Accepted Manuscript

Title: Optimal building envelope design based on simulated

performance: History, current status and new potentials

Author: Yu Huang Jian-lei Niu

PII: S0378-7788(15)30266-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.025
Reference: ENB 6145

To appear in: ENB

Received date: 26-6-2015

Revised date: 28-8-2015
Accepted date: 13-9-2015

Please cite this article as: Y. Huang, Optimal building envelope design based on
simulated performance: History, current status and new potentials, Energy and Buildings
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.025

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights

Literatures on simulation-based building envelope optimization were reviewed.

Optimization algorithms, objectives and popular tools were compared and discussed.

Single-objective optimization was the major measure while energy was the top concern.

Limitation in comfort evaluation and occupant behavior requires further attention.

t
Comprehensive building envelope design involves energy efficiency and comfort issue.

ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 1 of 35
*Manuscript

Optimal building envelope design based on simulated performance:History, current status and new potentials

Yu Huanga, Jian-lei Niua,1

a
Department of Building Service Engineering, Faculty of Construction and Environment, The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

t
ip
Abstract: Green building design is presently among the hottest research topicsin the world. Maintaining a

comfortable indoor environment with minimum energy consumption is a challenging task that attracts the attention

cr
of experts around the world. With the recent advances in building performance simulation tools, it is now possible to

predict and assess building performance at the design stage. Simulation-based optimization of building design is a

us
potential application that connects building performance simulation with optimization algorithms. In this paper,

numerous studieson the optimization of building envelope design were assembled and reviewed. Popular

an
optimization algorithms were compared and discussed. Targeted objectives were collected and summarized. Based

on the statistical results, the limitations in this research area wereidentified,and some potential breakthroughs were
M
suggested.

Keywords: design optimization, building performance simulation, building envelope, optimization algorithms,
d

optimization objectives
te

1. Introduction
p

Since the ―energy crisis‖ in the 1970s, saving energy has become a common-sense objective for people
ce

around the world. Buildings, industries and transportation systems are the major factors inenergy consumption.

Buildings are already responsible for more than 30% of the total energy consumption of humankind, and this figure
Ac

is expected to grow [1]. Compared with the other factors, saving energy in the building sector is the simplest and

most efficient [2]. Based on the above considerations, it is clear that energy-efficient buildings, sustainable building

design and retrofitting are necessary strategies for the future of human society. In addition, buildingsare amongthe

most important elementsof everyday life. Normally, a person will spend over 70% of his lifetime inside buildings. A

1
Corresponding author. Tel: +852 2766 7781; Fax: +852 2765 7198;

E-mail addresses: yueyan.huang@connect.polyu.edu.hk (Yu Huang), jian-lei.niu@polyu.edu.hk (Jian-lei Niu),

Page 2 of 35
comfortable indoor environment can not only improve the occupants’working efficiency, but also preserve their

health. To achieve a comfortable indoor environment in an energy-efficient building is a goalthat draws the attention

of professionals in architecture and in civil, mechanical and electrical engineering.

With the increase of computer calculation capacity, a large number of tools for the simulation of building

t
performance have emerged since the later years of the last century. With their user-friendly interfaces and

ip
sophisticated calculation engines, these simulation tools can easily display the thermal, visual and acoustic

cr
performance of a building. The reliability of these simulation tools has been tested and proved by various studies [3–

8]. With the assistance of such tools, researchers can investigate the effects of different design parameters on a

us
building’s performance. They can determine the sensitivity of building performance tovarious parameters,

therebydeveloping a reference for actual building design activities. This simulation-based building design process

an
has become a common practice in the construction industry. However, the number of parameters thatcan affect a

building’s performance is rather huge, and in many cases different parameters exert conflicting influences. To
M
achieve an optimal design solution through building performance simulation tools often requires running a large

number of simulation cases. This process can be expensive and time-consuming. Conducting a systematic and

effective optimization process for building design solutions is becoming a hot topic for researchers in the building
d

performance simulation area.

te

There have been several previous literature review papers that have surveyed the available studies on the
p

optimization of building design.Stevanović made a summary of previous studieson the optimization of passive solar
ce

design in buildings. He focused on statistical analysis of the existing studies, trying to identify the most popular

building performance simulation tools, the most popular optimization objectives and the most popular search
Ac

engines used [9]. Evinsreviewed 74 studies, seeking to provide a brief introduction to computer-assisted

optimization methodsfor sustainable building design, including overviews onresearch concerning the optimization of

building envelopes, HVAC systems and the renewable energy supplies [10]. Nguyen et al. composed a summary

withan introduction on the details of the optimization process used during building performance analysis. These

authors discussed the main activities performed during the major phases of the optimization process and the

difficulties or challenges for different optimization problems [11]. Machairas et al. and Negendahl studied the

commonly used algorithms and building performance models, and explored how these models can be integrated for

building design optimization [12, 13]. Carlucci et al. focused on a specific optimization objective, namely visual

Page 3 of 35
comfort.They discussed the descriptions and means of assessing visual comfort and presented the conventional

process for the optimization of visual comfort [14]. Attia et al. interviewed 28 optimization experts and made a

summary of their opinions, whichprovided a general picture of the progress in research on building performance

optimization, including the algorithms, simulation tools and expected future developments [15].

t
Clearly, all of these previous reviews have summarized the progress of research on building performance

ip
optimization problems in general. Actually however, there are two main objectives in building design, namely

cr
HVAC system design and building envelope design. Compared to HVAC system design, the design of building

envelopes involves a much larger number of parameters. The relationships between different design parameters and

us
the effects of those parameters on the performance of the building envelope are more complicated.Besides, the

different directions of heat flow which determine the heating load and cooling load is also an important issue that

an
should be considered for building envelope energy performance. Also, the daylight that travels directly through

building envelope should also be considered carefully, for it not only affect the radiation heat gain, but also serves as
M
natural light source which would significantly affect the lighting energy consumption.In addition, there are more

evaluation systems available for analyzing the performance of the building envelope.
d

This review paper focuses specifically on simulation-based optimization in building envelope design. The
te

paper is divided into five parts. Part 1 givesa brief introductionto the paper’s topic. Part 2 discusses the major

algorithms used for building envelope optimization. Part 3 introduces the main objectives of simulation-based
p

optimization for building envelope design. Part 4 presents the most popular optimization software tools that were
ce

surveyed in previous studies. Part 5 gives a summary of the paper and discusses possible future work in this research

area.
Ac

2. Algorithms applied in simulation-based building envelope optimization

2.1. History and early development of the methodology for simulation-based building envelope design

optimization

Before all the following discussion, one important factor should be pointed out clearly. The design of an

energy-effective building is restricted by many external environment conditions,such as the geography location, the

local location and the climate condition. Besides, many internal factors would also affect the design result, such as

the purpose of the building, the operating schedule of the building as well as the occupant behavior inside the

Page 4 of 35
building. An optimal building design can only be achieved when all these boundary conditions were defined, thus

every optimization case is restricted by these boundary conditions. An optimal result is only significant within the

corresponding boundary conditions. Once the boundary conditions change, the result will also change.

As early as 1983, Gero et al. discussed a simple multi-criteria model for the optimization ofa building’s

t
energy performance. The method they applied was quite similar to the multi-criteria Pareto optimization [16]. In

ip
1990, Bouchlaghem and Letherman reported an attempt to optimize a building envelope’s thermal performance in

cr
maintaining a comfortable indoor temperature. These researchers applied a hybrid simplex and non-random complex

algorithm,with the indoor environment as their optimization objective [17]. In 1992, Sullivan et al. introduced the

us
concept of optimizing thebuilding envelope based on simulations. These authors applied a regression analysis as

their optimization algorithm. With a series of DOE-2-based simulations, they generated a database for the energy

an
performance of various building envelopes and lighting systems. Then they defined two variables, namely the solar

aperture (which is a function of the shading coefficient and the window-to-wall ratio) and the effective daylighting
M
aperture (which is a function of visible transmittance and the window-to-wall ratio). With this energy performance

database, they conducted a regression analysis of the relation between electrical energy consumption and the two

pre-defined variables [18].

d
te

Although these various approaches were rather preliminary and had many limitations, they were still

pioneering efforts in the search for optimal solutions in the area of building design with the assistance of numerical
p

simulations, and thus they cast light on the issues involved.

ce

Al-Homoud reported his work on the optimal thermal design for office buildings in severalcities in the U.S.

and Saudi Arabia. He considered 14 design variables in the optimization process. First, he defined an initial value
Ac

and the upper and lower boundaries for each variable. With a selected value difference, he conducted over 700

simulation runs and listed the thermal performance of every possible combination of variables [19]. In 2001,

Depecker et al. reported a very simple study on the optimal building shapesforvarious climates. They defined the

shape coefficient, which was the surface area of the building envelope divided by the building’s volume. Then they

utilized the shape coefficient to describe the shape of the buildings. From their results, they concluded that only in

extremely cold climates would abuilding’s shape affect its energy performance [20]. Ghisi and Tinker presented a

study on the optimal design of window-to-wall ratios in single office rooms. They made the minimization of total

Page 5 of 35
building energy consumption their primary objective and conducted 17600 DOE-2-based simulation cases. From all

of these simulation cases, they were able to choose the solutions with the best energy performance. They then

summarized several design principles as references for designing building envelopes in England and Brazil [21].

During the studies of this period, researchers started to realize that although an optimization process could

t
achieve a reduction in energy consumption, the approachused was far too time-consuming. Their studiesshowed the

ip
importance of applying a solution searching engine in the process. During the 2000s, the development of

cr
mathematical and algorithmic methodologies raised the possibility of solving optimal building envelope problems

more quickly and accurately. Among all of the methodologies proposed, the direct search and the stochastic

us
population-based search (evolutionary algorithm) were the most popular.

2.2. Direct search

an
The direct search methodology relies completely on the value of the objective function. The basic principle

of direct search is afocus onsearching around the current solution point. During a direct search, a current point is
M
first defined with the value of the objective function. A series of points are then searched, and their objective

function values are recorded and compared. If an objective function value that is closer to the optimization target is
d

achieved, the corresponding point is then defined as the latest current point. The process is repeated until an optimal
te

point is found [22]. Direct search methodologies can be generally divided into two types, namely the gradient-

deterministic and the gradient-free methods.

p

2.2.1. Gradient-deterministic search

ce

The gradient-deterministic search can be considered the most straightforward optimization methodology. In

a gradient-deterministic problem, there usually exists an objective function that can be analyzed with Taylor’s series
Ac

expansion. In this situation, the optimal solution can be easily obtained by going in the direction that has a reducing

gradient. Since the early 2000s, a series of optimization studies have appeared that utilizedthe gradient-deterministic

search in dealing with various design variables.

In 2003, Marsh presented a methodology for optimizing the geometric design of a shading shape. Taking

the shading shape as his main design variable,he applied a ray-tracing technology to display the shadow area

required, and a cut-off scheme to form the shading shape. He sought to develop a function to connect the shading

shape with the solar heat gain [23]. In 2004, Al-Homoudpresented a brief summary of the optimization problem in

Page 6 of 35
architecture, and described an optimization approach based on the direct search technique. He claimed that an

effective result search method would significantly improve the speed of the optimization process. Later, with the

assistance of his optimization approach, he conducted a series of studies on the optimization of designsfor mosques.

These buildings had special occupation schedules, with five peak values each day [24, 25]. Wang et al. made an

t
optimization on the parameters of façade design. They considered both the U-value of the wall material and the

ip
window-to-wall ratio, trying to find an indoor environment with optimal thermal comfort [26]. Adamski applied the

ratio of the area of the southern part of building S1to the area of building S as the design variables, and made the

cr
payback period the optimization objective in his research. He developed a mathematical model to describe the

us
relationship between the building’s shape and the life cycle cost. With the assistance of computer-based simulation,

he was able to select the optimal case directly [27]. Ucar and Balo introduced a simple optimization case for

an
selecting the thickness of insulation materials. They considered the payback period as their optimization objective,

and deduced the functional relationship between heat loss and the thickness of insulation materials. With that

function identified, they were able to make a quick and simple selection of the optimal solution [28]. Later, Ucar and
M
Baloreported a similar case study that involved the application of their previously proposed method [29]. A similar

methodology could be inferred in the study byLollini et al. [30]. Bambrook et al. reported a case study on the
d

optimization of the envelope for an individual residential house in Sydney. They conducted 210 simulation cases to
te

test the performance of popular designs for the walls, windows and shading devices, trying to reach a minimum life

cycle cost [31]. Albatici and Passerini presented a simplified approach to search for the best solution for a building
p

shape that would minimize the heating requirementsfor a residential building in Italy. They defined a new index,
ce

named the south exposure coefficient, and did a regression analysis on this coefficient and the shape coefficient.

They claimed that both the shape coefficient and the south exposure coefficient were almost linear in relation to the
Ac

heating energy consumption, and that these two indices could guide the building design regardless of the building’s

volume [32]. Jiang et al. described a studyto optimizea building internal envelope’s specific heat for the purpose of

phase change material application. They constructed a simplified room temperature model and did an analytical

optimization of room temperature, trying to build a function for connecting the building internal envelope’s specific

heat and the indoor space temperature [33]. Later, Cheng et al. reported a similar study on the optimization of a

building external envelope’s transient performance [34].

Page 7 of 35
 From the above-describedstudies, it is clear that applications of the gradient-deterministic search

methodology have continued until very recently. The extensive use of this approach has indicated that compared to

more complex algorithms, the performance of the gradient-deterministic search methodology was considered

satisfactory. In 2014, Asadi et al. proposed a multi-linear regression method for estimating the total energy

t
consumption of a building. They conducted over 10000 simulation cases and selected 17 building design variables

ip
for the multi-linear regression. A coefficient of determination(R2) of around .94 to 0.95 was achieved, which

indicated that 94% to 95% of the building’s energy consumption could be determined by those 17 variables. This

cr
research showed that regression analysis based on the gradient-deterministic search methodology was still an

us
acceptable approach in building design for the optimization of energyconservation [35]. It should also be noted that

the majority of existing gradient-deterministic search studies have been focused on the minimization of building

an
energy consumption.Only one studywas about optimizing thermal comfort [27]), and this study indicated that the

performance of the gradient-deterministic search methodology was inadequate for solvingother optimization

problems.
M
2.2.2. Gradient-free search
d

A gradient-free search methodology does not require any information about the gradient of the objective
te

function. As mentioned above, this method constantly replaces the current point with different searching rules,

trying to approach the optimal solution. The basic principle of different search methods was to find a point when no
p

further increase or decrease was observed. The differences among these methods were the determination of the step
ce

size.According to thevarious methods used in searching for neighboring points, the gradient-free search

methodology can be further divided into the pattern search method, the simplex method and the adaptive search
Ac

directions set method. All of the present gradient-free search methodologies, such as the Hooke-Jeeves algorithm,

Tabu search and the orthogonal method, have been modifications of these three basic methods [36].

In 1990, Bouchlaghem and Letherman tried to apply the simplex method for the optimization of indoor

thermal comfort [17]. Hasan et al. applied a hybrid GPS Hooke Jeeves/PSO algorithm in their optimization of a

Finnish house for minimum life-cycle cost [37]. Futrell et al. reported a study on the optimization of a classroom’s

thermal and visual performance. In that study, the authors also selected the hybrid GPS Hooke Jeeves/PSO

algorithm to obtain the optimal design solution for the window’s size, location and optical properties. Both energy

Page 8 of 35
consumption and visual comfort were chosen as the objectives in this study. Futrell et al. discovered that for the

south orientation, the thermal and the visual performance did not significantly conflict, butfor the north

orientationthese values had the greatest conflict [38]. Stazi et al. conducted a life cycle assessment on the

optimization design of solar wall systems. They proposed a ―factorial plan technique‖ for selecting the optimal

t
design. These researchers determined n parameters as the design variables and assigned these variables a 2-level

ip
value definition. Then they conducted 2n simulation runs to search for the optimal result. Stazi et al. claimed that

their method was fast, simple and intuitive.However, it could only be applied on simple systems, and the results

cr
were not entirely accurate [39]. Gong et al. presented their research on applications of the orthogonal method for the

us
optimal passive design of residential building envelopes in 25 Chinese cities. They selected 7 control parameters and

defined the parameters into 4 levels. In addition, they considered 15 possible interactions between parameters. With

an
the help of a L32 (231) matrix, they were able to select the optimal design solution for each city. Gong et al. claimed

that unlike other algorithms, an orthogonal method did not require a deep knowledge of computer programming, and

thus was suitable for architects [40].Ruiza et al. reported a case study on a Spanish residential building optimization
M
design based on a Tabusearch algorithm. They considered the building’s energy efficiency and the life cycle cost as

theiroptimization objectives [41].

d

2.3. Stochastic population-based search

te

An evolutionary algorithm is a stochastic population-based search that was inspired by studies of biological
p

evolution. The core of anevolutionary algorithm is the selection of high-performance individuals and the
ce

reproduction of new individuals, based on existing performance data. A typical evolutionary algorithm process

includes selection, crossover and mutation. First, a series of points are generated randomly as the initial population.
Ac

An evaluation is then conducted to assess the fitness of each individual. The individuals that best fit the optimal

solution are chosen as the parents. The parents are applied for the reproduction of children, which form the next

generation through crossover and mutation. Then the new population goes through a new round of selection. This

process can be repeated until the termination of the algorithm [42]. Compared with the direct search methodology,

the evolutionary algorithm has a higher calculation speed, greater accuracy and a stronger adaptability. Based on

their differing implementation details, evolutionary algorithmshave beenclassified into genetic, neuroevolution,

particle swarm optimization and other types of algorithms

Page 9 of 35
2.3.1. Genetic algorithm

The genetic algorithm (GA) is no doubt the most popular method applied in simulation-based design for

building envelope optimization. Of all the studies surveyed in this paper, over 60% were conducted via the GA. In

the GA, many individuals are considered simultaneously, so that the possibility of ending up at a local minimum is

t
reduced [43]. The GA and its modifications are considered to be the best choices for solving building design

ip
optimization problems.

cr
As early as 2002, Coley and Schukat attemptedto introducethe GAfor building design. They first built a

very simple thermal model in which only five variables were considered. Then they applied the GAto search for the

us
solutions with minimum annual energy consumption. Their results were satisfactory, and a large number of optimal

solutions were identified [44]. In 2003, Wang et al. presented a case study in which the GA was applied to minimize

an
the life cycle exergy. In 2005, Wang et al. applied a GA for the optimization of a rectangular-shaped building with a

fixed floor area. They considered the life cycle exergy as their objective, and tried to find the optimal solution for
M
the building’s orientation and its building materials [45, 46].

Later, Wang et al. summarized the previous optimization studies, and claimed that although all of these
d

studies applied the GA, the methodologies they used lacked versatility. The optimization approach would fail when
te

applied to another design case. Wang et al. suggested the development of an object-oriented framework, so that the

GA method could be easily adopted with numerical simulation within a much more user-friendly interface. This
p

approach would significantly improve the efficiency of the optimization process [47]. With their developed
ce

approach, Wang et al. conducted a systematic study to consider façade design variables, including shape, structure,

material type and shading device [48].

Ac

Wright and Mourshed designed an interesting study to test the stochastic behavior and reliability of the GA

in optimizingthe window-to-wall ratio in a building envelope. They divided the building façade into small

rectangular cells in which each cell could be equipped with either solid wall material or glazing. They ran the GA-

based optimization several times, and found that although the distribution of glazing cells was different for each

optimal solution, the number of glazing cells stayed constant [49].

Tuhus-Dubrow and Krarti conducted an optimization on the shape of a U.S. residential building envelope.

They chose the minimization of whole-building energy consumption as their objective. Their results showed that

Page 10 of 35
although there were some differencesin energy consumption among different building shapes, these deviations were

within 0.5%. These authorsclaimed that other variables such as orientation or construction materials could affect the

building’s energy performance more significantly, and thus should receive more attention [50].

Sahu et al. conducted a GA-based design optimization on the shape, orientation and materials of the

t
building envelope. They selected minimized energy consumption as their objective and did a detailed validation

ip
with the TRSYS simulation tool. They discovered that the climate had aneffect on the accuracy of the optimization.

cr
If the space load situation was complex, with awidely variable combination of heating, cooling and humidity

conditions, the degree of error would be larger [51].

us
Ioannou and Itard conducted a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis against various design variables in terms of

their effects on building energy consumption. They claimed that under heating conditions, the window thermal

an
properties were the most critical parameters among all of the variables, because heat loss through the windows took

the majority of the total heating load. A similar conclusion could be applied in other climate situations.The
M
sensitivity of a specific design variable depended on how it affected the optimization objective [52].

In addition to the optimization of energy performance for building envelopes, the GA was applied in
d

optimization problems involving visual comfort assessment. Torres and Sakamoto conducted an optimization of
te

daylighting performance. They considered 21 variables in the design of window and shading systems, in an effort to

minimize visual discomfort. They proposed a modification to the existing daylight glare probability index (DGP)
p

and applied a dynamic daylighting simulation software called Radiance to calculate the values of DGP from several
ce

viewpoints inside the building. Considering the modified DGP as their optimization objective, Torres and Sakamoto

selected the GA to search for the optimal solution. They discovered that the GA was especially effective for
Ac

optimization of daylighting performance, because it obtained a fast convergence. They also claimed that hybrid

fitness may be helpful for the accuracy of the optimization [53]. Later, Kämpf et al. reported a similar studythat

involved the coupling of Radiance and a GA search engine for the optimization of building shape with consistent

building volume. They announced a further implementation of an urban scale optimization by using the same

methodology [54]. Gagne and Andersen proposed a simulation approach for the optimization of façade design in

terms of daylighting objectives (illumination level and glare). In their approach, a simple data model of the buildings

was first defined, based on the design case from the designers. Then a series of new 3D building models were

Page 11 of 35
automatically generated during the optimizations. Micro-GAs were applied for both single-objective and multi-

objective optimizations. During their research Gagne and Andersen discovered a notable limitation: the micro-GA-

based optimization required much more computing time and a relatively large population size [55]. Rakha and

Nassar developed a GA-based searching method for the optimization of geometric forms of ceiling areas. They

t
claimed that although their approach was time-consuming, it could reach the optimal solution precisely and was thus

ip
useful for the optimization of daylighting [56]. Yi and Kim also reported several case studies in which the GA

indicated the optimal designs of sunlight exposure time on tall residential buildings [57].

cr
In terms of applying GA-based building envelope optimization to the issue of thermal comfort, few

us
relevant studies were found. In the majority of cases, thermal comfort was considered a subsidiary factor of energy

consumption. Hamdy et al. carried out an optimization study aiming to integrate both thermal comfort and energy

an
performance as dual optimization objectives. They adopted the GA optimization tool of Matlabfor an IDA-ICE 4.0

building performance simulation. Their results indicated that an optimal solution for both thermal comfort and
M
energy saving would require 10kWh/ (m2a) more thanan optimal solution for energy saving alone [58]. Stavrakakis

et al. also reported a study on the optimal window-opening design for enabling thermal comfort, based on meta-

model construction [59]. Yu et al. conducted a multi-objective optimization, trying to improve energy performance
d

and indoor thermal comfort at the same time. During their optimization process, they applied the GA into the back
te

propagation neural network to speed up the simulation and keep the result more accurate. They discovered that
p

under the same level of energy consumption, the indoor thermal comfort status did not change significantly. If a
ce

specific energy consumption value was fixed, the difference in terms of thermal comfort hours among the different

cases was insignificant [60].

Ac

2.3.2. Improvement of the genetic algorithm (GA)

With the ongoing development of computer technologies and other mechanisms, many professionals started

to notice the limitations of the GA, asits searching speed was still not acceptable. The search results werealso highly

affected by the definitions of selection, crossover and mutation. Great efforts have been taken to improve the

performance of the GA in building envelope optimization design. For the reduction of computing time, in general

there are two methods. The first is to apply simplified models instead of complex ones. The second method is to

reduce the size of the population and the number of generations. For improving the accuracy of results, a common

Page 12 of 35
approach is to conduct a dominating relationship-based selection before generation. In other words,this approach
involves increasing the probability of survival for the better individuals [61]. Table 1 summarizesthe different
approaches that have been applied for the improvement of the GA’s performance.
Table 1 Different modification approaches applied for the improvement of the genetic algorithm’s performance
Names of Modification approach
researchers
Znouda et al. Applying elitism selection instead of
traditional wheel selection.
Introducing an immigration procedure
into the mutation process.
Palonen et al. Applying an omni-optimizer, a
simulated binary crossover operator
an
and a polynomial mutation in
crossover and mutation operations.
Kämpf and Application of hybrid covariance
M
Robinson matrix adaptation evolutionary
strategy and HDE algorithms
Ramallo-González
and Coley
d
te
Eisenhower et al. Applying multiple algorithms for
building envelope optimization.
p
Stavrakakis et al.
Applying a meta-model approach to
Geyer and Schlüter
ce
avoid repeating simulation cases.
Introducing design space exploration
into the traditional response surface
method to further improve the
Ac
method’s accuracy.
Bucking et al. Considering mutual information
(dependency between variables)
during the evolution of the design
cases.
Junghans and Darde Combininga genetic algorithm and a
simulated annealing algorithm.
t
ip
Major finding Reference
cr
The speed and the accuracy of the [62]
genetic algorithm search engines
were largely improved.
us
The stopping criterion definition [63]
was very important for the
reduction of computing time.
The covariance matrix was used [64]
for decorrelation of design
[65]
variables. Although the
calculation of the covariance
matrix was time-consuming
(compared with the computing
time used for annual building
simulation), it was acceptable.
The proposed approach could [66]
save around 80% of the
[67]
computing time with a negligible
change in the degree of error. [68]
The degree of error could be
reduced by more than 70% when
design space exploration was
utilized.
With the consideration of mutual [69]
information, the data mining with
genetic algorithm optimization
could save 40% of the computing
time and improve the accuracy by
25%.
In 1/3 of the optimization runs, [70]
the accuracy was improved by at
least 5%, but the computing time
did not change significantly.
Page 13 of 35
Yu et al. Applying the genetic algorithm into A small relative error (of 1.7% for [60]
the back propagation neural network. energy consumption and 2.1% for
indoor thermal comfort hours)was
reportedon the prediction.

2.3.3. Harmony search algorithm

t
The harmony search algorithm is anotherpopulation-based optimization method. This method was inspired

ip
by improvementsin the techniques that musicians use to find the best harmony [71]. The harmony search

cr
algorithmhas been considered a special case among evolution strategies [72]. Fesanghary et al. presented a multi-

optimization model based on a harmony search algorithm. They selected life cycle cost and CO2 emission as their

us
optimization objectives. They applied their approach in the optimization of a residential house in the U.S., and

claimed that although the method required a relatively long computing time, its resultswere stable and trustworthy

an
[73].

2.3.4. Evolutionary artificial neural networks

M
Artificial neural networks are a series of learning models that were inspired by studies of biological neural

networks. These networks can be described as systems of neurons that connect and send messages to each other, so
d

that the network can learn from present observations and improve its performance during tasks. The core of an
te

evolutionary artificial neural network application is the training of the neural network.

Magnier and Haghighat proposed an optimization methodology in which an artificial neural network and a
p

GA were coupled. The artificial neural network was first applied to mimic the behavior of the building simulation
ce

model. Then, the output of the artificial neural network was used as the population. The key factor in this

methodology was the training of the artificial neural network. As long as the artificial neural network could output
Ac

accurate building performance, the optimization result could be received quickly and reliably [74]. Zemella et al.

introduced evolutionary artificial neural networks that combined evolutionary algorithms with artificial neural

networks. They divided the total population into two parts, with 80% used for training a three-layer neural network,

and the other 20% of the population used for root predictive error testing. During the training of the neural network,

the evolutionary algorithm was applied for adjustment of the structure parameters. Zemella et al. claimed that their

proposed approach was more accurate and less time-consuming, due to the application of the artificial neural

Page 14 of 35
network [75]. Later, Gossard et al. reported similar results from tests that involved cooperation betweenthe GA and

an artificial neural network [76].

2.4. Summary

From the above-described studies it can be concluded that among the direct search methodsfor building

t
ip
envelope optimization, the gradient-deterministic direct search methodology was more popular than the gradient-

free direct search methodology, even though the gradient-free direct search method was more advanced. The reason

cr
for this preference liesin the limitations of direct search. The gradient-deterministic direct search methodology was

only applicable for relatively simple optimization problems. As for the gradient-free direct search methodology, it

us
was found to be time-consuming. In addition, the accuracy of direct search was not satisfactory. When encountering

simple optimization problems, researchers have tended to use the gradient-deterministic direct search. When

an
encountering complex optimization problems, researchers have tended to use algorithms(such as evolutionary

algorithms), which take less time and perform more precisely.Amongthe evolutionary algorithms, the GA and its
M
modifications were the most widelyapplied choices, due to their vast applicability, high accuracy and speed of

operation.
d

It should also be noted that among all of the studies reviewed, the majority concerned the optimization of
te

energy-related performance, and relatively few studies were found on optimal design forvisual or thermal comfort.

Also, most studies were single-objective optimizations. The limited number of multi-objective optimization reports
p

all concerned thermal comfort and energy efficiency.

ce

3. Optimization objectives
Ac

3.1. Classification of objectives

The building envelope is the most important element in a building. Building envelopes separate the

building’s indoor environment from the outside world, supplying the occupants with a stable and comfortable living

space. As mentioned above, the target of sustainable building envelope design is to maintain a comfortable indoor

environment with minimum energy consumption. Thus, naturally, the indicesthat describe the performance of the

building envelope are the main focused objectives in building envelope design optimization problems. These indices

include the following:

Page 15 of 35
 (1) Energy performance index, including space cooling load, space heating load, HVAC system energy

consumption and total building energy consumption.

(2) Life cycle cost index, including life cycle CO2 emission, life cycle primary energy consumption and life

cycle financial investment.

t
ip
(3) Thermal comfort index, including mean PMV level, mean PPD level, thermally comfortable hours,

space temperature and operative temperature.

cr
(4) Visual comfort index, including illumination level, illumination uniformity, daylight factor, daylight

us
autonomy, useful daylight illuminance and DGP.

We conducted a statistical analysisto show the attention givento each of these possible objectives. The

an
result is presented in Figure 1. It should be noted thatthe life cycle cost index has a direct connection with the energy

performance index. With some simple additional information, it is easy to transfer energy consumption into life

cycle cost [77]. Thus in Figure 1, studies focusing on life cycle cost optimization are counted under the category
M
ofstudies on energy consumption optimization.
d
p te
ce
Ac

Figure 1 Statistical result for optimization cases focused on different objectives

Page 16 of 35
 From Figure 1, it is clear that concern for energy consumption drew the most attention. Among the over 70

optimization cases surveyed in this paper, over 80% aimed at minimizing the energy consumption or life cycle cost.

There were comparatively few optimization cases that focused on comfort issues.

Up to the present, the factors that affect the occupant’s thermal comfort have been deeply investigated, and

t
the indices describing thermal comfort status have been widely accepted. However, most studies on thermal comfort

ip
have been focused on the design and control of HVAC systems. Not many researchers have done detailed analyses

cr
on the effects of building envelopes on indoor thermal comfort. With respect to visual comfort, academics still lack

accurate and effective measures for assessing the visual environment. The existing visual environment optimization

us
cases were mainly based on a simple assumption that sufficient daylight and acceptable distribution of illumination

couldproduce visual comfort.For the future, the improvement and adoption of a system to assess the occupant’s

an
comfort is a possible direction for simulation-based building envelope optimization design.

In addition, the effect of occupant behavior cannot be ignored. Until now, occupant behavior has been
M
introduced in building simulationsonly in terms of fixed schedules. However, occupantsare not just components of

the building system that accept the controlled environment passively. Occupantstake initiative to adjust their
d

surrounding environment by modifying the HVAC system and the shading devices. The activitiesof the
te

occupantstherefore affect energy consumption, indoor comfort status and even the occupant’s future activities. How

to consider occupant behavior more precisely in building simulations is a challenging topic for academics.
p

3.2. Multi-objective optimization

ce

As the GA simultaneously calculates a set of points, it is able to reach multiple Pareto optimal solutions

within one calculation run, which makes it a perfect choice for multi-objective optimization problems. Caldas and
Ac

Norford proposed a computing method for design optimization in the placing and sizing of window openings for

office buildings. They used DOE-2 to simulate the annual air-conditioning and lighting energy consumption, with an

objective of minimizing such consumption.GAswere applied to search for design solutions, and the researchers

reached several conclusions that were widely accepted by otherprofessionals. The results indicated that the climate,

orientation and type of the building can all significantly affect the results of the optimization. The analyses also

showed that in many cases, similar minimum annual energy consumption could be achieved with several different

configurations, which illustrated that a multi-objective optimization was possible [78].Manzan and Pinto presented a

Page 17 of 35
case study for optimizing the positions and sizes of the external shading equipment. They prepared a simplified

office model and conducted the energy and daylighting simulations to form the database. They claimed that with the

optimization process, the differences in energy consumption between the best and the worst solutions could be as

large as 17% [79]. Hamdy et al. constructed a multi-objective optimization method to guide the design of a

t
residential building in Finland. In their method the GA was utilized,andminimizing the primary energy consumption

ip
and life cycle costs were considered as the objectives. Based on their method, Hamdy et al. proposed a series of

reference data for residential house designs in Finland [80]. Later, Ferrara et al. reported a similar study on the

cr
optimal design of a residential house in France [81]. Karmellos et al. suggested that a multi-objective optimization

us
should consist of two parts: an optimization process and a decision making process. They provided a decision maker

software tool to assist in the multi-objective optimization process [82].

an
From the existing reports, it can be easily observed that most of the so-called multi-objective optimization

studies in the building envelope design area have considered energy consumption and life cycle cost as their two
M
objectives. However, life cycle cost and annual energy consumption actually have a direct relationship. With some

extra information, it is not difficult to calculate life cycle cost (be it financial cost, primary energy cost or CO2

emission cost) from the annual energy consumption data. Actually, these studies cannot be treated as ―multi-
d

objective optimizations.‖ There have been very few optimization studies that combined the objectives of comfort
te

and energy consumption.

p

3.3. Summary
ce

A summary of the key factors and major findings of the above literatures was displayed in Table 2. From

the statistics and analyses of the targeted optimization objectives in the collected studies, several obvious
Ac

conclusions can be drawn. Of all the previous studies on simulation-based building envelope optimization, over 90%

have focused on the optimal solution for a single objective. Of all the single-objective optimization cases, over 80%

were targeted at the minimization of energy consumption. In the few multi-objective optimization studies, energy

consumption was always included as one of the objectives.

At present, energy efficiency is still the top concern for scientists and engineers during the design stage of

buildings, and energy consumption is the primary issue that is considered and analyzed. In addition, the present

limitations in defining the status of occupant comfort and the lack of precise descriptions of occupant behavior also

Page 18 of 35
constrain the development of comfort-related quantitative evaluation systems, which may be a potential direction for

future research.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 19 of 35
 t
ip
Table 2 Key factors and major findings of reviewed literatures

cr
Author & Year Optimization objective Optimized parameters Tools and Algorithms Key results
Al-Homoud in 2004 Energy consumption U-value, absorptance, Direct Search An effective result search method would significantly

us
and 2009 [24, 25] emittance, glass area improve the speed of the optimization process.
percentage
Wang et al. in 2007 Indoor thermal comfort U-value of the wall, window- Direct Search The optimal U-value for wall material is affected by
[26] to-wall ratio orientations.

an
Adamski in 2007 [27] Payback period The ratio of the area of the
southern part of building S1to
the area of building S
Ucar and Balo in 2009 Payback period Thickness of insulation
Direct Search A function was achieved which describe the
relationship of S1/ Sand building operation cost F.
Direct Search A functional relationship between heat loss and the

M
and 2010 [28, 29], materials thickness of insulation materials was achieved.
Lollini et al. in 2006
[30]
Bambrook et al. in Life cycle cost Thickness of insulation Direct Search It is possible to cost effectively reduce the
2011[31]. materials, ventilation rate, spaceheating and cooling energy requirement of a new

ed
thermal mass, window type, house in Sydneyby up to 94% compared with the
area, orientation and shading. legislated BASIX requirements.
Albatici and Passerini Heating requirements The south exposure coefficient Direct Search Both the shape coefficient and the south exposure
in 2011 [32]. coefficient were almost linear in relation to the
pt
heating energy consumption.
Jiang et al. in 2012 Room temperature Building internal envelope’s Direct Search A function for connecting the building internal
[33], Cheng et al. in specific heat envelope’s specific heat and the indoor space
ce

2014 [34]. temperature was built.

Asadi et al. in 2014 Energy consumption 17 popular building design Direct Search Regression analysis based on the gradient-
[35]. parameters deterministic search methodology was still an
acceptable approach in building design for the
Ac

optimization of energy conservation.

Bouchlaghem and Indoor thermal comfort thermal properties, thickness, Simplex method
Letherman in 1990 glazing,shading etc.
[17].
Hasan et al. in 2008 Life cycle cost Thickness of insulation Hybrid GPS Hooke Existing design guideline should be revised with
[37]. materials Jeeves/PSO lower U-value suggestion.
algorithm
Futrell et al. in 2014 Energy consumption The window’s size, location Hybrid GPS Hooke For the south orientation, thermal and the visual
[38]. and visual comfort and optical properties Jeeves/PSO performance did not significantly conflict, butfor the
algorithm north orientation the values had the greatest conflict.
Stazi et al. in 2012 Life cycle cost of the Material, thickness of the wall, Factorial plan Their method was fast, simple and

Page 20 of 35
 t
ip
[39]. solar wall system type of the window. technique intuitive.However,it could only be applied on simple

cr
systems, and the results were not entirely accurate.
Gong et al. in 2012 Minimum thermal load Thickness of insulation Orthogonal method An orthogonal method did not require a deep
[40]. materials, window type, area, knowledge of computer programming, and thus was

us
orientation and shading. suitable for architects
Ruiza et al. in 2014 Energy consumption Thickness of insulation Tabusearch
[41]. and life cycle cost materials, window type and
area.

an
Coley and Schukat in Annual energy Window type, wall type and Genetic algorithm There existed a large number of optimal solutions.
2002 [44]. consumption window area in wall and roof.
Wang et al. in 2005 Life cycle exergy Building’s orientation and Genetic algorithm The Pareto front is important to help the designers in
[45, 46]. material types. decision making during multi-objective problems.
Wang et al. in 2005 Genetic algorithm They developed an object-oriented framework, so that

M
and 2006[47, 48]. the GA method could be easily adopted with
numerical simulation within a much more user-
friendly interface.
Wright and Mourshed Energy consumption Window-to-wall ratio. Genetic algorithm Though the result from the GA showed a stochastic

ed
in 2009 [49]. behavior, the reliability wassatisfactory.
Tuhus-Dubrow and Energy consumption Envelope shape. Genetic algorithm Although there were some differencesin energy
Krarti in 2010 [50]. consumption among different building shapes, these
deviations were within 0.5%.
pt
Sahu et al. in 2012 Energy consumption The shape, orientation and Genetic algorithm The climate had aneffect on the accuracy of the
[51]. materials of the building optimization. If the space load situation was complex,
envelope with awidely variable combination of heating, cooling
and humidity conditions, the degree of error would be
ce

larger.
Ioannou and Itard in Energy consumption U value for window, wall, roof Genetic algorithm Under heating conditions, the window thermal
2015 [52]. and floor, ventilation, properties were the most critical parameters among all
occupant, thermostat. of the variables.
Ac

Torres and Sakamoto Modified daylight glare Size, position, transmittance, Genetic algorithm GA was especially effective for optimization of
in 2007 [53]. probability index reflectivity of window and daylighting performance. Hybrid fitness may be
shading systems helpful for the accuracy of the optimization.
Kämpf et al. in 2010 Energy absorbed by Building shape with consistent Genetic algorithm Urban scale optimization by using GA was possible.
[54]. corresponding surface building volume
Gagne and Andersen Illumination level and Size, location, transmittance of Genetic algorithm The micro-GA-based optimization required much
in 2011 [55]. glare index the window, window-to-wall more computing time and a relatively large population
ratio. size.
Rakha and Nassar in Illumination level Geometric forms of ceiling Genetic algorithm Their proposed method was more precise.
2011 [56]. areas
Yi and Kim in 2015 Sunlight exposure time Distribution of buildings. Genetic algorithm

Page 21 of 35
 t
ip
[57].

cr
Hamdy et al. in 2011 Energy consumption Size and U-value of window, Genetic algorithm An optimal solution for both thermal comfort and
[58]. and thermal comfort. size of shading system. energy saving would require 10kWh/ (m2a) more than
an optimal solution for energy saving alone

us
Stavrakakis et al. in Thermal comfort Position and size of window- Genetic algorithm
2012 [59]. opening. based on meta-model
construction
Yu et al. in 2015 [60]. Energy consumption Area, orientation, heat transfer Genetic algorithm Under the same level of energy consumption, the

an
and thermal comfort. coefficient of wall and indoor thermal comfort status did not change
window. significantly.
Znouda et al. in 2007 Energy consumption Building shape, U-value of the See Table 1 See Table 1
[62]. wall, shading coefficient of
window.

M
Palonen et al. in 2009 Life cycle cost. Insulation thickness, U-value See Table 1 See Table 1
[63]. of window.
Energy consumption Insulation thickness, U-value See Table 1 See Table 1
Kämpf and Robinson
of window, window-to-wall

ed
in 2009 [64], Ramallo-
ratio, ventilation, size of
González and Coley in
shading systems.
2014 [65].
Energy consumption Insulation thickness, See Table 1 See Table 1
Eisenhower et al. in
pt
and thermal comfort. orientation, U-value of
2012 [66], Geyer and
window, window-to-wall
Schlüter in 2014 [68].
ratio.
Bucking et al. in 2013 Energy consumption Insulation thickness, See Table 1 See Table 1
ce

[69]. orientation, U-value of

window, window-to-wall
ratio.
Junghans and Darde in Life cycle cost. U-value of wall, U-value and See Table 1 See Table 1
Ac

2015 [70]. transmittance of window, U-

value of shading system.
Fesanghary et al. in Life cycle cost and CO2 Wall materials and glazing Harmony search Although the method required a relatively long
2012 [73]. emission. type. algorithm computing time, its resultswere stable and
trustworthy.
Magnier and Energy consumption Window-to-wall ratio, wall Genetic algorithm The optimization result could be achieved more
Haghighat in 2010 and thermal comfort. thickness. coupled with quickly and reliably
[74]. artificial neural
network
Zemella et al. in 2011 Energy consumption Popular building envelope Evolutionary Their proposed approach was more accurate and less
[75]. and annual carbon design parameters artificial neural time-consuming

Page 22 of 35
 t
ip
emission. networks

cr
Gossard et al. in 2013 Energy consumption Thermophysicalproperties of Genetic algorithm
[76]. and thermal comfort. wall and roof. coupled with
artificial neural

us
network
Caldas and Norford in Energy consumption Shape and size of window Genetic algorithm In many cases, similar minimum annual energy
2002 [78]. consumption could be achieved with several different
configurations

an
Manzan and Pinto in Energy consumption Positions and sizes of the Genetic algorithm
2009 [79]. and visual comfort external shading equipment
Hamdy et al. in 2010 Energy consumption Insulation thickness, type of Genetic algorithm A series of reference data for residential house
[80], Ferrara et al. in and life cycle cost. glazing and shading systems. designs in Finland and Italy was proposed.
2014 [81].

M
Karmellos et al. in Energy consumption Popular building envelope A multi-objective optimization should consist of two
2015 [82]. and life cycle cost. design parameters parts: an optimization process and a decision making
process. A decision making software tool was
developed.

ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 23 of 35
4. Common optimization tools

As the development of computer science, many software tools focused specifically for the optimization

process were designed nowadays. These tools offer user-friendly interface and ports with which the programming

process of the optimization studies can be largely simplified.

t
ip
4.1. Matlab

Matlab is a world-famous multi-paradigm numerical computing tool that allows algorithm development,

cr
data visualization, numerical calculation and interaction with programs written in other computer languages. Matlab

us
has a toolbox specifically designed for optimization. The Matlab Optimization Toolbox includes a large range of

choices among algorithms. The toolbox’s ability to cooperate with other programs makes it a perfect numerical

environment for optimization problems based on third-party simulation programs. Before the appearance of software

an
developed specifically for optimization, Matlab was the first choice of researchers who aimed at simulation-assisted

building design optimization. Even now, Matlab is still a popular choice, because if researchers useMatlab in the
M
optimization process, they can use all of the other Matlab functions that provide significant improvements in data

presentation and analysis. Lu et al. conducted a series of optimization processes on the passive solar and renewable
d

energy design of a reference building envelope in Hong Kong. They applied the GA for a single-objective
te

optimization process and the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA- II) for a multi-objective

optimization process in the same Matlab environment. With the assistance of Matlab software, they were able to
p

utilize both algorithms easily, regardless of the ten-folddifferences in the numbers of generations and in computing-
ce

time between the two algorithms [83]. McKinstray et al. also applied the NSGA- II in Matlab Optimization Toolbox

for his research on the optimal BIPV installation for a single-story building [84], andShea et al. applied ant colony
Ac

optimization from the Matlab Optimization Toolbox in their research [85].

4.2. GenOpt

GenOpt is a generic program that was developed by the famous simulation research group at the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory. GenOpt can be used with any building simulation tools that have text-based input and

output. The users can add self-defined optimization algorithms into GenOpt’s library, which makes GenOpt a

practical and flexible optimization tool. However, GenOpt cannot carry out multi-objective optimization. The post-

processing ability is also limited [86, 87].

Page 24 of 35
 Holst reported an optimization case study involving cooperation between the thermal performance

simulation tool EnergyPlus and the decision making software GenOpt. He considered the annual primary energy

consumption as the optimization objective, while trying to find the optimal solution for 14 design variables in

building envelope design. He also addressed the thermal comfort status in the optimal solution, and found an

t
improvement in thermal comfort [88]. Similarly, Hasan et al. reported an optimization case that involved

ip
cooperation between DOE-2 and GenOpt [89].

cr
4.3. modeFRONTIER

modeFRONTER is a platform developed by the ESTECO corporation. The advantagesof this platform

us
mainly lie in its workflow interface, variable choices of algorithms and its ease in combining with other simulation

tools [90]. Shi integrated modeFRONTIER with the popular building performance simulation tool EnergyPlus to

an
conduct an optimization on the installation of insulation material in an office building envelope [91].

4.4. ParaGen
M
Turrin et al. described a GA-based optimization tool named ParaGen for the application of both single- and

multi-objective optimizations in the area of architecture design. They presented several projects involving ParaGen
d

to show the practicality of this tool [92].

te

4.5. MultiOpt
p

Chantrelle et al. developed a multi-criteria optimization tool named MultiOpt. The software was built in a
ce

TRNSYS-based simulation environment, with GA referred as the search engine. These researchers presented several

case studies to prove that MultiOpt was able to manage the optimization of energy consumption, life cycle cost and
Ac

thermal comfort [93].

4.6. GENE_ARCH

Caldas made a detailed introduction on the capacity of GENE_ARCH. With the assistance of the GA,

GENE_ARCH could cooperate with the building energy simulation software DOE-2 to solve optimization problems

in architectural design forprojects ranging from an individual house to an urban scale. However, Caldas pointed out

that when it came to complex 3D design problems, GENE_ARCH’s performance was still not satisfactory, because

it required very precise information on the building model [94].

Page 25 of 35
4.7. MOBO

In the year 2013, Palonen et al. reported another very powerful optimization tool MOBO. This software

tool was developed under a funding project of the Academy of Finland. Via a well-designed graphical user interface,

MOBO was able to couple with many building simulation programs such as IDA-ICE and TRNSYS, etc. With an

t
extendable library, MOBO was able to handle single- and multi-objective optimization problems with popular

ip
algorithms such as NSGA-II, Hooke-Jeeves, Hybrid Algorithm as well as Random Search [95].

cr
5. Conclusion and future work

us
This paper has focused on the simulation-based optimization of building envelope design. Studies on this

subject from the past 30 years were collected, summarized and discussed. The history and development of various

methods was explained. Popular algorithms were presented and compared. Statisticsconcerning the achievement of

an
objectives werecompiled and analyzed. Some interesting conclusions were reached, as follows:
M
(1) Genetic algorithms and their modifications are the most popular optimization algorithms used among

the surveyed building envelope optimization studies. The applicability, speed and accuracy of these algorithms were

considered in detail.
d
te

(2) For relatively simple optimization problems, professionals tend to use gradient-deterministic search

systems, but for complex problems, GAs have been their first choice.
p

(3) In the area of simulation-based building envelope design, single-objective optimization is still dominant.
ce

(4) Energy consumption remains the top concern for researchers and designers.
Ac

(5) Although there have been many software tools developed specially for building optimization design,

Matlab is still the most popular tool for optimal solution searches.

Based on the above conclusions, some potential directions for future work are proposed.

(1) The comprehensive design of building envelopes requires the assessment of energy performance,

thermal comfort performance and visual comfort performance. To achieve the goal of sustainability inbuildings, it is

of great importance to conduct multi-objective building envelope optimizations that involve all three indices.Asthere

Page 26 of 35
are many user-friendly multi-objective optimization tools, efforts can be made to improve multi-objective

optimization toward the sustainable design of building envelopes, with consideration for both comfort and energy

efficiency.

(2) Insufficient attention is paid to the effect of building envelopes on indoor thermal and visual comfort.

t
The descriptions and evaluation systems for estimating occupant comfort still have some limitations. In the future,

ip
professionals can improve the design of optimal building envelopes by applying more accurate and practical

cr
functions related to comfort.

us
(3) The importance of occupant behavior has not been sufficiently accounted for. The effects of occupant

behavior on abuilding’s energy performance and indoor environment are often ignored. In the future, a more precise

an
and complete occupant behavior model should be added to simulations of building performance. Occupant behavior

should not be considered as simply a matter of fixed schedules, but as a factor involving human initiative that

influences the simulation process.

M
Acknowledgement
d

The work described in this paper was financially supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong
te

(Project no. 522613).

References
p

[1] Luis Perez-Lombard, Jose´ Ortiz, Christine Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption information,
ce

Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 394–398.

[2] Yi Jiang, Current building energy consumption in China and effective energy efficiency measures, Journal
Ac

of HV & AC 35(2005) 30-40.

[3] Y.P. Zhou, J.Y. Wu, R.Z. Wang, S. Shiochi, Y.M. Li, Simulation and experimental validation of the

variable-refrigerant-volume (VRV) air-conditioning system in EnergyPlus, Energy and Buildings 40(2008)

1041–1047.

[4] Paulo Cesar Tabares-Velasco, Craig Christensen, Marcus Bianchi, Verification and validation of

EnergyPlus phase change material model for opaque wall assemblies, Building and Environment 54(2012)

186–196.

Page 27 of 35
[5] Robert H. Henninger, Michael J. Witte, Drury B. Crawley, Analytical and comparative testing of

EnergyPlus using IEA HVAC BESTEST E100-E200 test suite, Energy and Buildings 36(2004) 855–863.

[6] Gyeong Yun, Kang Soo Kim, An empirical validation of lighting energy consumption using the integrated

simulation method, Energy and Buildings 57(2013) 144–154.

t
[7] J. Alstan Jakubiec, Christoph F. Reinhart, A method for predicting city-wide electricity gains from

ip
photovoltaic panels based on LiDAR and GIS data combined with hourly Daysim simulations, Solar

Energy 93(2013) 127–143.

cr
[8] Xin Zhou, Tianzhen Hong, Da Yan, Comparison of HVAC system modeling in EnergyPlus, DeST and

us
DOE-2.1E, Building Simulation 7(2014) 21–33.

[9] Sanja Stevanović, Optimization of passive solar design strategies: A review, Renewable and Sustainable

an
Energy Reviews 25(2013) 177–196.

[10] Ralph Evins, A reviewofcomputational optimization methodsappliedtosustainablebuilding design,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22(2013) 230–245.

M
[11] Anh-Tuan Nguyen, Sigrid Reiter, Philippe Rigo, A review on simulation-based optimization methods

applied to building performance analysis, Applied Energy 113 (2014) 1043–1058.

d

[12] Vasileios Machairas, ArisTsangrassoulis, KleoAxarli, Algorithms for optimization of building design: A
te

review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31(2014) 101–112.

[13] Kristoffer Negendahl, Building performance simulation in the early design stage: An introduction to
p

integrated dynamic models, Automation in Construction 54 (2015) 39–53.

ce

[14] Salvatore Carlucci, Francesco Causone, Francesco De Rosa, Lorenzo Pagliano, A review of indices for

assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building integrated
Ac

design, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47(2015) 1016–1033.

[15] Shady Attia, Mohamed Hamdy, William O’Brien, Salvatore Carlucci, Assessing gaps and needs for

integrating building performance optimization tools in net zero energy buildings design, Energy and

Buildings 60 (2013) 110–124.

[16] John S. Gero, Neville D’Cruz, Antony D. Radford, Energy in context: A multicriteria model for building

design, Building and Environment 18(1983) 99–107.

Page 28 of 35
[17] N.M. Bouchlaghem, K.M. Letherman, Numerical optimization applied to the thermal design of buildings,

Building and Environment 25(1990) 117–124.

[18] R. Sullivan, E.S. Lee, S. Selkowitz, A method of optimizing solar control and daylighting performance in

commercial office buildings, In: Proceedings of the ASHRAE/DOE/BTECC Conference, Clearwater Beach,

t
FL, U. S. 1992.

ip
[19] Mohammad S. Al-Homoud, Optimum thermal design of office buildings, International Journal of Energy

Research 21(1997) 941–957.

cr
[20] P. Depecker , C. Menezo, J. Virgone, S. Lepers, Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption,

us
Building and Environment 36 (2001) 627–635.

[21] Enedir Ghisi, John Tinker, Optimization energy consumption in offices as a function of window area and

an
room size, In: Proceedings of the building simulation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2001.

[22] Robert Hooke, T.A. Jeeves, ―Direct Search‖ solution of numerical and statistical problems, Journal of the

ACM 8(1961) 212–229.

M
[23] Andrew Marsh, Computer-optimised shading design, In: Proceedings of the building simulation,

Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2003.

d

[24] Mohammad S. Al-Homoud, A systematic approach for the thermal design optimization of building
te

envelopes, Journal of Building Physics 29(2005) 95–119.

[25] Mohammad S. Al-Homoud, Envelope thermal design optimization of buildings with intermittent
p

occupancy, Journal of Building Physics 33(2009) 65–82.

ce

[26] Liping Wang , Nyuk Hien Wong, Shuo Li, Facade design optimization for naturally ventilated residential

buildings in Singapore, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 954–961.

Ac

[27] Mariusz Adamski, Optimization of the form of a building on an oval base, Building and Environment 42

(2007) 1632–1643.

[28] Aynur Ucar, Figen Balo, Effect of fuel type on the optimum thickness of selected insulation materials for

the four different climatic regions of Turkey, Applied Energy 86 (2009) 730–736.

[29] Aynur Ucar, Figen Balo, Determination of the energy savings and the optimum insulation thickness in the

four different insulated exterior walls, Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 88–94.

Page 29 of 35
[30] Lollini, Barozzi, Fasano, Meroni, Zinzi, Optimisation of opaque components of the building envelope:

Energy, economic and environmental issues, Building and Environment 41 (2006) 1001–1013.

[31] S.M. Bambrook, A.B. Sproul, D. Jacob, Design optimisation for a low energy home in Sydney, Energy and

Buildings43 (2011) 1702–1711.

t
[32] Rossano Albatici, Francesco Passerini, Bioclimatic design of buildings considering heating requirements in

ip
Italian climatic conditions. A simplified approach, Building and Environment 46 (2011) 1624–1631.

[33] Feng Jiang, Xin Wang, Yinping Zhang, Analytical optimization of specific heat of building internal

cr
envelope, Energy Conversion and Management 63 (2012) 239–244.

us
[34] Rui Cheng, Xin Wang, Yinping Zhang, Analytical optimization of the transient thermal performance

ofbuilding walls by using thermal impedance based on thermal-electricanalogy, Energy and Buildings 80

an
(2014) 598–612.

[35] SomayehAsadi, Shideh Shams Amiri, Mohammad Mottahedi,On the development of multi-linear

regression analysis to assess energy consumption in the early stages of building design, Energy and
M
Buildings 85 (2014) 246–255.

[36] F. Glover, Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence, Computers and
d

Operations Research 13 (1986) 533–549.

te

[37] Ala Hasan, Mika Vuolle, Kai Siren, Minimisation of life cycle cost of a detached house using combined

simulation and optimization, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 2022–2034.

p

[38] Benjamin J. Futrell, Ertunga C. Ozelkan, Dale Brentrup, Bi-objective optimization of building enclosure
ce

design for thermal and lighting performance, Building and Environment accepted, in press.

[39] Francesca Stazi, Alessio Mastrucci, Placido Munafò, Life cycle assessment approach for the optimization
Ac

of sustainable building envelopes: An application on solar wall systems, Building and Environment 58

(2012) 278–288.

[40] Xinzhi Gong, Yasunori Akashi, Daisuke Sumiyoshi, Optimization of passive design measures for

residential buildings in different Chinese areas, Building and Environment 58 (2012) 46–57.

[41] Pablo Aparicio Ruiza, José Guadix Martín, José Manuel Salmerón Lissén, Francisco José Sánchez de la

Flor, An integrated optimisation method for residential building design: A case study in Spain, Energy and

Buildings 80 (2014) 158–168.

Page 30 of 35
[42] Thomas Back, Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice: Evolution strategies, evolutionary

programming, genetic algorithms, 1996, Oxford University Press Oxford, UK.

[43] V. Congradac, F. Kulic, HVAC system optimisation with CO2 concentration control using genetic

algorithms, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 571–577.

t
[44] David A. Coley, Stefan Schukat, Low-energy design: Combining computer-based optimisation and human

ip
judgement, Building and Environment 37 (2002) 1241–1247.

[45] Weimin Wang, Hugues Rivard, Radu G. Zmeureanu, Optimizing building design with respect to life-cycle

cr
environmental impacts, In: Proceedings of the building simulation, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2003.

us
[46] Weimin Wang, Radu Zmeureanu, Hugues Rivard, Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green

building design optimization, Building and Environment 40 (2005) 1512–1525.

an
[47] Weimin Wang, Hugues Rivard, Radu Zmeureanu, An object-oriented framework for simulation-based

green building design optimization with genetic algorithms, Advanced Engineering Informatics 19 (2005)

5–23.
M
[48] Weimin Wang, Hugues Rivard, Radu Zmeureanu, Floor shape optimization for green building design,

Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 367–378.

d

[49] Jonathan Wright, MonjurMourshed, Geometric Optimization of Fenestration, In: Proceedings of the
te

building simulation, Glasgow, Scotland, 2009.

[50] Daniel Tuhus-Dubrow, Moncef Krarti, Genetic-algorithm based approach to optimize building envelope
p

design for residential buildings, Building and Environment 45 (2010) 1574–1581.

ce

[51] M. Sahu, B. Bhattacharjee, S.C. Kaushik, Thermal design of air-conditioned building for tropical climate

using admittance method and genetic algorithm, Energy and Buildings 53 (2012) 1–6.
Ac

[52] A. Ioannou, L.C.M. Itard, Energy performance and comfort in residential buildings: Sensitivity for building

parameters and occupancy, Energy and Buildings 92 (2015) 216–233.

[53] Santiago L. Torres, Yuzo Sakamoto, Facade design optimization for daylight with a simple genetic

algorithm, In: Proceedings of the building simulation, Beijing, China, 2007.

[54] JérômeHenri Kämpf, MaryleneMontavon, JosepBunyesc, Raffaele Bolliger, Darren Robinson,

Optimisation of buildings’ solar irradiation availability, Solar Energy 84 (2010) 596–603.

Page 31 of 35
[55] Jaime Gagne, Marilyne Andersen, A generative facade design method based on daylighting performance

goals, Journal of Building Performance Simulation 5 (2011) 141–154.

[56] Tarek Rakha, Khaled Nassar, Genetic algorithms for ceiling form optimization in response to daylight

levels, Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 2348–2356.

t
[57] Yun Kyu Yi, Hyoungsub Kim, Agent-based geometry optimization with genetic algorithm (GA)for tall

ip
apartment’s solar right, Solar Energy 113 (2015) 236–250.

[58] Mohamed Hamdy, Ala Hasan, Kai Siren, Impact of adaptive thermal comfort criteria on building energy

cr
use and cooling equipment size using a multi-objective optimization scheme, Energy and Buildings 43

us
(2011) 2055–2067.

[59] G.M. Stavrakakis, P.L. Zervas, H. Sarimveis, N.C. Markatos, Optimization of window-openings design for

an
thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings, Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 193–211.

[60] Wei Yu, Baizhan Li, HongyuanJia, Ming Zhang, Di Wang, Application of multi-objective genetic

algorithm to optimize energy efficiency and thermal comfort in building design, Energy and Buildings 88
M
(2015) 135–143.

[61] Kalyanmoy Deb, AmritPratap, Sameer Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic
d

algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2002):182–197.

te

[62] Essia Znouda, Nadia Ghrab-Morcos, Atidel Hadj-Alouane, Optimization of Mediterranean building design

using genetic algorithms, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 148–153.

p

[63] Matti Palonen, Ala Hasan, Kai Siren, A genetic algorithm for optimization of building envelope and Hvac
ce

system parameters, In: Proceedings of the building simulation,Glasgow, Scotland, 2009.

[64] Jérôme Henri Kämpf, Darren Robinson, Optimisationof urban energy demand using an evolutionary,
Ac

algorithm, In: Proceedings of the building simulation, Glasgow, Scotland, 2009.

[65] A.P. Ramallo-González, D.A. Coley, Using self-adaptive optimisation methods to perform sequential

optimisation for low-energy building design, Energy and Buildings 81 (2014) 18–29.

[66] Bryan Eisenhower, Zheng O’Neill, Satish Narayanan, Vladimir A. Fonoberov, Igor Mezic, A methodology

for meta-model based optimization in building energy models, Energy and Buildings 47 (2012) 292–301.

[67] G.M. Stavrakakis, P.L. Zervas, H. Sarimveis, N.C. Markatos, Optimization of window-openings design for

thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings, Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 193–211.

Page 32 of 35
[68] Philipp Geyer, Arno Schlüter, Automated metamodel generation for design space exploration and decision-

making – A novel method supporting performance-oriented building design and retrofitting, Applied

Energy 119 (2014) 537–556.

[69] Scott Bucking, Radu Zmeureanu, Andreas Athienitis, An information driven hybrid evolutionary algorithm

t
for optimal design of a net zero energy house, Solar Energy 96 (2013) 128–139.

ip
[70] Lars Junghans, Nicholas Darde, Hybrid single objective genetic algorithm coupled with the simulated

annealing optimization method for building optimization, Energy and Buildings 86 (2015) 651–662.

cr
[71] Kang Seok Leea, Zong Woo Geem, A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering

us
optimization: Harmony search theory and practice, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and

Engineering 194(2005) 3902–3933.

an
[72] Dennis Weyland, A rigorous analysis of the harmony search algorithm: How the research community can

be misled by a ―novel‖ methodology, International Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing 1 (2010):

50–60.
M
[73] M. Fesanghary, S. Asadi, Zong Woo Geem, Design of low-emission and energy-efficient residential

buildings using a multi-objective optimization algorithm, Building and Environment 49 (2012) 245–250.
d

[74] Laurent Magnier, Fariborz Haghighat, Multiobjective optimization of building design using TRNSYS
te

simulations, genetic algorithm, and artificial neural network, Building and Environment 45 (2010) 739–746.

[75] Giovanni Zemella, Davide De March, Matteo Borrotti, Irene Poli, Optimised design of energy efficient
p

building facades via evolutionary neural networks, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 3297–3302.
ce

[76] D. Gossard, B. Lartigue, F. Thellier, Multi-objective optimization of a building envelope for thermal

performance using genetic algorithms and artificial neural network, Energy and Buildings 67 (2013) 253–
Ac

260.

[77] Yu Huang, Jian-lei Niu, Tse-ming Chung, Energy and carbon emission payback analysis for energy-

efficient retrofitting in buildings—Overhang shading option, Energy and Buildings 44 (2012) 94–103.

[78] Luisa Gama Caldas, Leslie K. Norford, A design optimization tool based on a genetic algorithm,

Automation in Construction 11(2002) 173–184.

[79] Marco Manzan, Francesco Pinto, Genetic optimization of external shading devices, In: Proceedings of the

building simulation, Glasgow, Scotland, 2009.

Page 33 of 35
[80] Mohamed Hamdy, Ala Hasan, Kai Siren, A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal and nearly-

zero-energybuilding solutions in line with the EPBD-recast 2010, Energy and Buildings 56 (2013) 189–203.

[81] Maria Ferrara, Enrico Fabrizio, Joseph Virgone, Marco Filippi, A simulation-based optimization method

for cost-optimal analysis of nearly zero energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 84(2014)442–457.

t
[82] M. Karmellos, A. Kiprakis, G. Mavrotas, A multi-objective approach for optimal prioritization of energy

ip
efficiency measures in buildings: Model, software and case studies, Applied Energy 139 (2015) 131–150.

[83] Yuehong Lu, Shengwei Wang, Yang Zhao, Chengchu Yan, Renewable energy system optimization of

cr
low/zero energy buildings using single-objective and multi-objective optimization methods, Energy and

us
Buildings 89 (2015) 61–75.

[84] Ross McKinstray, James B.P. Lim, Tiku T. Tanyimboh, Duoc T. Phan, Wei Sha, Alexander E.I. Brownlee,

an
Topographical optimisation of single-storey non-domestic steel framed buildings using photovoltaic panels

for net-zero carbon impact, Building and Environment 86 (2015) 120–131.

[85] K. Shea, A. Sedgwick, G. Antonuntto, Multicriteria optimization of paneled building envelopes using ant
M
colony optimization, Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture (2006) 627–636.

[86] Michael Wetter, GenOpt – A Generic Optimization Program, In: Proceedings of the building simulation,
d

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2001.

te

[87] Forest Flager, Benjamin Welle, Prasun Bansal, Grant Soremekun, John Haymaker, Multidisciplinary

process integration and design optimization of a classroom building, Journal of Information Technology in
p

Construction 14(2009) 595–612.

ce

[88] Johnny N. Holst, Using whole building simulation models and optimizing procedures to optimize building

envelope design with respect to energy consumption and indoor environment, In: Proceedings of the
Ac

building simulation, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2003.

[89] A. Hasan, M. Vuolle, K. Siren, Minimisation of life cycle cost of a detached house using combined

simulation and optimisation, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 2022–2034.

[90] Cristina Baglivo, Paolo Maria Congedo, Delia D’Agostino, Ilaria Zac, Cost-optimal analysis and technical

comparison between standard and high efficient mono-residential buildings in a warm climate, Energy 83

(2015) 560–575.

Page 34 of 35
[91] Xing Shi, Design optimization of insulation usage and space conditioning load using energy simulation and

genetic algorithm, Energy 36 (2011) 1659–1667.

[92] Michela Turrin, Peter von Buelow, Rudi Stouffs, Design explorations of performance driven geometry in

architectural design using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms, Advanced Engineering Informatics

t
25 (2011) 656–675.

ip
[93] Fanny PernodetChantrelle, HichamLahmidi, Werner Keilholz, Mohamed El Mankibi, Pierre Michel,

Development of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Applied Energy 88 (2011)

cr
1386–1394.

us
[94] Luisa Caldas, Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions applying GENE_ARCH: An evolution-

based generative design system, Advanced Engineering Informatics 22 (2008) 59–70.

an
[95] MattiPalpnen, Mohamed Hamdy, Ala Hasan, MOBO a new software for multi-objective building

performance optimization, In: Proceedings of the building simulation, Chambéry, France, 2013.
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 35 of 35