You are on page 1of 12

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259921312

OPTIMIZATION OF WINDOW-WALL RATIO FOR


DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES
ARTICLE JANUARY 2011

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

591

744

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Srijan Didwania

Jyotirmay Mathur

Arizona State University

Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jai

3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

86 PUBLICATIONS 487 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Srijan Didwania


Retrieved on: 19 September 2015

OPTIMIZATION OF WINDOW-WALL RATIO FOR DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES


Srijan Kr. Didwania*$, Vishal Garg**, Jyotirmay Mathur*
* Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur (India)
** International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (India)
$
Corresponding author: email- srijandidwania@gmail.com
Abstract
While it is possible to check the energy performance of a given building by means of several
available methods, the inverse problem of determining the optimum configuration given a desired
performance is more difficult to solve. This paper investigates the application of an optimization
program for identification of the optimum WWR (Window to Wall Ratio) in office buildings
(G+1) of various sizes and orientation varying independently in all directions, separately for
ground floor and top floor. It brings out the need for optimization based approach in achieving
greater efficiency in a building using a simulation tool EnergyPlus with an optimization program
GenOpt. It strongly reflects that it is not only the type of glazing (i.e. thermally efficient glazing)
that needs to be emphasized, but attention should also be given to the WWR that is being adopted
for different directions, different floors and different types of glass.
Keywords: Optimization, WWR, Energy Simulation, Window Performance
1.1 Introduction
During the design process there is considerable scope for reducing the energy consumption in
both new and existing buildings. Although some forms of reduction in energy use can be achieved
by relatively simple individual measures, very high levels of performance require the coherent
application of measures which together optimize the performance of the complete building system.
Energy certification of different parts of a building can be a useful tool for improving the
energy performance of construction as a whole. Windows play an important role in the energy
performance and therefore should be chosen carefully. Selection of type of glazing along with its
proportion to the total wall area is very important for achieving a desirable indoor environment and
energy consumption. As it is well known that window contributes to heat gain and day lighting, the
quality of glazing and its size, frames and dividers to be used should be decided keeping in view
both these aspects.
Most papers published so far in the engineering domain have focused on the impact of WWR
on heating and air conditioning energy consumption. Xing Su, Xu Zhang [1] discussed
environmental performance optimization of windowwall ratio for different window type.
Influence of WWR on annual energy consumption of heating and air conditioning system of
residential buildings in hot summer and cold winter region under different orientation has been
discussed in [24]. In [5], some specific results are given in relation to the optimum aspect ratios
for south window sizes, from the point of view of thermal performance.
On the other hand few literatures brought up the savings in lighting energy for typical office
buildings by installation of dimming controls with different glazing. Szerman [6] gives the value:
77% of lighting energy savings and 14% of total energy savings from dimming with classical
windows. Opdal and Brekke [7] compared measurements and calculated results and obtained 40%
of lighting saving (simulations) and 30% of lighting energy saving (measurements) from dimming.
In their case, they did not find any heating and cooling consumption difference coming from the
lighting management.
However, the effect of WWR on energy consumption due to heating and cooling along with
lighting should be further incorporated.

M. Bodart, A. De Herde [8] evaluated the impact of lighting energy savings on global energy
consumption in office buildings. They combined the thermal and lighting aspects for few facade
configurations to bring out the total energy savings. However there is a need to bring out the
optimum glazing dimension for glasses having different properties, different facades and different
orientations, which has been incorporated in this document.
Various optimization methodologies for future integration in building performance tools have
been discussed in [10]. Hopfe, C.J. discussed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building
performance simulation for decision support and design optimization [11]. He showed how the
application of diverse prototypes could benefit and enhance building design methods, with the
emphasis on discrete decision making and component optimization, under uncertainty. Selkowitz
and Lee [12] discussed advanced interactive facades as critical elements for future green buildings.
He highlighted the use of new technology, better system integration using more capable design
tools, and smarter building operation that are all necessary to meet the goals of a new class of
buildings that are both environmentally responsible at a regional or global level while providing
the amenities and working environments that owners and occupants seek.
Thus, need for an optimization based approach keeping in view the heat gain and visible light
transmittance has become necessary. Use of good glazing material (ECBC standards) is not
sufficient for saving energy unless the optimum glazing area is found for different types of glazing
materials, different size and orientation of buildings.
1.2 Need for Optimization
The use of system simulation for analyzing complex engineering problems is increasing. Such
problems typically involve many independent variables, and can only be optimized by means of
numerical optimization. Parametric studies are used by many designers for achieving better
performance of such systems, even though only partial improvement is yielded by those studies,
while requiring high labor time. In such parametric studies, one usually fixes all but one variable
and tries to optimize a cost function with respect to the non-fixed variable. The procedure is
repeated iteratively by varying another variable. However, every time a variable is varied, all other
variables typically become non-optimal and hence need also to be adjusted. It is clear that such a
manual procedure is very time-consuming and often impractical for more than two or three
independent variables.
GenOpt, a generic optimization program, has been developed to find with less labor time the
independent variables that yield better performance of such systems. Optimization of a
user-supplied cost function is done by GenOpt, using a user-selected optimization algorithm.
In this study, it has been used to optimize the WWR for different orientation and direction of
the building. The window to wall area ratio (WWR) has an important effect on building energy
consumption for heating, air conditioning and lighting. For one thing, solar heat gains will be
increased as the WWR increases, the heat exchange will be also increased for the heat transfer
coefficient of window being usually larger than that of wall. On the other hand, the artificial
lighting consumption will decrease as WWR increases. These two opposing facts bring out the
need for optimization, such that an optimum WWR is reached where the total electricity
consumption is minimized.
The effect of increasing WWR on air conditioning and artificial lighting has been shown in
Figure 1(a). The variation of air conditioning energy consumption with WWR changes with
different orientations of the openings as discussed by Y.B. Hou and X.Z. Fu in [2]. From that study
it becomes quite evident that orientations have significant effect.
Air conditioning energy increase with increasing WWR, on the other hand the trend for
artificial lighting energy is just opposite i.e. it decreases with increasing WWR. Thus, the overall
impact of WWR on total energy consumption can be seen in Figure 1(b). It is a U-shaped curve

with minimum lying somewhere around 20% WWR. The minimum varies for different types of
building and different orientation of opening.
This brings out the need for optimization so as to reach the point of minimum energy
consumption with combination of different WWR in all four directions.

1.3 Overview of the Optimization Tool


The optimization tool used in this study was GenOpt. It is an optimization program for the
minimization of a cost function that is evaluated by an external simulation program. It is developed
by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Building Technologies Department, Simulation
Research Group [9].
GenOpt can be coupled with any simulation program that reads its input from text files and
writes its output to text files. So, the input variable is given to the simulation program by GenOpt,
according to the algorithm and limits defined, and the output is taken which could be processed
into the desired function that needs to be minimized.
The independent variables can be continuous variables (possibly with lower and upper
bounds), discrete variables, or both, continuous and discrete variables. Constraints on dependent
variables can be implemented using penalty or barrier functions. GenOpt uses parallel computing
to evaluate simulations.
The library of GenOpt consists of local and global multi-dimensional and one-dimensional
optimization algorithms, and algorithms for doing parametric runs. An algorithm interface allows
adding new minimization algorithms without knowing the details of the program structure.
GenOpt has been written in Java so as to make it platform independent. The platform
independence and the general interface make GenOpt applicable to a wide range of optimization
problems. GenOpt has not been designed for linear programming problems, quadratic
programming problems, and problems where the gradient of the cost function is available. For
such problems, as well as for other problems, special tailored software exists that is more efficient.
Few other interesting properties of GenOpt are:
1. An optimization algorithm can be selected by a user from an algorithm library, or a
custom algorithm can be implemented without having to recompile and understand the whole
optimization environment.
2. An expression for the gradient of the cost function is not required by GenOpt.
With GenOpt, it is easy to couple a new simulation program, specify the optimization
variables and minimize the cost function. Therefore, in designing complex systems, as well as in
system analysis, valuable assistance is offered by such generic optimization program.

1.4 Optimization Process


A simple flow chart diagram has been shown in Figure 2. The entire process can be broadly
classified into two parts, the optimization part and the simulation part. Simulation part is addressed
by EnergyPlus and optimization part by GenOpt. The strings for various input and output files to
be used by energy plus and GenOpt, along with the functions involved in the optimization process
is contained by the initialization file. The description of different variables that need to be
optimized during the process and the specification of algorithm that is to be used for optimization
is contained by Command file.

The variable inputs mentioned in the command section are assigned certain range of values so
as to get the results within acceptable and practical limits.
With start of the optimization process, the first iterate (initial value specified in the command
file) is assigned to the input file of EnergyPlus which carries out simulation calculations and
reports the result in its output file. This output meter value is then collected by GenOpt which is
processed into a function whose minimum value is to be achieved. For example the function can be
such that it gives the payback period or the total energy consumption.
The next iterate is then generated by GenOpt using the initial value and the step size defined
for the variable. The output value for the next input is again collected from EnergyPlus output file.
Having the two function values for two different inputs, both the results are compared by GenOpt
and the next iterate is assigned accordingly, i.e. if the function value for the second iterate came out
to be higher than the previous one, the iterate is rolled back in opposite direction and finally the
minimum function value is searched for the entire range of variables in accordance with the step
size mentioned. The selection of iterates is done by the optimizer i.e. it is influenced by the
algorithm selected by the user.
In this study, the input variable taken was WWR (in percentage form), having a range from 5
to 100 percent. A minimum of 5% WWR was assumed to be present so as to allow some natural
light and outside view. The output meter values collected from Energy plus were Es_cool,
Es_heat and Es_light, i.e. cooling, heating and lighting energy (electricity) required
respectively. These values upon summation yield total electricity consumption which need to be
minimized. It was referred to as Es_total.

Es_total = Es_cool + Es_heat + Es_light


Initialization value for the input variable was taken 80 % and thus, the first iterate for WWR
given to the input file of EnergyPlus was 80. The three meter values from its output file was
collected and processed for total energy consumption. The next input given was 90 (for a step size
10) and the function value was obtained again. Having compared the Es_total value for both the
cases, the third iterate was assigned accordingly which in this case couldnt have been above 90
(max value of range). Therefore, the next iterate assigned was 70. For achieving greater accuracy
there is a provision for reducing the step size in the range where function was minimized.
Accordingly the number of step reductions could be specified by the user. For example, if the
minimum point appeared to lie for WWR between 20 and 30, the step size could be reduced to 5
and similar calculations could be carried out for the WWR of 25 as well. The step size could be
further reduced to 2.5 and so on according to the number of step reductions described by the user
for reaching desired accuracy level.
1.5 Building Description
The building taken for the study was a typical day-time use G+1 office building (9 am to 9 pm)
with a core zone surrounded by four perimeter zones (6 meters depth) on both the ground and top
floors. It was considered to be situated in New Delhi (Latitude: 28.38 N, Longitude: 77.12 E)
which is having a composite climate. The cooling and heating temperature set-point were taken
24oC and 20oC respectively. Windows were provided with internal shade for glare control. The
shading control was set for a maximum allowable discomfort glare index of 22. All the other input
parameters were as per the base case of ECBC described in Table-1.
Table-1: Building Description
Parameters

Values

Location
Latitude
Longitude
Climate Type
Ground Reflectance
Geometry
Dimension (m)
Floor to floor height
(m)
Number of floors
WWR

28.38 N
77.12 E
Composite
0.2

Varies
3.5
2
Varies

Envelope Material
Roof U value (W/m2-K) 0.403
Wall U value (W/m2-K) 0.447
Floor U (W/m2-K)
0.795

Parameters

Values

Area (sq m)
Gross floor area
Varies
Conditioned floor area
Varies
Frames & Dividers
Material
PVC
Frame width (cm)
4
Divider width (cm)
2
Conductance (W/m2-K)
Divider spacing (m)
Internal Shade
Thickness (cm)
Conductivity (W/m-K)
Solar transmittance
Solar reflectance
Visible transmittance
Visible reflectance

3.4
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.2

HVAC
System type
Fan control
Cooling COP

PTAC
Constant
3.5

Heating coil type


Daylight sensor
Daylight control
Number
Illuminance
Allowable Glare Index

Electric

Internal loads
Lighting (W/sq m)
10
Equipment (W/sq m)
20
Occupancy (sq
m/person)
10

Dimming
16
500 lux
22

Glazing Detail
Glass U value (W/m2-K)
Varies
Glass SHGC
Varies
Glass VT
Varies

1.6 Combinations Analyzed


The study involved analysis of optimum WWR for ground floor and top floor with
independent distribution of window on all four sides of the building i.e. the WWR of four
directions may vary independently and the optimum combination of WWR on four sides could be
obtained. Intermediate floor was also considered but the result came out to be same as that of
ground coupled floor. Hence intermediate floor was neglected. The results for ground and
intermediate floors came out to be same due to their identical exposure to the surrounding while
the result for the top floor was different due to the effect of roof which accounted for major portion
of the heat gain leading to higher HVAC loads.
The climatic condition taken under consideration was composite as that of New Delhi,
India. Weather file used in all the cases were IWEC files. Table-2 shows dimensions and
orientations that have been analyzed for optimizing WWR with three different types of glazing as
shown in Table-3.
Table-2: Dimensions of analyzed buildings
TYPE
1:1
1:2
1:2
FLOOR AREA (m2)
NS orientation
EW orientation
2500
50*50
70*35
35*70
1600
40*40
56*28
28*56
900
30*30
42*21
21*42
Table-3: Properties of analyzed glazing
Type
SHGC
D253933 (Double)
0.25
S818861 (Single)
0.81
S475556 (Single)
0.47

VLT
0.39
0.88
0.55

U-value (W/m2-K)
3.3
6.1
5.6

Windows on different orientations have different effects on solar heat gain due to different
cooling load factors (CLFs), cooling load temperature differences (CLTDs) and maximum solar
heat gain factors (MSHGFs). Thus analysis of independently varying WWR in different directions
for different orientation of building becomes essential. The comparison for optimum independent
WWR with optimum symmetrical WWR has also been analyzed.

1.7 Results and Discussion


The optimum WWR (in %) for various combinations of building size, orientation and glazing
properties, have been presented in the tables 4-6 of this section.
Table-4: Optimum WWR for double glazed, low SHGC window (D253933)
Building Type
Floor
North
East
South
West

50*50

(1:1)

70*35 (1:2)
NS*
35*70 (1:2)
EW*
40*40

(1:1)

56*28 (1:2) NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW

FIRST FLR

40

25

15

20

GROUND FLR

45

25

20

20

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

40
40
50
50

25
25
25
25

15
15
20
20

20
20
20
20

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

45
50
40
50
65
45

25
30
30
25
25
30

15
20
15
15
20
15

20
20
20
20
20
20

FIRST FLR
55
25
15
20
GROUND FLR
50
25
20
25
FIRST FLR
40
15
15
20
42*21 (1:2) NS
GROUND FLR
55
25
15
20
FIRST FLR
60
25
15
20
21*42 (1:2)
EW
GROUND FLR
45
25
15
20
*NS means North-South orientation (i.e. longer side facing north and south)
*EW means East-West orientation (i.e. longer side facing east and west)
30*30

(1:1)

It is evident that thermally efficient glass allows greater WWR which is reflected from the
results in Table 4-6 as well. Also, it is well known that for the northern hemisphere and climate like
that of India, maximum WWR should be in north direction, followed by east, west and minimum
in south direction. It should be noted that this statement only applies in the context of this study in
New Delhi which lies in the Northern Hemisphere and is specific to office buildings dominated by
a high cooling load and a small heating load. In this case more glazing to the north and less or none
to the west and south should typically give a more optimal energy and daylight balance, with a
reduction in overheating risks.
Looking at the trend for a inferior single layer glass (S818861) shown in Table-5, on an
average, northern facade can attain a WWR around 20-30%, followed by east and west with about
10%, and south only up to 5%.

Table-5: Optimum WWR for single glazed, high SHGC window (S818861)
Building Type
Floor
North
East
South
West
50*50

(1:1)

70*35 (1:2) NS
35*70 (1:2)
EW

40*40

(1:1)

56*28 (1:2) NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW

30*30

(1:1)

42*21 (1:2) NS
21*42 (1:2)
EW

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

20
35
20
35
20
20

10
10
10
15
10
10

5
5
5
5
5
10

5
10
10
10
10
10

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

40
40
20
30
25
20

10
10
10
10
10
10

5
10
5
5
5
10

10
10
10
10
5
10

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

65
45
65
55
25
20

10
10
5
10
10
15

5
10
5
10
5
5

10
10
5
10
5
10

Table-6: Optimum window area for single glazed, moderate SHGC window (S475556)
Building Type
Floor
North
East
South
West
50*50

(1:1)

70*35 (1:2) NS
35*70 (1:2)
EW

40*40

(1:1)

56*28 (1:2)
NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW
30*30

(1:1)

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

25
40
25
35
30
30

15
15
10
15
15
15

10
10
10
10
10
15

10
15
10
15
10
10

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

30
35
25
30
30
35

15
15
10
10
15
15

10
10
10
10
10
10

10
15
10
10
10
10

FIRST FLR

40

15

10

15

42*21 (1:2) NS
21*42 (1:2)
EW

GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

35
30
35
40
20

10
5
10
15
5

10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
20

Table-7: Comparison of energy consumption with symmetric and asymmetric windows


D253933 (Double) Glazing
Optimum
Optimum
Energy
Energy
Building Type
Floor
WWR
WWR
(symmetric)
(asymmetric)
(symmetric)
(asymmetric)
Optimum
kWh/m2-yr
(N-E-S-W)
kWh/m2-yr
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS
35*70
(1:2)EW

Building Type

50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS
35*70
(1:2)EW

Building Type

50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS
35*70
(1:2)EW

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

Floor

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

Floor

FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR

20
25
25
25
25
25

Optimum
WWR
(symmetric)
Optimum
10
15
10
15
10
10

Optimum
WWR
(symmetric)
Optimum
15
20
15
20
15
15

48.3
48.5
47.7
47.9
48.2
48.4

40-25-15-20
45-25-20-20
40-25-15-20
40-25-15-20
50-25-20-20
50-25-20-20

S818861 (Single) Glazing


Optimum
Energy
WWR
(symmetric)
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
(N-E-S-W)
50.1
50.7
49.8
50.3
50.8
51.3

20-10-5-5
35-10-5-10
20-10-5-10
35-15-5-10
20-10-5-10
20-10-10-10

S475556 (Single) Glazing


Optimum
Energy
WWR
(symmetric)
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
(N-E-S-W)
49.9
50.2
49.3
49.7
50.6
50.5

25-15-10-10
40-15-10-15
25-10-10-10
35-15-10-15
30-15-10-10
30-15-15-10

48.1
48.2
47.4
47.5
48.1
48.2

Energy
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
49.9
50.5
49.5
50.1
50.6
51.1

Energy
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
49.6
49.9
49
49.4
49.8
50.3

Similarly, moving on to a better single layer glass (S475556) shown in Table-6, the optimum
WWR came out to be 30-40%, 15%, 10%, and 10% on an average for north, east, west and south
facade respectively. For double glass assembly shown in Table-4, the optimum value for WWR
reached 40%-60% on north, 25% on east, 20% on west and 15% on south.
Now, analyzing the results diligently, it could be identified that in general the ground floor
allows a higher optimum WWR. This difference of results for ground and top floor were basically
governed by two parameters, the difference in HVAC sizing for both floors and the ground
reflectivity. The higher HVAC sizing due to the effect of roof on top floor resulted in greater CFM
leading to higher convective heat gain through windows, thus favoring a smaller window. On the
other hand the ground reflectivity would account for a smaller window on the ground floor.
However it could be identified that this parameter was less pronounced than the former in most
cases. In few of the cases where the zone size was smaller and the HVAC difference became less
effective, this parameter played a dominant role. It could be seen that the effect of ground
reflectivity dominated over the effect of HVAC sizing mostly on the north faade and that too in
case of smaller building foot print. This was because in the northern hemisphere, the sun is mostly
on the south and thus the reflected radiation from the ground dominates over the direct solar
radiation.
On the other hand, the optimum WWR attained on distributing the windows symmetrically on
all four sides on the building came to be quite less as compared to independent distribution. The
comparison of energy consumption (Lighting & HVAC) between both the cases (one with
optimum symmetrical distribution and other with optimum independent distribution) is shown in
Table-7. With these results it can be visualized that considering an optimized asymmetric window
distribution proves much better than symmetric distribution.
1.8 Conclusions
The U-shaped nature of the curve between total energy consumption and WWR straight away
brings out the necessity for optimization based approach in determining the most efficient opening
size for a particular glazing type, orientation and type of building. The method of reaching to the
optimum values combining all four sides as discussed in this study proves to be very efficient with
minimal efforts on manual side.
Its not only the type of glazing (i.e. thermally efficient glazing recommended by ECBC) that
need to be emphasized for better building performance, but attention should also be given to the
WWR that is being adopted for different directions, different floors and different types of glass.
Independent distribution of glazing on the four directions should be preferred rather than
symmetric distribution as it can be seen that the optimized WWR for the latter case is much lower.
With this, a higher WWR can be afforded in few directions for better aesthetics and outside view
as compared to symmetric distribution and that too without compromising with savings, but in fact
enhancing it. It also accounts for better comfort due to more of natural light than artificial lights
during working hours.
1.9 References
[1] Xing Su, Xu Zhang, Environmental performance optimization of windowwall ratio for
different window type in hot summer and cold winter zone in China based on life cycle
assessment, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 198202
[2] Y. Feng, H. Yang, Defining the area ratio of window to wall in Design standard for
energy-efficiency of residential buildings in hot summer and cold winter zone, Journal of Xian
University of architecture and Technology 33 (2001) 348351.
[3] Y.B. Hou, X.Z. Fu, Affection of WWR on energy consumption in region of hot summer and
cold winter, Architecture Technology 10 (2002) 661662.

[4] Y.W. Jian, Y. Jiang, Influence of WWR on annual energy consumption for heating and air
conditioning in residential buildings, Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning 36 (2006) 15.
[5] M.N. Inanici, N. Demirbilek, Thermal performance optimization of buildings aspect ratio and
south window size in five cities having different climatic characteristics of Turkey, Building and
Environment
35 (2000) 4152.
[6] M. Szerman, Superlink: A Computer tool to evaluate the impact of Daylight-controlled lighting
system onto the overall energetic behavior of buildings, in: Proceedings of Right Light 2, Arnhem,
1993, 673-685.
[7] K.Opdal, B.Brekke, Energy savings in lighting by utilization of daylight, in: Proceedings of
Right Light 3, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1995, 67-74.
[8] M. Bodart, A. De Herde, Global energy savings in office buildings by the use of daylighting,
Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 421-429.
[9] GenOpt(R), Generic Optimization Program, User Manual, Version 3.0.0
[10] Emmerich, M. T. M., Hopfe, C. J., Marijt, R., Hensen, J., Struck, C., & Stoelinga, P. 2008.
Evaluating optimization methodologies for future integration in building performance tools.
[11] Hopfe, C.J., (2009). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building performance simulation
for decision support and design optimization, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The
Netherlands.
[12] Selkowitz, S., Aschehoug, ., Lee, E.S., Advanced Interactive Facades Critical Elements
for Future Green Buildings?, LBNL-53876.