixth floors would receive an inflow from the atrium, resulting in
an increase of air pollutants and internal heat. As shown in figure 8.5b, when the openings are decreased
proportionally (11 m2 for the top and 10 m2 for the interior openings), the neutral plane is still lying at a
level which might cause an inflow for the top storeys. A safe solution is when the top openings are larger
than the interior ones (5m2 to 18m2), as shown in 8.5c.
In order to naturally ventilate all the storeys, another option would be to increase the height of the atrium,
which would push the neutral plane at a higher level than the sixth floors openings. However, this is not
included in the strategies for this optimization study. Therefore, the chosen solution is to not consider the
fifth and sixth floors for the optimization of the atrium design. This is mainly due to the fact that the optimization algorithm would find solutions having any kind of opening configurations, with a high proability
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 8.5: Neutral plane resulting from different opening layouts
of inflow at the top 2 storeys.

The atrium will be optimized according to the influences and the parameters affecting only the first four
floors of block A. Moreover, the thermal comfort calculations will also be restricted only to these floors.

Thermal comfort model and related objective function
As for the first scenario, thermal comfort is calculated for the worst situations in summer, but in this case
the adaptive comfort model is used. Comfort is assessed considering operative temperature (air and mean
radiant temperature set as equal), and air velocity. These values are retrieved by the natural ventilation
solver developed within this research.
The investigated zones are the storeys belonging to block A and the atrium space. Therefore, the final output of the thermal comfort analysis is an average of these results.
126
In order to make an objective function describing how comfortable the atrium space and the building
storeys would be according to the adaptive model, it was necessary to make several assessments for different outdoor temperature situations. An analysis of the temperatures retrieved from the weather data
file (EPW) for the Netherlands was done for the three summer months (June, July, August), focusing on
the temperatures higher than 25C. Eventually, temperature ranges and number of hours in which those
outdoor temperatures occur are defined.
The temperature ranges are set as: 25-26C, 26-27C, 27-28C, 28-29C, 29-30C, >30C. The related number of hours are: 19, 16, 12, 11, 13, 9. The total is 80 hours during which there could be uncomfortable
indoor climate even by supplying fresh air for passive cooling (outdoor temperature higher than 25C). For
these analysis the monthly average peak solar radiation falling onto the atrium envelope was used in order
to calculate natural airflow and indoor air temperature.
Therefore, the objective function would be:
With F being the number of hours in which no thermal comfort achieved. In this way, the algorithm will
search for the design solutions able to provide the widest period of time with a comfortable indoor environment, and lowest number of hours with an uncomfortable climate.
Important to underline is that the overheating in summer could affect not only the bottom part of the
atrium, but especially its top levels, where overhangs can be used by people as walking zones. Since the
results retrieved by the natural ventilation solver is a good estimation of the top level temperature of a calculated space, these calculations will give the comfort level of the top level of the atrium, and the average
comfort level of the building storeys.
Moreover, the air velocity in the atrium sapce was calculated with the same method used in Scenario 1.
Visual comfort and related objective function
Visual comfort is assessed by using the principle of UDI for natural daylight, therefore thresholds defining a
visual comfort range was set. A good estimation of the range in which there should be visual comfort in an
atrium space is between 300 and 2000 lux. Compared to Scenario 1 the minimum lux level is lower because
of no presence of any specific task for which a sufficient level of lux must be provided. A grid of points
lying at 1,0 meter from the ground level is used to assess the lux distribution inside the atrium space. The
UDI* will be expressed as a percentage describing the ratio of total number of points and points receiving
a comfortable lux level.
Maximize F(x1, , xn) < 2000 lux
F(x1, , xn) > 300 lux
Where F is the percentage of points belonging to the test grid. In order to overcome time issues, daylight
analysis is performed not for the whole year but for specific critical moments. The identified moments are:
January 21 at 12.00; July 21 at 9.00, July 21 at 12.00, July 21 at 15.00. These specific snapshots of the whole
year are selected because of the good practice principle of assessing a day-lit space in both summer and
winter time. Moreover, the evaluation performed for July 21 at 9.00 and 15.00 are done in order to account
for the neighbouring building and self-shading effects of the Atrium building itself.
Finally, the reflectivity of the interior surfaces of the atrium and the LTA of the glazing were set as for Scenario 1, with values of 0.7 and 0.6 respectively.
Heating and Cooling need and related objective function
As for the first scenario, heating and cooling need is used as main measure of future energy performance
of the building. The calculated space is the atrium, and no effects due to heat transfer by transmission or
ventilation of the existing surrounding storeys are considered. However, ventilation is calculated within the
127
atrium, with mechanical means for the whole year but summer months and natural means during summer
months. The calculation of natural ventilation is performed by the Airflow&Temperature component, and
the ventilation temperature used to feed the component Heating&Cooling need is the outdoor temperature. This is a simplification of the more complex interaction between atrium and surrounding floors.
Where F is the heating and cooling need expressed in kWh/m2. The temperature range used to define thermal comfort is 20-25C, which is a good estimation of a comfortable temperature range within an atrium
in case of mechanically controlled indoor environment. The lower temperature is used as heating set-point
and the upper one as cooling set-point. The cooling set-point is actually parametrically defined after the
adaptive comfort model calculations. Therefore it is adjusted according to the ability of a design individual
of providing thermal comfort by natural ventilation means.

In order to compare the results retrieved from the optimization of the atrium design, a base case was modelled and analysed. To allow for a complete comparison, four base case scenarios are analysed.
First: it is the one resembling the current situation of the case study, where no natural ventilation and no
shading system are integrated in the design.
Second: it is similar to the first, but introducing natural ventilation. In order to be able to compare also
thermal comfort in summer months, natural ventilation is introduced in the atrium and its design is tested
as part of the base case analysis. For this case the ventilation openings are set as the maximum values of
the range described in 8.1.1.
Third: this evaluation was done on the base case not comprising natural ventilation but with the integration of shading devices, defined as in the following picture.
Fourth: this scenario comprises both natural ventilation and shading device.
It is important to underline that these evaluations were done on the base case without running any optimization. Therefore the envelope features are set as constant, equal to the ones of the current situation
of the building.
Fig. 8.6: Base case situation (1st scenario)
Fig. 8.7: Base case situation (4th scenario)
The envelope parameters of block A are set as follows:

Walls U-value (0.4 W/m2K)
Windows U-value (3 W/m2K)
Windows SHGC (0.7)
128
The parameters belonging to the atrium are:

SHGC glass facade (0.7)
SHGC glass roof (0.2, due to interior textile shading)
U-value glass envelope (3 W/m2K)
1st scenario
Daylight
The UDI* analysis done on the first scenario results in a high visual discomfort level, with only 46.24% of
points belonging to the test grid have a comfortable lux range for the tested snapshots. This is due to the
high exposure of the south facade of the atrium. Even though the roof is characterized by a textile shading
device that filters most of the direct light transmission, the large transparent surface of the south facade
can lead to visual discomfort along the whole year.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Heating and Cooling

The heating and cooling analysis shows high values for both cooling and heating need. The total energy
need is 527.80 kWh/m2a. The overheating occurring in summer and mid-season months results in a high
need for cooling, in order to maintain the indoor air temperature at the design temperature of 25C.
Fig. 8.8: Monthly heating need (kWh/m2)
Fig. 8.9: Monthly cooling need (kWh/m2)
Adaptive comfort model

In this situation, the adaptive comfort is not applicable, since natural ventilation is not considered.
2nd scenario
Daylight
The UDI* analysis done on the second scenario shows the same visual discomfort level of the first, with
only 46.24% of points having a comfortable lux range.
Heating and Cooling
For this scenario, the total energy need for heating and cooling is 432.24 kWh/m2a. A reduction of monthly
cooling need can be observed in this scenario. The specific graphs can be seen in appendix C.

The thermal comfort calculations for the summer months results in 53/80 hours of discomfort.
3rd scenario
Daylight
The results retrieved from the third scenario show an UDI* of 49.04%. Apparently, even though shading
129
is provided for the critical hours in summer, discomfort could occur in winter, where the lower elevation
angle of the sun can result in too high lux levels.
Heating and Cooling
This scenario shows a reduction of total energy need down to 403.45 kWh/m2a. It is possible to deduct that
for this case the shading device is slightly more influential in energy saving than the introduction of natural
ventilation within the current design of the atrium. The graphs showing the heating and cooling need can
be found in appendix C.
As for the 1st scenario, the adaptive comfort is not applicable, since natural ventilation is not introduced.
4th scenario
Daylight
As for the 3rd scenario, the results retrieved from the UDI* analysis is 49.04% of points receiving an acceptable level of lux for the analysed snapshots.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Heating and Cooling

In this scenario, the total energy need drops down to 359.65 kWh/m2a. Compared to the first scenario,
an overall reduction of 168.15 kWh/m2a (32%) is achieved by only introducing natural ventilation and a
basic (non-optimized) shading device. The specific monthly need for heating and cooling are shown in the
following pictures. It is possible to spot the reduction in cooling need in the three summer months.

The adaptive comfort calculation revealed that the base case design is able to restrain the possible number of uncomfortable hours for the calculated storeys and atrium down to 42, which is a good score for a
non-optimized solution.

In this paragraph, the two analysis done on Scenario 2 are presented. The first analysis aims at optimizing
all the parameters described in 8.1.1. The second is focused on the parameters belonging to block A and
atrium envelope and the shading geometry, while setting as fixed the parameters directly affecting natural
ventilation. Spotting the potential in either involving or not parameters directly affecting natural ventilation is the main focus of the second analysis.
The results retrieved will eventually be compared with the four base case analysis.
130
8.4.1 Analysis 1
The objective functions for this analysis were minimization of heating and cooling need, decrease of the
number of hours with thermal discomfort in summer and maximization of the percentage of points receiving a good level of lux. The parameters described in 7.1.1 were all set as variables, within the defined boundaries. After 5 generations (13 hours of calculation time), the optimization algorithm provided
9 non-dominated solutions, out of more than 500 individuals evaluated. The results of the search process
are shown in the following figures.
57
90
53
28 264
17
47 6
Utopia point
Fig. 8.12: Front view, UDI* vs Heating and Cooling
Fig. 8.13: Top view, Adaptive comfort level vs Heating and Cooling
57
47
6
90
17
28
26
53 4
Fig. 8.14: Side view, Adaptive comfort level vs UDI*
Fig. 8.15: Search space, axonometric view
It can be observed in figures 8.11 and 8.12 that the search space is characterized by strips-like distributions of individuals. This is due to the thermal comfort assessment, which is done for specific temperature
ranges, as explained in 8.2. These calculations result in solutions belonging to specific temperature ranges,
above which comfort is not achieved. In 8.12, the solutions of the right side of the figure are the ones experiencing the highest comfort level in the atrium space and building storeys.
131
As for Scenario 1, the conflicting criteria are the UDI* and the heating and cooling or thermal comfort
level. This is clearly due to the overheating occurring when a solution allows for well-lit indoor conditions.
The balance between visual and thermal comfort is the balance that the optimization algorithm tries to
achieve.
kWh/m2a
The fitness of the pareto front solutions for each objective function are shown in the following figures.
Fig. 8.17: UDI* (%)
Number of hours
Fig. 8.16: Annual heating and cooling need (kWh/m2a)
Fig. 8.18: Adaptive comfort model (hrs)
Compared to Scenario 1, the optimization seems to have achieved an overall higher balance between
conflicting criteria, as we can observe for solutions 4, 26, 28, 53. However, it is important to highlight that
while solutions 6 and 47 show the best fit in terms of adaptive comforts, they also have the worst scores
for heating and cooling need and UDI*.
Moreover, even though the highest reduction of uncomfortable hours (improvement of thermal comfort)
is more than 50% (from 80 to 39 hours) compared to the 1st scenario of the base case, the average score
is not as good as expected (with 53 hours).
Fig. 8.19: Solution 47, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January
132
Fig. 8.20: Solution 47, shading zoom in
The overall reduction of heating and cooling need is high, since the best fit is of 80% (from 527.80 down
to 105 kWh/m2a).
The following figures show a few selected solutions belonging to the Pareto front (47, 6, 57, 17).
Solution 47 shows the best fit for thermal comfort, while one of the worst in terms of UDI*. Figure 8.19
shows that high lux levels are distributed along the whole atrium space for a snapshot in January. This is
due to the angle assumed by the shadings (13 upwards), as shown in figure 8.20, which allow for direct
daylight especially in winter months. Moreover, the distance between the lamellas (0,9m) and their depth
(0,4m) are resulting in too high level of daylight, causing a reduction of the UDI* score. The balance found
between SHGC (0.2 for the roof and 0.4 for the facade) and the solar exposure resulted in a reduced need
for heating, and a higher cooling need in average.
Solution 6 has a good fit for thermal comfort, while one of the worst score for heating and cooling need.
Also the UDI* has a good percentage, with 85% of points reached by comfortable lux levels in the calculated snapshots. The high need for cooling is confirmed by the ventilation schedules, which are found to be
5, 1 and 6 hours for June, July and August accordingly.
A peculiar solution is number 57, which has the best energy need score and average thermal comfort,
while experiencing the worst UDI* value of the whole Pareto front. As we can see in figure 8.23, the lux
distribution is poor and it is confirmed by the image showing the facade highly shaded by the lamellas.
This also results in a higher need for heating than cooling, as it can be seen in figures 8.25 and 8.26.
133
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The solution selected for further investigation and comparison is number 26, since it is one of the solutions
with shortest distance from the utopia point. In figure 8.27 we can observe the good daylight distribution
within the atrium space due to optimized geometry parameters for the shading devices. The lamellas are
rotated downwards (14), but their spacing is sufficient in providing a good indirect daylighting.
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Compared to solution 57, the facade is more exposed, resulting in lower need for heating. However, this
is balanced by greater need for cooling, as figure 8.30 shows. The cooling need in summer months is almost 0, and this is in line with the retrieved ventilation schedules, which are 7, 5, 6 hours for June, July
and August. Also in this case the SHGC of facade and roof are kept with low values, to avoid overheating
during the other months. The SHGC for the roof was found to be 0.2 and the one for the facade 0.3, while
the U-value of the envelope was set as 0.6, drastically reducing the heat flows in cold months, (when the
difference between indoor and outdoor environments can be high).
134
8.4.2 Analysis 2
Analysis 2 was done in order to understand the potential of considering only aspects related to the envelope combined with the parameters affecting the shading geometry. The parameters directly affecting
natural ventilation were set as fixed, while the ones set as variables were set as described in 8.1.1.
Variables:
Shading geometry
U-value of the atrium envelope
SHGC of the atrium envelope
U-value of block A envelope
SHGC of block A glazing
Fixed parameters:
Ventilation openings (18 m2 for top and exterior openings, 10 m2 for interior openings of the atrium)
Ventilation schedule (8 hours per day for the three summer months)
The applied objective functions were the same as for the first analysis: minimization of heating and cooling
need, minimization of the number of hours with thermal discomfort in summer and maximization of the
percentage of points receiving a good level of lux.
The results are shown in the following graphs.
16
6
13
12
15
utopia point
135
kWh/m2a
It is possible to find similarities between the graphs retrieved from the second analysis and the first. The
strip-like distribution on the side view (Fig. 8.31) are also occurring in the first analysis, because of the
adopted method for estimating the adaptive comfort level inside the atrium space in summer months.
The optimization algorithm found 16 solutions among hundreds of individuals (total calculation time: 10
hours).
The following graphs show the comparison between the pareto individuals objectives.
Fig. 8.36: UDI* (%)
Number of hours
Fig. 8.35: Annual heating and cooling need (kWh/m2)
For their interesting performances, the individuals selected for analysis are: 3, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16. The specific
heating and cooling need graphs for the selected solutions can be found in appendix C.
Solution 3 has the lowest score for heating and cooling among the set of non-dominated solutions. Its
136
phenotype is shown in fig. 8.38 and 8.39. As the figures show, the shadings are rotated downwards, preventing direct solar gains. However, their short depth, their relatively large spacing and high SHGC for the
atrium glazing (0.6) result in high need in cooling for non-summer months. Interesting to see is the ability
of this individual in providing thermal comfort in summer months, with a number of discomfort hours of
32/80. This score must be due to balanced heat gains of the atrium in summer, resulting in an increase
of natural ventilation rates. The ventilation in summer, on the other hands, is beneficial in decreasing the
energy need for cooling.
Solution 15 shows one of the highest value for UDI, with 98% of the points reached by a good level of lux
for the tested snapshots. Its shading geometry is more inclined than solution 3 (24 downwards), resulting
in a more shaded facade. This shows that most of the visual discomfort occurring in the atrium is due to
overexposure to sunlight. Moreover, the distance between lamellas is sufficient to let indirect daylight to
filter within the indoor space. The average score for heating and cooling is due to the higher need for heating, which must be due to the lower SHGC of the envelope (0.4) and higher U-value (1.1 W/m2K) compared
to other solutions.
137
Because of its distance from the utopia point (figure 8.34), solution 13 is selected for further comparisons. This individual features a good value for UDI* (82%), very low energy need (30 kWh/m2) and a good
Adaptive model score (38/80 hours). As shown in figures 8.42, 8.43, the lamellas assume a slightly higher
angle than solution 15 (14 Downwards), while the distance and depth are the same (0.5m and 0.9m).
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
The heating and cooling need for solution 13 are as shwon in the next figures.
Both energy need for heating and cooling appear to be lower than any other solutions belonging to the
Pareto front. Especially low is the need for cooling. In summer, the need is equal to 0, meaning that natural
ventilation is decreasing the need for cooling and also improving comfort with good results for the adaptive model.
A lower value for SHGC of the atrium envelope was found (0.2), with a low U-value (0.6 W/m2K). This decrease the need for cooling throughout the year and the lower U-value prevent the atrium to large heat
loss in winter months.
8.5 Comparisons of results and conclusions

For Scenario 2 the main comparison is done between the optimized solutions from the two analysis and
the four different configurations of the base case. The aim of this comparisons is to spot the potential of a
holistic approach involving all the parameters of both envelope features and shading geometry against the
case in which the parameters affecting natural ventilation are set as fixed.
The graphs showing the comparisons between the four base case scenarios and the optimized solutions
(26, 13) are as follows.
From the overall comparison it is possible to clearly spot a high reduction in energy need (Fig. 8.46) and a
good improvement of daylight levels (Fig. 8.47). Thermal comfort in summer months has been improved
in the second analysis, while it has not in the first, resulting in a lower score compared to the 4th scenario
of the base case (Fig. 8.48).
A general conclusion about the optimized Pareto set is that solutions having the best fit for one objective
generally features lower scores for at least one of the other two objectives. Therefore, also in this case it is
possible to define energy need and daylight performances as conflicting criteria.
An important conclusion is on the way thermal comfort and cooling need moves along the graphs retrieved
from the optimization algorithm. Compared to Scenario 1, these two objectives are not moving along the
same direction and with the same pace. The reason lies on the difference between the designs. In Scenario
2, the atrium A (the main strategy for natural ventilation) is also the space analysed for thermal comfort.
138
kWh/m2a
Fig. 8.47: UDI* (%)
Number of hours
As the heat gains increase within the atrium, the airflow increases, resulting in higher thermal comfort.
However, finding balance between these two aspects is not as easy as just supplying fresh air to the linked
building storeys. Therefore, when the increased airflow sometimes result in a better comfort inside the
atrium, it might also result in overheating in the other months of the year.
The importance of an integrated approach is here confirmed once again, as for Scenario 1, however with
some differences. Even though for Scenario 2 the results show that great improvements can be found with
an integrated approach, the best performances are found when the parameters affecting directly natural
ventilation, such as ventilation schedule and openings. This can be explained by looking at the specific
design of the atrium A of the Atrium Building. The height and general configurations of this space was not
intended to be a natural ventilation strategy. This is also confirmed by the neutral plane, which cannot
be easily influenced to be at a higher height than the top storey of the building. Therefore, the winning
strategy in this case was to set as maximum the values belonging to natural ventilation parameters. In this
way, the highest ventilation rates can be achieved without avoiding excessive overheating in other months
of the year.
Finally, it must be considered the potential of design decisions. As shown in the 4th base case, the decision
of using shadings plays a big role in the overall energy need and Daylight performances, especially because
the current atrium is south-facing. By taking the decision of applying sunshadings, the designer is already
ensuring a large improvements of performances. However, specifying the exact geometry of the shadings
and envelope features that would lead to the largest benefits is a complex engineering problem, that can
be solved by only using an integrated approach for optimization.
139
140
One of the goals of this research was to assess if the developed process might have chances to be applied
on real projects and how it could help in their developments. Therefore an important step was retrieving
feedback from the same architectural and engineering firms contacted for the first questionnaire shown
in chapter 2.
Attention was given on the possibilities of involving the developed process as a support and trigger of
design expression and sustainability. In order to retrieve this information a video was shown. In the video,
the optimization of Scenario 1 is shown in a dynamic series of images, in which the main parameters to be
optimized are shown and also their effects on the objectives of the optimization.
9.1 Questionnaire to UNStudio

Juergen Heinzel Senior Architect / Associate
Milena Stopic Architect / Associate (Architectural Sustainability Platform / ASP)
1. Can you foresee a possible application of it on a real project?
Yes, possible - certainly for earlier project phases, while the massing of the building and the amount of
openings is still in development. Though, the demonstration video does not clarify how the real-time adjustment of the massing is happening. Is this controlled in the tool itself, or is it a plug for an existing
program for 3d modelling? If it is not a plug-in, what are the limitations for 3d-modeling within the tool?
Would it be possible to connect the tool to Rhino via Grasshopper, and monitor the output from there (via
the tool)?
2. Do you see potential in using the shown process for developing your own design strategies, either involving or not natural ventilation?
Yes, also possible. The example of the Atriumgebouw is a good one, because it involves a number of buildings, working together in creating a micro-climate. It would be interesting to know whether the tool has an
application on larger projects, on an urban level, whereby multiple massings are involved. This could help
support or define overall design gestures, both on an urban level, as well as the building level.
3. Would you suggest any aspect that could be implemented in order to improve the design possibilities?
Ideally, the tool would be somehow related to or compatible with a 3d modelling program commonly used
in design offices, such as the suggestion for Rhino/Grasshopper, or other platforms.
4. Are there specific performance aspects or parameters that you would like to customize or introduce?
Calculation for open/close faade area is handy, as well as perhaps operable and non-operable window
area (within the open faade). It would also be helpful if a comparison mode, between at least two models
at the same time, could be introduced so that the two can be viewed and analysed side-by-side. The daylighting component could be also demonstrated graphically, along the floorplate.
5. Is there any further information you would like to retrieve from the optimization process?
Floor area should be analysed, in terms of daylight intake for example mostly well lit, well lit, not very
well lit etc, in numbers.
142
9.2 Questionnaire to Arup

Rachid Abu-Hassan - Associate Director
1. Can you foresee a possible application of the developed process on a real project?
In short; yes. This process is proving to be more valuable now than ever, and I predict that this is only the
beginning. As pressures mount on designers and developers, not only in terms of high-performance buildings, but also buildings that are designed and completed as quick as possible, having such tools available
allows the design team and the developer to interact from day one and make informed decisions, that
they otherwise cannot make at such an early stage of the project. Further, given the amount of different
variables that can have serious long term impact on the building performance, such tools allow these
variables to be evaluated early on in the process before its too late.
2. Do you see potential in using the shown process for developing your own design and consultancy strategies, either involving or not natural ventilation?
Yes. We have on several occasions, used similar tools in the past for other disciplines such as acoustics,
building physics, and lighting. This tool is an extension of what we currently have for other disciplines, and
thus, will be a welcome and useful edition.
3. Would you suggest any aspect that could be implemented in order to improve the design possibilities?
It is important to realize the benefits as well as the current limitations of such tools. The ease, visual
aspect, and interactive nature of such tool make it very useful for working with designers and developers
early during the design process; thus, the tool is an extremely useful for simplifying what is otherwise a
complicated technical discussion. Thus, the usefulness of such tools is inherent in their simplicity.
On the other hand, it is easy to mistake such tools as validation tools; which they are not (at least not
yet). Therefore, as these tools develop, it is important that they continue to be simple enough for them to
be effective in the early design stages.
4. Are there specific performance aspects or parameters that you would like to customize or introduce?
Not at this point; however, I do think that we should slowly start to link these tools with others that are
existing in acoustics, lighting, etc.
5. Is there any further information you would like to retrieve from the optimization process?
As stated before, I believe that we already have many such tools in house, and this tool is an addition or
extension. Thus, I look forward to further development of such tools.
143
9.3 Conclusions
Generally, the reactions from the two firms are positive. Both the engineering and the architectural sides
foresee applications on real projects and possibilities for the early design stages.
The answers received from UNStudio show an overall positive reaction to the video and the optimization
process. A point of interest seems to be the parametric potential of handling any kind of 3d model and
building geometry. As a matter of fact, the case study and thus the video are not showing a complex geometry building, but rather a simple buildings group. However, the tools developed within this thesis can be
able to handle more complex models, but always within the limits of a simplified set of equations used to
calculate heating and cooling and natural ventilation. Therefore simplified models of the complex design
intention should be defined for the early stages.
The answers received from Arup highlight the possibilities and current limitations of such a developed
process. The possibilities in using it in the early stages of the design are given by its fast use and its visual
approach. However, because of the current lack of detailed outputs, it must be considered as a starting
point for further design development and optimization. Its potential is to help designers and engineer in
take informed decisions, and therefore moving towards sustainability already in the first steps of the design process.
The main conclusions is that the use of such an integrated approach can have its highest results when the
architectural aspects are well combined with the engineering side.
144
The overall conclusions of this research are presented in this chapter. The aim is to discuss the results from
the practical application of the developed computational process, which will serve as answers for the research questions defined in chapter 1.
Regarding the real application of the developed process, the question raising at the end of this research is:
Is this computational process more suitable for architecture or engineering practices?
An answer for this question is hard to be found. There are a number of aspects related to building design
that are normally considered by only the architecture side, while others only by consultancy firms. Therefore, it is not unlikely to foresee an integrated approach that has its best results only when both sides are
both cooperating for the same goal, with different approaches and experience.
The main conclusion that can be derived is that this approach has potential, but there are many problems
to be overcome in order to merge engineering with architecture. At the moment, the two practices have
different identities, interests and objectives. However, architectural design should not be detached by
engineering problems and vice-versa. Small steps will be needed in order to start new integrated ways
of dealing with building designs. Parametric modelling and programming can be a good asset for this goal,
because it can eventually become the perfect mean for joining different approaches and backgrounds,
without interference.
Finally, in order to answer the research questions formulated in the first chapter of this paper, the developed process was applied and its results retrieved and compared. The research questions and related
answers are as follows.
Research question
To what extent the optimization of natural ventilation strategies in the early design stage can improve energy performance and thermal comfort of a design for an office building?
According to the comparison of the performance of an optimized office building and its base case (surrogate design of the case study), it is clear that a design optimized by using an integrated approach in its
early stages has greater chances for energy savings. Moreover, this comparison shows the potential of
applying such a concept early in the design process, where important decisions that will affect the future
performance of the building are taken.
As previously observed, the strict constraints selected for this specific case study have eventually confined
the optimization potential. Therefore, it is important to underline that both design variables and design
constraints play a key role in defining the real optimization potential. Since these parameters are dependent on a number of design aspects and issues specific for a project, they cannot be categorized and either
their effect on building performance can be predicted with absolute certainty.
Sub-questions
To what extent embedding natural ventilation strategies into an optimization process affects its final outputs in terms of building performance and layout?
A comparison between an optimized design embedding the assessment of natural ventilation and its cooling potential with a design not optimized with the same objective functions was done in chapter 7. The results show that the design of this case study can have different performance and layouts if the optimization
process embeds or not natural ventilation. Moreover, the overall performances of the building are higher
in the integrated approach than in the one that is not integrated (not comprising natural ventilation). This
leads to the conclusions that the early stages of a design comprises a high number of variables that affect
each other and for which there should be found a balance in order to achieve better performing solutions.
It is important to underline that this balance cannot be easily achieved by dividing the problems and that
146
an integrated approach leads to greater improvements.

To what extent a holistic approach can be beneficial for an optimization process of energy performance in
the early stages of a design?
This question finds its answer in the second comparison of the results retrieved by the performed analysis.
From this, it appears clear that there is an overall improvement of energy, thermal comfort and daylight
performance when these three aspects are considered altogether and when the design variable regard elements of both building geometry and envelope characteristics. Considering the highly constrained search
space of the case study and related results, the overall potential appears to be high. Specifically, saving
potentials are always dependent on the design quality, defined parameters and constraints.
This was also clearly illustrated in Scenario 2, where the shading strategy plays a big role in the energy,
comfort and daylight optimization of the atrium design. By taking the right decision, the designer is already
defining a big improvement of the overall performances.
On the other hand, it is also important the way the parameters are set, and what type of parameters are
going to be influential to the future performances for a specific design. As shown in Scenario 2, setting the
parameters affecting natural ventilation as variables did not result in benefits for the overall result. This
can be due to the characteristics of a specific design. Therefore, it can be concluded that the parameters
affecting a design cannot be standardized also because they need to be related to the specific indoor requirements, and the specific design characteristics.
Finally, constraining aspects related to envelope design have effects on the saving potential of such a process. Even though in the early stages it is not always common to have specific material choices, a holistic
approach should always comprise basic envelope strategies.
A general observation on the optimization studies is that an improved natural airflow does not always lead
to comfort, but it can also provide discomfort due too cold sensation. Therefore, it is important to optimize
the building in order to achieve the right balance between heat gains and heat losses, especially when considering basic strategies for the envelope materials. If the designer can consider basic envelope materials
and relative U-values and SHGC, this can result in an extension of the physical design space over the design
constraints and help in achieving better performing designs, early in the design process.
147
148
Possible future steps on the researched topic can be done, and a few of them regarding both the developed process and the application on the case study are presented here.

As already explained in literature, energy concepts for a new building is normally made considering many
different aspects of building design. Even though not all these aspects are normally considered in early
stages for common buildings, the call for new approaches for the design of sustainable buildings will require more integrated approaches comprising also active strategies. Mechanical services and installations
design, embodied energy of structure and envelope materials, operational energy, energy production on
site, overall construction and operational costs are a few of the aspects that could be integrated within an
optimization process.
A first step towards this direction could be the calculation of energy need for artificial lighting, which could
redefine the way the objective functions are set and therefore lead to signficant differences in performance.
Case study
A possible further step of the redesign of this case study could be setting both parameters for ventilation
openings and shading geometry for a whole building optimization strategy. In this way, more balanced
solutions in terms of natural ventilation and solar gains could be found.
The atria dimensions and shape could also be set as a design variable, which might lead to higher fitness
for the three used objective functions.
150
Bibliography
Web pages
Bouwbesluit. (2012). Bouwbesluit onlin 2012. from http://www.bouwbesluitonline.nl/.
Chaudhuri, S. (2002). What is Raytracing? FuzzyPhoton, from http://fuzzyphoton.tripod.com/whatisrt.
htm.
Schorsch. (2011). Radiosity Method - Radiant Flux Transfer Method. Lighting Design Glossary, from
http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/radiosity.html.
Arbo Vakbase (2015). Richtlijnen algemene thermische behaaglijkheid. Handboek Ergonomie, from
http://www.arbovakbase.nl/artikel/richtlijnen-algemene-thermische-behaaglijkheid-11238.html.
Conference papers
Andr P., L. J., Temoveau A, (1999). Bringing simulation to application; some guidelines and practical reccomendations issued from IEA-BCS Annex 30. IBPSA conference. Kyoto, Japan.
Chrysanthi, K., S. Ava Fatah gen, T. Martha and C. Angelos (2013). Façade apertures optimization:
integrating cross-ventilation performance analysis in fluid dynamics simulation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture & Urban Design. San Diego, California, Society for Computer Simulation International.
Singh S., K. K. (2014). Early design analysis using optimization techniques in design/practice. Building Simulation Conference Atlanta.
Journal articles
Caldas, L. (2008). Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions applying GENE_ARCH: An evolution-based generative design system. Advanced Engineering Informatics 22(1): 59-70.
de Dear R.J., B., G.S. (2002). Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: Revisinos to ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy and Buildings 34(6): 549-561.
Evins, R. (2013). A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22(0): 230-245.
Granadeiro, V., J. P. Duarte, J. R. Correia and V. M. S. Leal (2013). Building envelope shape design in early
stages of the design process: Integrating architectural design systems and energy simulation. Automation
in Construction 32(0): 196-209.
Humphreys, M., Nicol, J (2002). The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes in everyday thermal
environments. Energy and Buildings 34(6): 667-684.
Hunt GR, C. C. (2010). Emptying boxes - classifying transient natural ventilation flows. J Fluid Mech.
Jin, J.-T. and J.-W. Jeong (2014). Optimization of a free-form building shape to minimize external thermal
load using genetic algorithm. Energy and Buildings 85(0): 473-482.
Jin, Y. (2002). A Comprehensive Survey of Fitness Approximation in Evolutionary Computation. Soft Computing 9(1): 3-12.
Li, Y., A. Delsante and J. Symons (2000). Prediction of natural ventilation in buildings with large openings.
Building and Environment 35(3): 191-206.
Lin, S.-H. E. and D. J. Gerber (2014). Designing-in performance: A framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design. Automation in Construction 38(0): 59-73.
Liu, S., J. Liu, Q. Yang, J. Pei, D. Lai, X. Cao, J. Chao and C. Zhou (2014). Coupled simulation of natural ventilation and daylighting for a residential community design. The 2nd International Conference on Building
Energy and Environment (COBEE), 2012, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA 68, Part B(0): 686-695.
Moosavi L., M. N., Mahyuddin N., Ghafar N. A., Ismail M.A. (2014). Thermal performance of atria: An overview of natural ventilation effective designs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews(34): 654-670.
Nabil A., M. J. (2005). Useful Daylight Illuminance: A New Paradigm to Access Daylight in Buildings. Lighting Research & Technology 37(1): 41-59.
152
Nguyen, A.-T., S. Reiter and P. Rigo (2014). A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to
building performance analysis. Applied Energy 113(0): 1043-1058.
Orme, M. (2011). Estimates of the energy impact of ventilation and associated financial expenditures.
Energy and Buildings 33(2001): 199-205.
Prez-Lombard, L., J. Ortiz and C. Pout (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information.
Energy and Buildings 40(3): 394-398.
Reinhart C.F., M., Ij., Rogers, Z. (2006). Dynamic Daylight Performance Metrics for Sustainable Building
Design. Leukos 3(1): 7-31.
Stephan, L., A. Bastide and E. Wurtz (2011). Optimizing opening dimensions for naturally ventilated buildings. Applied Energy 88(8): 2791-2801.
Vasileios Machairas, A. T., Kleo Axarli (2014). Algorithms for optimization of building design: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31: 101-112.
Wyon (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 14(7): 195201.
Standards
ASHRAE (2009). ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, Georgia, American Society of Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers.
CIBSE (2005). Natural ventilation in non-domestic buildings. CIBSE Application Manual AM10.
ISO (2005). Ergonomics of the thermal environment: Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. ISO 7730.
Geneva, International Standards Organisation.
TC89/WG4/N284, C. (2006). Energy performance of buildings - Calculation of energy use for space heating
and cooling, CEN TC89/WG4/N284.
Books
A. Eugene Kohn, P. K. (2002). Office buildings. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Commission, E. (1999). A Green Vitruvius: Principles and Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design,
James & James.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms.
Hegger M., F. M., Stark T., Zeumer M. (2008). Energy Manual, Sustainable Architecture. Munich.
Nicol F., H. M., Roaf S. (2012). Adaptive Thermal Comfort: Principles and Practice. New York, Routledge.
Santamouris, M., F. Allard, E. C. D.-G. f. Energy and A. Programme (1998). Natural Ventilation in Buildings:
A Design Handbook, James and James (Science Publishers) Limited.
Reports
ECN (2012). Energy Efficiency Policies and Measures in The Netherlands. Monitoring of EU and national
energy efficiency targets. O.-M. 2012. Petten, ECN.
Griffith, I. (1990). Thermal comfort studies in buildings with passive solar features Field studies: Report to
the Commission of the European Community. UK.
Swami M., C. S. (1987). Procedures for Calculating Natural Ventilation Airflow Rates in Buildings. Cape
Canaveral, Florida, Florida Solar Energy Center.
Thesis
Kokogiannakis, G. (2008). Support for the Integration of Simulation in the European Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Strathclyde.
Velds, M. (1999). Assessment of lighting quality in office rooms with daylighting systems, TU Delft.
153
154
Table of Images
Chapter 1
Fig. 1.1: Comfort with natural ventilation, adaptive model
13
Chapter 2
Fig. 2.1: Overview scheme of the reviewed optimization studies

Fig. 2.2: Overview scheme of the interviews
Fig. 2.3: Energy concept (Hegger M. 2008)
Fig. 2.4: Physics of human comfort
Fig. 2.5: Typical disposition of solutions in a multi-criteria optimization
Chapter 3
Fig. 3.1: Selection of aspects for intervention

Fig. 3.2: Scheme of the integrated algorithmic process
Fig. 3.3 - Scenario 1, GH definition
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.1: Principle of heat balance equation

Fig. 4.2: Workflow scheme
Fig. 4.3: Components for Heating and Cooling developed in Grasshopper for Rhinoceros
Chapter 5
Fig. 5.1: Existing tools for calculating Natural ventilation

Fig. 5.2: Side ratio
Fig. 5.3: Geometry ratios for Cp calculations and wind angle
Fig. 5.4: Natural ventilation workflow scheme
Fig. 5.5: Airflow&Temperature component, calculation steps
Fig. 5.6: Grasshopper workflow
Fig. 5.10: BEANS calculation from Arup
Fig. 5.11: Results retrieved from the Airflow&Temperature component
Fig. 5.24: Overview of the comparisons
Chapter 6
Fig. 6.1: Building site location in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Fig. 6.2: Building site location in Zuidas district, Amsterdam
Fig. 6.3: Atrium building, blocks A, B, C
Fig. 6.4: Atrium building, atrium of block A
Fig. 6.5: Ground floor, program distribution
Fig. 6.6: First floor, program distribution
Fig. 6.7: Third floor, program distribution
Fig. 6.8: Sun path
Fig. 6.9: Wind pattern in summer months (June, July, August)
Fig. 6.10: BEANS analysis, temperature (C)
Fig. 6.11: BEANS analysis, PPD (%)
Fig. 6.12: Cooling capacity scheme for Atrium of block A
Fig. 6.13: Atrium of block B
20
23
24
26
35
40
49
50
54
60
61
66
69
70
72
73
74
77
77
78
78
79
80
80
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
85
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93
156
Chapter 7
Fig. 7.1: Current situation and new design/optimization strategy

Fig. 7.2: View of the base case design
Fig. 7.3: Shape variables
Fig. 7.4: Atrium roof height variable
Fig. 7.5: Rotation angle
Fig. 7.6: Window definition
Fig. 7.7: Ventilation openings geometry
Fig. 7.8: Calculation of air velocity
Fig. 7.9: Analysis grid for daylight calculations
Fig. 7.10: Daylight levels in July 21, 12:00.
Fig. 7.11: Heating need of base case
Fig. 7.12: Cooling need of base case
Fig. 7.13: Reviewed heating need of base case
Fig. 7.14: Reviewed cooling need of base case
Fig. 7.15: Scheme of the improved calculation method
Fig. 7.16: Search space, UDI* vs Heating and Cooling
Fig. 7.17: Objectives of the non-dominated solutions
Fig. 7.28: Heating loads of solution 11
Fig. 7.29: Cooling loads of solution 11
Fig. 7.30: Heating loads of solution 11, with Natural ventilation
Fig. 7.31: Cooling loads of solution 11, with Natural ventilation
Fig. 7.32: Comparison of total energy need for heating and cooling
157
97
97
98
98
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
107
108
108
108
109
109
109
109
109
109
110
110
110
110
111
111
111
112
112
112
112
113
113
113
114
114
114
114
114
114
115
115
115
115
116
116
116
116
117
117
117
118
118
118
118
118
118
119
119
119

119
120
120
121
Chapter 8
Fig. 8.1: Block A, current situation

Fig. 8.2: Block A, optimization strategies
Fig. 8.3: Shading devices variables
Fig. 8.4 (a, b): Lamellas configurations
Fig. 8.5: Neutral plane resulting from different opening layouts
Fig. 8.6: Base case situation (1st scenario)
Fig. 8.7: Base case situation (4th scenario)
Fig. 8.17: UDI* (%)
Fig. 8.27: Solution 26, daylight and solar radiation distribution in January 134
Fig. 8.28: Solution 26, shading zoom in 134
Fig. 8.35: Annual heating and cooling need (kWh/m2)
Fig. 8.36: UDI* (%)
Fig. 8.47: UDI* (%)
158
124
124
124
125
126
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
131
131
132
132
132
132
132
133
133
133
133
134
134
134
134
135
135
135
135
136
136
136
136
136
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
138
138
Heating&Cooling need components - scripts VB.NET

1 - Heating&Cooling need component
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OutdoorTemperatures As Object, ByVal TotalHeatTransmission As Object,
ByVal SetpointTemperatureHeating As Object, ByVal SetpointTemperatureCooling As Object, ByVal VentilationRate As Object, ByVal VentilationTemperatures As Object, ByVal k As Object, ByVal Ak As Object,
ByVal Af As Object, ByVal TotalSolarHeatGains As Object, ByVal TotalInternalHeatGains As Object, ByVal
HeatingHoursPerWeek As Object, ByVal CoolingDaysPerWeek As Object, ByRef MonthlyHeating As Object,
ByRef MonthlyCooling As Object, ByRef TotalEnergyConsumption As Object, ByRef TotalEnergyConsumptionInter As Object)
Dim QsH As Double, QintH As Double, As Double = 1.2, QtrH As Double, QventH As Double, ca As Double = 1005, t As Double = 2592000, t2 As Double = 576000, TiH As Double, TiC As Double
Dim xH As Double, xC As Double
TiH = SetpointTemperatureHeating
TiC = SetpointTemperatureCooling
QtrH = (TiH - OutdoorTemperatures) * TotalHeatTransmission * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QtrH = & QtrH)
QsH = TotalSolarHeatGains * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QsH = & QsH)
QintH = TotalInternalHeatGains * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QintH = & QintH)
QventH = * ca * VentilationRate * (TiH - VentilationTemperatures) * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QventH = & QventH)
Dim QsC As Double, QintC As Double, QtrC As Double, QventC As Double
QtrC = (TiC - OutdoorTemperatures) * TotalHeatTransmission * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QtrC = & QtrC)
QsC = TotalSolarHeatGains * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QsC = & QsC)
QintC = TotalInternalHeatGains * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QintC = & QintC)
QventC = * ca * VentilationRate * (TiC - VentilationTemperatures) * t * (10 ^ -6)
print(QventC = & QventC)
Dim QH As Double, QC As Double, As Double, Cm As Double, H As Double = 15, C As Double = 15, aH0
As Double = 1, aC0 As Double = 1, yH As Double, yC As Double, aH As Double, aC As Double
Cm = k * Ak
= (Cm / 3600) / (TotalHeatTransmission + ( * ca * VentilationRate))
aH = aH0 + (/H)
aC = aC0 + (/C)
yH = (QsH + QintH) / (QtrH + QventH)
If yH >= 0 And yH <> 1 Then
xH = (1 - (yH ^ aH)) / (1 - (yH ^ (aH + 1)))
End If
If yH = 1 Then
xH = aH / (aH + 1)
End If
If yH < 0 Then
xH = 1 / yH
End If
160
QH = (QtrH + QventH) - (xH * (QsH + QintH))

MonthlyHeating = (QH * 0.27777778) / Af
yC = (QsC + QintC) / (QtrC + QventC)
If yC >= 0 And yH <> 1 Then
xC = (1 - (yC ^ -aC)) / (1 - (yC ^ -(aC + 1)))
End If
If yC = 1 Then
xC = aC / (aC + 1)
End If
If yC < 0 Then
xC = 1
End If
QC = (QsC + QintC) - (xC * (QtrC + QventC))
MonthlyCooling = (QC * 0.27777778) / Af
TotalEnergyConsumption = MonthlyCooling + MonthlyHeating
Dim ahred As Double, bhred As Double = 3, fh As Double, QHinter As Double
fh = HeatingHoursPerWeek / 168
ahred = 1 - bhred * (H / ()) * yH * (1 - fh)
QHinter = QH * ahred
print(QHinter = & QHinter)
Dim acred As Double, bcred As Double = 3, fc As Double, QCinter As Double, TotalEnergyConsumptionInterMJ As Double
fc = CoolingDaysPerWeek / 7
acred = 1 - (bcred * (C / ()) * yC * (1 - fc))
QCinter = QC * acred
print(QCinter = & QCinter)
TotalEnergyConsumptionInterMJ = QHinter + QCinter
TotalEnergyConsumptionInter = (TotalEnergyConsumptionInterMJ * 0.27777778) / Af
End Sub
2- Internal heat gains component

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal AreaFloor As Object, ByVal qpeople As Object, ByVal qapp As Object, ByRef
TotalInternalHeatGains As Object)
TotalInternalHeatGains = AreaFloor * (qpeople + qapp + qlight)
End Sub
3 - Solar heat gains

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal AreaWindows As Object, ByVal SHGC As Object, ByVal k As Object, ByVal Uk
As Object, ByVal WallorRoof As Object, ByVal MonthlySolarRadiation As Object, ByRef SolarHeatGains As
Object)
Dim x As Double, Ff As Double, Rse As Double = 0.04, hr As Double, Dtesky As Double = 11, Qr As Double
If WallorRoof = True Then
161
Ff = 0.5
hr = 5 * (k)
Qr = Rse * Uk * AreaWindows * hr * DTesky
print(Qr = & Qr)
x = (AreaWindows * SHGC * MonthlySolarRadiation) - (Qr * Ff)
SolarHeatGains = x
End If
If WallorRoof = False Then
Ff = 1
hr = 5 * (k)
Qr = Rse * Uk * AreaWindows * hr * DTesky
print(Qr = & Qr)
x = (AreaWindows * SHGC * MonthlySolarRadiation) - (Qr * Ff)
SolarHeatGains = x
End If
End Sub
4 - Heat transfer by transmission

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal AreaWindows As Object, ByVal UValueGlass As Object, ByRef HeatTransmission As Object)
HeatTransmission = UValueGlass * AreaWindows
End Sub
162
Natural Ventilation solver components - scripts VB.NET

1 - Airflow&Temperature Atrium scenario
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OutdoorTemperature As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone1 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone2 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone1 As
Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone2 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsAtrium As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsAtrium As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone1 As Object,
ByVal HeatTransmissionZone2 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionAtrium As Object, ByVal EffectiveOpeningArea As Object, ByVal AtriumHeight As Object, ByVal Dpw As Object,
ByRef QZone1 As Object, ByRef QZone2 As Object, ByRef QAtrium As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone1 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone2 As Object, ByRef TemperatureAtrium
As Object)
Dim As Double = 1.2, Qvent1 As Double, ca As Double = 1005, Q1 As Double, Q2 As Double
Dim Qs1 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone1, Qs2 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone2
Dim Qint1 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone1, Qint2 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone2
Dim Qtr1 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone1, Qtr2 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone2
Dim ho As Double = AtriumHeight
Dim Te As Double = OutdoorTemperatures
Dim Aa As Double = EffectiveOpeningArea
Dim Qsa As Double = SolarHeatGainsAtrium
Dim Qinta As Double = InternalHeatGainsAtrium
Dim Qtra As Double = HeatTransmissionAtrium
Dim T1 As Double = 26, T2 As Double = 26, T3 As Double = 26
Qvent1 = Qs1 + Qint1 - (Qtr1 * (T1 - Te))
Q1 = Qvent1 / ( * ca * (T1 - Te))
Dim Qvent2 As Double
Qvent2 = Qs2 + Qint2 - (Qtr2 * (T2 - Te))
Q2 = Qvent2 / ( * ca * (T2 - Te))
print(Q1 = & Q1)
print(Q2 = & Q2)
Dim T1p As Double = T1

Dim T1n As Double

Dim T2n As Double
Dim Q1p As Double = Q1

Dim Q1n As Double

Dim Q2n As Double
Do
Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, T1p, T2p, Qs1, Qs2, Qint1, Qint2, Qinta, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtra, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, QAtrium, T1n, T2n, TemperatureAtrium)
T1p = T1n
T2p = T2n
Q1p = Q1n
Q2p = Q2n
Loop While Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, T1p, T2p, Qs1, Qs2, Qint1, Qint2, Qinta, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtra, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, QAtrium, T1n, T2n, TemperatureAtrium) = True
164
TempreatureZone1 = T1n
QZone1 = Q1n
QZone2 = Q2n
End Sub
<Custom additional code>

Private Function Toutput(ByVal Te As Object, ByVal Q1 As Object, ByVal Q2 As Object, ByVal T1 As Object, ByVal T2 As Object, ByVal Qs1 As Object, ByVal Qs2 As Object, ByVal
Qint1 As Object, ByVal Qint2 As Object, ByVal Qinta As Object, ByVal Qsa As Object, ByVal Qtr1 As Object, ByVal Qtr2 As Object, ByVal Qtra As Object, ByVal Aa As Object, ByVal
ho As Object, ByVal Dpw As Object, ByRef Q1n As Object, ByRef Q2n As Object, ByRef QAtrium As Object, ByRef T1n As Object, ByRef T2n As Object, ByRef TemperatureAtrium
As Object) As Boolean
Dim As Double = 1.2, ca As Double = 1005
Dim Q1T1 As Double, Q2T2 As Double
Q1T1 = Q1 * T1
Q2T2 = Q2 * T2
print(Q1 = & Q1)
print(Q2 = & Q2)
TemperatureAtrium = (((Q1T1 + Q2T2) * * ca) + Qsa + Qinta + (Qtra * Te)) / (( * ca * (Q1 + Q2))+ Qtra)
print(TAtrium = & TemperatureAtrium)
Dim T0 As Double = 273.15, 0 As Double = 1.29, Tak As Double, Tek As Double, a As Double, b As Double, 1 As Double, 2 As Double
Tak = TemperatureAtrium + 273.15
a = ((0) * T0) / Tak
Tek = Te + 273.15
b = ((0) * T0) / Tek
1 = a
2 = b
Dim g As Double = 9.81
Dim DP As Double
DP = (b - a) * g * ho
Dim x As Double, y As Double, Cd As Double = 0.8
x = (2 * DP) /
y = (x + (2 * Dpw)) ^ 0.5
QAtrium = Cd * Aa * y
print(QAtrium = & QAtrium)
Q1n = QAtrium / 2
Q2n = QAtrium / 2
print(Q1n = & Q1n)
print(Q2n = & Q2n)
T1n = (Qs1 + Qint1 + (Qtr1 * Te) + (Q1n * * ca * Te))/ ((Q1n * * ca) + Qtr1)
T2n = (Qs2 + Qint2 + (Qtr2 * Te) + (Q2n * * ca * Te))/ ((Q2n * * ca) + Qtr2)
print(T1n = & T1n)
print(T2n = & T2n)
If (T1n - T1) > 0.1 Or (T1n - T1) < -0.1 Then
Toutput = True
Else
165
Toutput = False
End If
End Function
2 - Airflow&Temperature Atrium + DSF scenario

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OutdoorTemperature As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone1 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone2 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone3 As Object,
ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone4 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone5 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone6 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone7 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone8 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone9 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsD As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone1 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone2 As
Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone3 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone4 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone5 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone6 As Object,
ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone7 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone8 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone9 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsAtrium As Object, ByVal
InternalHeatGainsD As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsAtrium As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone1 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone2 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone3 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone4 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone5 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone6 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone7
As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone8 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone9 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionAtrium As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionD As Object, ByVal
EffectiveOpeningArea As Object, ByVal AtriumHeight As Object, ByVal Dpw As Object, ByRef QZone1 As Object, ByRef QZone2 As Object, ByRef QZone3 As Object, ByRef QZone4
As Object, ByRef QZone5 As Object, ByRef QZone6 As Object, ByRef QZone7 As Object, ByRef QZone8 As Object, ByRef QZone9 As Object, ByRef QAtrium As Object, ByRef QD
As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone1 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone2 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone3 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone4 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone5 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone6 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone7 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone8 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone9 As Object, ByRef
TemperatureD As Object, ByRef TAtrium As Object)
Dim As Double = 1.2, ca As Double = 1005, Q1 As Double, Q2 As Double, Q3 As Double, Q4 As Double, Q5 As Double, Q6 As Double, Q7 As Double, Q8 As Double, Q9 As Double
Dim Qs1 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone1, Qs2 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone2, Qs3 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone3
Dim Qint1 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone1, Qint2 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone2, Qint3 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone3
Dim Qtr1 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone1, Qtr2 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone2, Qtr3 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone3
Dim Qtrp As Double = HeatTransmissionD, Qintp As Double = InternalHeatGainsD, Qsp As Double = SolarHeatGainsD
Dim ho As Double = AtriumHeight
Dim Qp As Double, Qventp As Double
Dim Te As Double = OutdoorTemperature
Dim Aa As Double = EffectiveOpeningArea
Dim Qsa As Double = SolarHeatGainsAtrium
Dim Qinta As Double = InternalHeatGainsAtrium
Dim Qtra As Double = HeatTransmissionAtrium
Dim T1 As Double, T2 As Double, T3 As Double, T4 As Double, T5 As Double, T6 As Double, T7 As Double, T8 As Double, T9 As Double, Tp As Double = 26
Qventp = Qsp + Qintp - (Qtrp * (Tp - Te))

Qp = Qventp / ( * ca * (Tp - Te))
Q1 = Qp / 9
Q2 = Qp / 9
Q3 = Qp / 9
Q4 = Qp / 9
Q5 = Qp / 9
Q6 = Qp / 9
Q7 = Qp / 9
Q8 = Qp / 9
Q9 = Qp / 9
166
T1 = (Qs1 + Qint1 + (Qtr1 * Te) + (Q1 * * ca * Tp))/ ((Q1 * * ca) + Qtr1)


Dim Tpp As Double = Tp
Dim T1n As Double

Dim T2n As Double
Dim T3n As Double
Dim T4n As Double
Dim T5n As Double
Dim T6n As Double
Dim T7n As Double
Dim T8n As Double
Dim T9n As Double
Dim Tpn As Double

Dim Qpp As Double = Qp
167
Dim Q1n As Double

Dim Q2n As Double
Dim Q3n As Double
Dim Q4n As Double
Dim Q5n As Double
Dim Q6n As Double
Dim Q7n As Double
Dim Q8n As Double
Dim Q9n As Double
Dim Qpn As Double
Do
Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, Q3p, Q4p, Q5p, Q6p, Q7p, Q8p, Q9p, Qpp, T1p, T2p, T3p, T4p, T5p, T6p, T7p, T8p, T9p, Tpp, Qs1, Qs2, Qs3, Qs4, Qs5, Qs6, Qs7, Qs8, Qs9, Qsp, Qint1,
Qint2, Qint3, Qint4, Qint5, Qint6, Qint7, Qint8, Qint9, Qinta, Qintp, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtr3, Qtr4, Qtr5, Qtr6, Qtr7, Qtr8, Qtr9, Qtra, Qtrp, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, Q3n, Q4n, Q5n,
Q6n, Q7n, Q8n, Q9n, QAtrium, Qpn, T1n, T2n, T3n, T4n, T5n, T6n, T7n, T8n, T9n, Tpn, TAtrium)
Tpp = Tpn
T1p = T1n
T2p = T2n
T3p = T3n
T4p = T4n
T5p = T5n
T6p = T6n
T7p = T7n
T8p = T8n
T9p = T9n
Qpp = Qpn
Q1p = Q1n
Q2p = Q2n
Q3p = Q3n
Q4p = Q4n
Q5p = Q5n
Q6p = Q6n
Q7p = Q7n
Q8p = Q8n
Q9p = Q9n
Loop While Toutput(Te, Q1p, Q2p, Q3p, Q4p, Q5p, Q6p, Q7p, Q8p, Q9p, Qpp, T1p, T2p, T3p, T4p, T5p, T6p, T7p, T8p, T9p, Tpp, Qs1, Qs2, Qs3, Qs4, Qs5, Qs6, Qs7, Qs8, Qs9,
Qsp, Qint1, Qint2, Qint3, Qint4, Qint5, Qint6, Qint7, Qint8, Qint9, Qinta, Qintp, Qsa, Qtr1, Qtr2, Qtr3, Qtr4, Qtr5, Qtr6, Qtr7, Qtr8, Qtr9, Qtra, Qtrp, Aa, ho, Dpw, Q1n, Q2n, Q3n,
Q4n, Q5n, Q6n, Q7n, Q8n, Q9n, QAtrium, Qpn, T1n, T2n, T3n, T4n, T5n, T6n, T7n, T8n, T9n, Tpn, TAtrium) = True
168
TemperatureD = Tpn
QZone1 = Q1n
QZone2 = Q2n
QZone3 = Q3n
QZone4 = Q4n
QZone5 = Q5n
QZone6 = Q6n
QZone7 = Q7n
QZone8 = Q8n
QZone9 = Q9n
QD = Qpn
End Sub
<Custom additional code>

Private Function Toutput(ByVal Te As Object, ByVal Q1 As Object, ByVal Q2 As Object, ByVal Q3 As Object, ByVal Q4 As Object, ByVal Q5 As Object, ByVal Q6 As Object, ByVal Q7
As Object, ByVal Q8 As Object, ByVal Q9 As Object, ByVal Qp As Object, ByVal T1 As Object, ByVal T2 As Object, ByVal T3 As Object, ByVal T4 As Object, ByVal T5 As Object, ByVal
T6 As Object, ByVal T7 As Object, ByVal T8 As Object, ByVal T9 As Object, ByVal Tp As Object, ByVal Qs1 As Object, ByVal Qs2 As Object, ByVal Qs3 As Object, ByVal Qs4 As Object,
ByVal Qs5 As Object, ByVal Qs6 As Object, ByVal Qs7 As Object, ByVal Qs8 As Object, ByVal Qs9 As Object, ByVal Qsp As Object, ByVal Qint1 As Object, ByVal Qint2 As Object, ByVal
Qint3 As Object, ByVal Qint4 As Object, ByVal Qint5 As Object, ByVal Qint6 As Object, ByVal Qint7 As Object, ByVal Qint8 As Object, ByVal Qint9 As Object, ByVal Qinta As Object,
ByVal Qintp As Object, ByVal Qsa As Object, ByVal Qtr1 As Object, ByVal Qtr2 As Object, ByVal Qtr3 As Object, ByVal Qtr4 As Object, ByVal Qtr5 As Object, ByVal Qtr6 As Object,
ByVal Qtr7 As Object, ByVal Qtr8 As Object, ByVal Qtr9 As Object, ByVal Qtra As Object, ByVal Qtrp As Object, ByVal Aa As Object, ByVal ho As Object, ByVal Dpw As Object, ByRef
Q1n As Object, ByRef Q2n As Object, ByRef Q3n As Object, ByRef Q4n As Object, ByRef Q5n As Object, ByRef Q6n As Object, ByRef Q7n As Object, ByRef Q8n As Object, ByRef
Q9n As Object, ByRef QAtrium As Object, ByRef Qpn As Object, ByRef T1n As Object, ByRef T2n As Object, ByRef T3n As Object, ByRef T4n As Object, ByRef T5n As Object, ByRef
T6n As Object, ByRef T7n As Object, ByRef T8n As Object, ByRef T9n As Object, ByRef Tpn As Object, ByRef TAtrium As Object) As Boolean
Dim As Double = 1.2, ca As Double = 1005
Dim Q1T1 As Double, Q2T2 As Double, Q3T3 As Double, Q4T4 As Double, Q5T5 As Double, Q6T6 As Double, Q7T7 As Double, Q8T8 As Double, Q9T9 As Double
Q1T1 = Q1 * T1
Q2T2 = Q2 * T2
Q3T3 = Q3 * T3
Q4T4 = Q4 * T4
Q5T5 = Q5 * T5
Q6T6 = Q6 * T6
Q7T7 = Q7 * T7
Q8T8 = Q8 * T8
Q9T9 = Q9 * T9
print(Q1 = & Q1)
print(Q2 = & Q2)
print(Q3 = & Q3)
print(Q4 = & Q4)
print(Q5 = & Q5)
print(Q6 = & Q6)
print(Q7 = & Q7)
print(Q8 = & Q8)
print(Q9 = & Q9)
TAtrium = (((Q1T1 + Q2T2 + Q3T3 + Q4T4 + Q5T5 + Q6T6 + Q7T7 + Q8T8 + Q9T9) * * ca) + Qsa + Qinta + (Qtra * Te)) / (( * ca * (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7 + Q8 +
Q9))+ Qtra)
169
print(TAtrium = & TAtrium)

Dim T0 As Double = 273.15, 0 As Double = 1.29, Tak As Double, Tek As Double, a As Double, b As Double, 1 As Double, 2 As Double
Tak = TAtrium + 273.15
a = ((0) * T0) / Tak
Tek = Te + 273.15
b = ((0) * T0) / Tek
1 = a
2 = b
Dim g As Double = 9.81
Dim DP As Double
DP = (b - a) * g * ho
Dim x As Double, y As Double, Cd As Double = 0.8
x = (2 * DP) /
y = (x + (2 * Dpw)) ^ 0.5
QAtrium = Cd * Aa * y
print(QAtrium = & QAtrium)
Qpn = QAtrium
print(Qpn = & Qpn)
Q1n = QAtrium / 9
Q2n = QAtrium / 9
Q3n = QAtrium / 9
Q4n = QAtrium / 9
Q5n = QAtrium / 9
Q6n = QAtrium / 9
Q7n = QAtrium / 9
Q8n = QAtrium / 9
Q9n = QAtrium / 9
print(Q1n = & Q1n)
print(Q2n = & Q2n)
print(Q3n = & Q3n)
print(Q4n = & Q4n)
print(Q5n = & Q5n)
print(Q6n = & Q6n)
print(Q7n = & Q7n)
print(Q8n = & Q8n)
print(Q9n = & Q9n)
Tpn = (Qsp + Qintp + (Qtrp * Te) + (Qpn * * ca * Te))/ ((Qpn * * ca) + Qtrp)
print(Tpn = & Tpn)
T1n = (Qs1 + Qint1 + (Qtr1 * Te) + (Q1n * * ca * Tpn))/ ((Q1n * * ca) + Qtr1)
170
print(T1n = & T1n)
print(T2n = & T2n)
print(T3n = & T3n)
print(T4n = & T4n)
print(T5n = & T5n)
print(T6n = & T6n)
print(T7n = & T7n)
print(T8n = & T8n)
print(T9n = & T9n)
If (T1n - T1) > 0.1 Or (T1n - T1) < -0.1 Then
Toutput = True
Else
Toutput = False
End If
End Function
</Custom additional code>
End Class
3 - Airflow&Temperature Cross-ventilation scenario

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OutdoorTemperature As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone1 As Object, ByVal SolarHeatGainsZone2 As Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone1 As
Object, ByVal InternalHeatGainsZone2 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone1 As Object, ByVal HeatTransmissionZone2 As Object, ByVal EffectiveOpeningArea As Object, ByVal
Dpw As Object, ByRef AirflowZones As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone1 As Object, ByRef TempreatureZone2 As Object)
Dim As Double = 1.2, ca As Double = 1005, Q As Double, Aeff As Double = EffectiveOpeningArea
Dim Qs1 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone1, Qs2 As Double = SolarHeatGainsZone2
Dim Qint1 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone1, Qint2 As Double = InternalHeatGainsZone2
Dim Qtr1 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone1, Qtr2 As Double = HeatTransmissionZone2
Dim Te As Double = OutdoorTemperature, Cd As Double = 0.8, T1 As Double, T2 As Double
Q = Cd * Aeff * (((2 * Dpw) / ()) ^ 0.5)
AirflowZones = Q
print(Q = & Q)
T1 = (((Q * Te) * * ca) + Qs1 + Qint1 + (Qtr1 * Te)) / (( * ca * Q)+ Qtr1)
T2 = (((Q * T1) * * ca) + Qs2 + Qint2 + (Qtr2 * Te)) / (( * ca * Q)+ Qtr2)
TempreatureZone1 = T1
TempreatureZone2 = T2
End Sub
4 - Effective opening area component

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OpeningArea1Zone1 As Object, ByVal OpeningArea2Zone1 As Object, ByVal
OpeningArea1Zone2 As Object, ByVal OpeningArea2Zone2 As Object, ByVal OpeningAreaAtrium As Object, ByRef EffectiveOpeningArea As Object)
171
Dim A As Double
Dim A1 As Double = OpeningArea1Zone1, A12 As Double = OpeningArea2Zone1
Dim A2 As Double = OpeningArea1Zone2, A22 As Double = OpeningArea2Zone2
Dim AT As Double = OpeningAreaAtrium
A = 1 / ((1 / ((A1 + A2) ^ 2)) + (1 / (A12 + A22) ^ 2)) + (1 / (AT ^ 2))
EffectiveOpeningArea = A ^ 0.5
End Sub
5 - Neutral plane component

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal OpeningAreaZone1 As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightZone1 As Object, ByVal
OpeningAreaZone2 As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightZone2 As Object, ByVal OpeningAreaZone3 As Object,
ByVal OpeningHeightZone3 As Object, ByVal OpeningAreaZone4 As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightZone4 As
Object, ByVal OpeningAreaZone5 As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightZone5 As Object, ByVal OpeningAreaZone6 As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightZone6 As Object, ByVal OpeningAreaAtrium As Object, ByVal OpeningHeightAtrium As Object, ByRef NeutralPlane As Object)
Dim hn As Double = NeutralPlane, A1 As Double = OpeningAreaZone1, A2 As Double = OpeningAreaZone2, A3 As Double = OpeningAreaZone3, A4 As Double = OpeningAreaZone4, A5 As Double = OpeningAreaZone5, A6 As Double = OpeningAreaZone6, Aa As Double = OpeningAreaAtrium
Dim h1 As Double = OpeningHeightZone1, h2 As Double = OpeningHeightZone2, h3 As Double = OpeningHeightZone3, ha As Double = OpeningHeightAtrium
Dim h4 As Double = OpeningHeightZone4, h5 As Double = OpeningHeightZone5, h6 As Double = OpeningHeightZone6
hn = (((A1 ^ 2) * h1) + ((A2 ^ 2) * h2) + ((A3 ^ 2) * h3) + ((A4 ^ 2) * h4) + ((A5 ^ 2) * h5) + ((A6 ^ 2) * h6) +
((Aa ^ 2) * ha)) / ((A1 ^ 2) + (A2 ^ 2) + (A3 ^ 2) + (A4 ^ 2) + (A5 ^ 2) + (A6 ^ 2) + (Aa ^ 2))
NeutralPlane = hn
End Sub
6 - Wind pressure coefficient component

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal Windangle As Object, ByVal SideRatio As Object, ByVal LenghtRatio As Object,
ByVal BuildingHeight As Object, ByVal HeightRatio As Object, ByRef Cp As Object)
If BuildingHeight < 12 Then

Dim C0 As Double = 1.248, C1 As Double = -0.703, C2 As Double = -1.175
172
Dim C3 As Double = 0.131, C4 As Double = 0.769, C5 As Double = 0.071

Dim C6 As Double = 0.717, Ncp As Double, G As Double, S As Double, Az As Double
Az = WindAngle
S = SideRatio
G = math.Log(S)
Ncp = math.Log(C0 + (C1 * math.Sin(Az / 2)) + (C2 * (math.sin(Az) ^ 2)) + (C3 * (math.Sin(2 * Az * G) ^
3)) + (C4 * math.Cos(AZ / 2)) + (C5 * G ^ 2 * (Math.sin(Az / 2) ^ 2)) + (C6 * (Math.Cos(Az / 2) ^ 2)))
Cp = Ncp * 0.6
End If
If BuildingHeight > 12 Then

Dim C0 As Double = 0.068, C1 As Double = -0.839, C2 As Double = 1.733
Dim C3 As Double = -1.556, C4 As Double = -0.922, C5 As Double = 0.344
Dim C6 As Double = -0.801, C7 As Double = 1.118, C8 As Double = -0.961
Dim C9 As Double = 0.691, C10 As Double = 2.515, C11 As Double = 0.399
Dim C12 As Double = -0.431, C13 As Double = 0.046
Dim S As Double, Az As Double, XL As Double, Xr As Double, ZH As Double
Az = WindAngle
S = SideRatio
XL = LenghtRatio
ZH = HeightRatio
Xr = (XL - 0.5) / 0.5
Cp = C0 + (C1 * Az) + (C2 * math.Cos(2 * Az)) + (C3 * ZH * math.sin(Az) * S ^ 0.169) + (C4 * Math.cos(2
* Az) * S ^ 0.279) + (C5 * math.sin(2 * Az)) + (C6 * ZH * Math.Cos(Az)) + (C7 * Math.Cos(Xr)) + (C8 * Math.
Cos(Xr * Az)) + (C9 * Math.Cos(Xr * Az) * S ^ 0.245) + (C10 * ZH * Math.Sin(Az)) + (C11 * Xr * Math.Sin(Az))
+ (C12 * XL) + (C13 * Math.cos(Xr) * S ^ 0.85)
End If
173
End Sub
7 - Wind pressure difference component

Private Sub RunScript(ByVal CpWindward As Object, ByVal CpLeeward As Object, ByVal WindSpeed As
Object, ByRef Dpw As Object)
Dim Cpw as double = CpWindward, Cpl as double = CpLeeward, V as double = WindSpeed
Dpw = (1 / 2 * Cpw * (V ^ 2)) - (1 / 2 * Cpl * (V ^ 2))
End Sub
174
GH Defintion - Scenario 2
176
Scenario 2 (Chapter 8) - Monthly heating and cooling loads

Base case
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
1 - Second scenario
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
2 - Third scenario
Analysis 1
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 6
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 17
177
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 47
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 57
Analysis 2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 3
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 6
178
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
Solution 7
Solution 1
Solution 15
179

Integrating Natural Ventilation Within An Optimization Process of Energy Performance in The Early Design Stage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Natural Ventilation Within An Optimization Process of Energy Performance in The Early Design Stage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Natural Ventilation

within an optimization process

Integrating Natural Ventilation

MSc Building Technology | Building Physics

Antonio DAquilio - 4328116

Dr. MSc Arch. Michela Turrin

Dr. Regina M. J. Bokel

MSc Thesis 2015

3 Integrated optimization process

4 Heating&Cooling need components

5 Natural Ventilation solver components

6 Case Study - part 1: Introduction

7 Case study - part 2: Whole building optimization

8 Case study - part 3: Optimization of Atrium A

9 Comments from architectural and engineering firms

Comfort temprerature (C)

Mean operative outdoor temperature (C)

Fig. 1.1: Comfort with natural ventilation, adaptive model

1.2 Problem statement and Research question

1.3 Aims and Focus of this research

Integrated optimization process

Questionnaires for Architects and

Literature research on Sustainable design

Natural ventilation and Energy calculation tools

Integrated optimization process

2.1 Precedent works

2.1.1 Review on precedent optimization studies

2.1.2 Review on precedent studies involving natural ventilation strategies

Overview of reviewed optimization studies

Paoletti, Avesani, Exner, Lollini

Energy, Thermal comfort

Shape, windows dimensions

Shape, windows dimensions

Airflow, Thermal comfort

Integrated approach: a proccess in which natural

Non-Integrated approach: The research was done using the

Fig. 2.1: Overview scheme of the reviewed optimization studies

2.1.3 Optimization in real practice

have an integrated approach, as described above?

acoustic and physical properties would be required.

Optimization for solar radiation

Optimization of specic problems

Fig. 2.2: Overview scheme of the interviews

Overview of results from questionnaires

2.2 Sustainable design aspects

Fig. 2.3: Energy concept (Hegger M. 2008)

2.2.2 Indoor environmental performance issues

THERMAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

MOVEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT

CULTURE AND COSTUMES

Respiratory heat loss

Fig. 2.4: Physics of human comfort

2.3 Passive design strategies

2.3.1 The early design stage

2.3.2 Building Envelope

2.3.4 Atrium design

2.3.5 Natural ventilation strategies

2.4 Building Performance Simulation (BPS)

2.4.1 Thermal analysis

2.4.2 Natural ventilation analysis

2.4.3 Daylight analysis

2.5 Building Performance Optimization (BPO)

2.5.2 Objective functions