Building Simulation (not) in the Studio; Max C. Doelling.

Building Simulation (not) in the StudioSustainable Design Classes 2011 -2013

Digi-Pro @ 3d-Labor (Prof. H. Schwandt)Max Dölling, Dipl.-Ing., Assistant Professor

DIVA Day 2013Solemma LLC @ Thornton Tomasetti

July 15th, 2013, New York City, NY, USA

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio

Dipl.-Ing. Max Dölling 1

Technische Universität Berlin,Germany

Sustainable DesignClasses 2011 - 2013

0

i

ii

iii

0

i

ii

iii

temperatur

BELICHTUNG

Ausstellung

Shop

Büros

Ballsaal

Foyer

Toiletten

Lager

Garderobe

Personal-Garerobe

Geträneklager

Pumi

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tten

Lage

r

Workshops

Pumi

Toiletten

LagerPumi

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tte

Teek

üche

Lage

r

Hoch

saal

AusstellungBallsaal

Foyer

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Workshops

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Teeküche

Konf

eren

zrau

m

Toiletten

Lager

Pers. Garderobe

GarderobePumi

Getränelager

Café

Shop

Toile

ttenLage

r

Pumi

Toiletten

Lager

Pumi

Lage

rPumi

Toile

tten

Büro

0

i

ii

iii

0

i

ii

iii

temperatur

BELICHTUNG

Ausstellung

Shop

Büros

Ballsaal

Foyer

Toiletten

Lager

Garderobe

Personal-Garerobe

Geträneklager

Pumi

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tten

Lage

r

Workshops

Pumi

Toiletten

LagerPumi

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tte

Teek

üche

Lage

r

Hoch

saal

AusstellungBallsaal

Foyer

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Workshops

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Teeküche

Konf

eren

zrau

m

Toiletten

Lager

Pers. Garderobe

GarderobePumi

Getränelager

Café

Shop

Toile

ttenLage

r

Pumi

Toiletten

Lager

Pumi

Lage

rPumi

Toile

tten

Büro

BESUCHER

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Fassade

BESUCHER

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Fassade

Thermal Conditioning & Daylight Zoning Diagram >

Occupancy Hours & Intensity Sketch >

‘Robust’ studio:Karen KrögerPhilip Winkler

Philip Rust

BESUCHER

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Fassade

BESUCHER

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Fassade

BESUCHER

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Fassade

In cooperation with:

Dr. Farshad Nasrollahi 2

Jeffrey Tietze, Cand. BSc 1

1 Digital Processing for Academics (Prof. Schwandt)2 FG Gebäudetechnik und Entwerfen (Prof. Steffan)





Students discussing sintered shading geometry prototypes, summer 2012

Building simulation is commonly taught as a specialty class instead of in a • design-centric but still research-oriented framework •

Common doubts about simulation in design: • simulation usability, feasibility of analysis results to positively (if at all) impact wide-scope design decisions; conflict over contents of core studios •

Initial Thesis: • “Design changes everything” • (or does it?)

Our classes attempt the • integration of thermal and daylight simulation into the early stages of architectural design •

Throughout the last two years, we held • three seminar types, all concerned with architectural performance optimization •

Main goals: investigate • process, building form & performance impact, design representations • teaching of energy literacy to architecture students to facilitate interdisciplinary processes •

Design research: • reflect on the means, methods and procedures of design in-process; analyse artefacts from a rational, formal and phenomenological perspective •

01 Teaching & Research Goals





A : Parametric Design Climates : 1, 2, 4

02 Class Iterations (chronological)

C : ‘Robust’ Studio Integration 5B : Performative Design 1, 3, 4

• Community Center & Offices • (mechanical conditioning)

• Housing Units & Urban Design • (passive & mech. conditioning)

• Multi - Use Exhibition & Office building • (mech. cond.)

Hashtgerd, Iran35.962012° N ,50.679533° E

Berlin, Germany52.498067° N ,13.460864° E

Yazd , Iran31.912609° N ,54.316458° E

Östersund , Sweden63.176837° N,14.610828° E

Hollywood , FL, USA26.047771° N , 80.113513° W



Yazd , Iran31.912609° N ,54.316458° E





Yazd , Iran31.912609° N ,54.316458° E


Hollywood , FL, USA26.047771° N , 80.113513° WHashtgerd, Iran

35.962012° N ,50.679533° E Berlin, Germany52.498067° N ,13.460864° E

Yazd , Iran31.912609° N ,54.316458° E





Yazd , Iran31.912609° N ,54.316458° E



1 Hollywod, FL, USA 2 Hashtgerd, Iran 3 Yazd, Iran 4 Östersund, Sweden 5 Berlin, GermanyClimate.: Am (Köppen class) Climate: BSk Climate: BWk Climate: Dfc Climate: Dfb

• Geometric optimization• Fixed materials & setpoints• Balance thermal & daylight

• Geometric & material optimization• Fixed setpoints & U-Val., custom mat.• Thermal performance focus

• Geometric & material optimization• Custom setpoints, mat. & behavior• Individualized performance tests

R. Canihuante,

M. El-Soudani

Office Bldg. (FL site)

O. A. Pearl,

D. Gkougkoudi

Housing units (SWE site) B. Suazo, M. Silva (Berlin site)





Student Ralitsa Georgieva presenting daylight simulations, winter 2011/12

03 Metrics & Design / Simulation Tools

Design decisions are guided by energy and comfort metrics, created by DIVA (Daysim, Radiance) & DesignBuilder (E+)

• Total and primary energy demand • of idealized, best-practice cooling, heating & lighting systems

• Discomfort Hours • Operative Temperature

• UDI 100 - 2000 lux Climate-Based Daylight Metrics •• for all spaces (seasonal & yearly occupancy schedules)

• Daylight Availability • (DAv) 300 lux (office spaces)

• Irradiance images • grid calculations (seasonal, yearly)

• Point-in-time luminance metrics • Evalglare calculations •

Yet in an unconstrained design process, technical validity of metrics only does not by default provide good design outcomes: • metrics have to be seen in conjunction with design intent & other (architectural) representations •

• The interpretation of technically invariant metrics shifts depending on typology, climate & design goals •





04 Performance Representations (excerpts)a Office / Multi - use building(Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA)

b Housing development (Yazd, Iran)

Design concepts, Irradiation metrics Overhang study Final performance section with horizontal louversGlare without louvers

Daylight metrics model(UDI, DAv)

Early massing stage Housing UnitsCellular strategy UDI 100 - 2k axonometric Final state (RP irrad. model)

HAUS

HAUS

HAUS

HAUS

HAUS

STADT

HOFHAUS

FLOORPLAN +2 | 1:100 TOP VIEW | 1:100

UDI 100 UDI 100-200 UDI 2000

Hofhaustypologie

Doppelte Hülle

Dicke Wand

Wenige Öffnungen

Kleine Öffnungen

Dichte Bebauung

Introvertierte Ausrichtung

INNENPERSPEKTIVE

BLICK IN DEN HOF

Yard perspective (hello, glare... )

C. Kollmeyer,

R. Kölmel

DAv20 %

UDI66 %

C.103

H. 2

L. 6

UDI90 %

DAv84 %

C.64

L. 4

H. .1 DAv 300 lux,UDI 100 - 2000 lux Heating, cooling,lighting energy use development (kWh/m2)Primary energy demand

Initial Variant275 kWh/m2

Final Variant170 kWh/m2





05 Performative Design: Sweden Site

b Design & Simulations:T. Merickova, P. Jardzioch

Variant A

a Design & Simulations: O. A. Pearl, D. Gkougkoudi

UDI 100 - 2000, > 2000 &< 100 lux comparison;Heating energy use

development (kWh/m2)

Test glazing areas, materials, U-values,

and unit overshadowing (conditioned & passive)

Compare two site design variants; pick “best” one.

Metrics: average irradiance, H/C energy demand (VIPER)

H. 89 H. 34

> 2k43 %

19 %

100 - 2k38 %

27 %

100 - 2k48 %

> 2k25 %

Baseline (~A) Final Variant

> 2k42 %

H. 37 H. 1818 %

100 - 2k40 %

32 %

100 - 2k45 %

> 2k23 %

Baseline (~B) Final Variant

In parallel to systematic tests,designs continue to developin a heuristic & design-driven fashion, on multiple levels

Variant B

461 114

Summer Winter

Avrg. irradiation (exposed surfaces): kWh/m2

529 135

Summer Winter

Variant A495 117Variant B

Unequal unit performance!

467 116

606 140630 154Final Var.

Final Var.

“Versioning” “Shaping”





06 Performative Design: Sweden SitePRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ESK

ED

UC

ATI

ON

AL

PRO

DU

CT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRO

DU

CED

BY A

N A

UTO

DESK

EDU

CA

TION

AL PR

OD

UC

T

Unit perspective section Site perspective (looking East)

Unit section Site perspective (looking West)

b Design & Simulations:T. Merickova, P. Jardzioch

a Design & Simulations: O. A. Pearl, D. Gkougkoudi





07 Detailed Design / Simulation Narrative (Florida Site)

• Design: I. V. Crego, D. Cepeda del Toro •

C.103

H. 2

L. 6

BA C D

A B C D

BA C D

A B C D

m² m² m²

m² m²m²

m²

FormFinding:Volumes

FacadeConcepts:Diffusion

Courtyardventilation

Version A: Ventilation & SolarSketch

Version D:Opaque Chimney,

Skylights

Version B:Glazed SolarChimney

EarthPipes Earth Pipe

(exterior)

Heating (natural gas)

Chiller (electricity)

Useful Daylight Illumi-nance, 100 - 2000 lux

Daylight Availability,offices, 300 lux

kWh/m²; Primary

% of occupied hours

Glazing Solar Gains (kWh)

Lighting (electricity)

UDI > 2000, < 100 lux

Glass Sol. Gains (/occ. area)

Heating (natural gas)

Chiller (electricity)

Useful Daylight Illumi-nance, 100 - 2000 lux

Daylight Availability,offices, 300 lux

kWh/m²; Primary

% of occupied hours

Glazing Solar Gains (kWh)

Lighting (electricity)

UDI > 2000, < 100 lux

Glass Sol. Gains (/occ. area)

Offices

Foyer

Circulation

Offices

Meeting &Media Halls

AuxiliarySpaces

Meeting &Media Halls

AuxiliarySpaces

Foyer

Circulation

80Annual H/C/L energy demand, UDI 100-2000, DAv 300 Monthly H/C/L energy demand (final building only), glazing solar gains (all variants)

60

40

20

100

80

60

40

20

0 %

25Annual H/C/L energy demand, UDI 100-2000, DAv 300 Monthly H/C/L energy demand (final building only), glazing solar gains (all variants)

20

15

10

100

80

60

40

20

kWh/m2kWh/m2 occ. hrs.

NORTH

SOUTH

NORTH

SOUTH

5

kWh/m2kWh/m2

0 kWh)2(/m

0 %occ. hrs.

0 kWh)2(/m

Space Use

Space Use

288

385

179 161

339

238223

204

153

Nat. Vent.

149Nat.

Vent.





W. J. Batty & B. Swann (‘97): Integration of Computer Based Modelling and an

Inter-Disciplinary Based Approach to Building Design [...], (Building Simulation ‘97)

“The performance parameters related to the design inquiries are extracted from guidebooks due to their clarity, familiarity and popularity amongst architects. The simulation tasks [...] are then defined with respect to each design stage.”

S. Bambardekar &

U. Poerschke (‘09):

The Architect

as Performer of

Energy Simulation

in the Early

Design Stage,

(Building Simulation

‘09)

08 Design / Simulation Process Observations & Models“The basic procedures involved in the design of acommodity are the same whether it be a toaster, supersonic passenger aircraft or a building.”

Process Steps Type of analysis Shad

ing Mask

Ove

rsha

dowing an

alysis

Sunp

ath Ana

lysis

Wind Ro

se ana

lysis

Psycho

metric an

alysis

Clou

d co

ver an

alysis

Day

light ana

lysis

Illum

inan

ce le

vel a

nalysis

Day

light auton

omy

Glare in

dex

Min/M

ax Tem

p rang

ediurna

l Tem

perature variatio

nHDD/C

DD

Balanc

e po

int tem

perature

Incide

nt Solar rad

iatio

nRo

om Tem

perature

Hea

t storage

/rem

oval cap

acity

Occup

ancy

gains

Cond

uctio

n ga

inDirec

t Solar gain

Ligh

ting ga

inHea

t gain av

oida

nce by

Day

lighting

Timelag

in hea

t trans

fer

Hea

t gain/

Loss

Hea

ting load

Cooling Lo

adredu

ction in Hea

ting/Co

oling load

air ch

ange

rate

Infiltration ga

in

base

case en

d us

e en

ergy

break

down

prop

osed

end

‐use

ene

rgy brea

kdow

nen

ergy

con

servation mea

sures

DL su

pplemen

ted Ligh

ting en

ergy

Hea

ting en

ergy

Cooling en

ergy

saving

s in Lighting en

ergy

redu

ction in Hea

ting en

ergy

redu

ction in coo

ling en

ergy

overall e

nergy co

nsum

ption

energy

gen

erated

by PV

Architectural design parameters

A Programming Stage Climate analysis o o o o o o o o oBenchmarking oParametric analysis o o

BSchematic Design Stage

1 BUILDING VLV Orientation o o o o o o o o o o o optimum orientationMassing o o aspet ratio, volumeSite form MassingSpace Zoning o o

2 SPACE LVLoptimize envelope Insulation o o o o o o o o o o o o optimum U, R values, thickness

Materials ‐ opaque o o o o o o o o U, R values, thicknessMaterials ‐ glazed o o o o o o o o o SHGC, VT, U value, optimum WWRGreen/Cool roof o o o o o o o U,R values, thickness

3 Passive heating Thermal Masso o o o o o o o o

Area, location, thickness, heat storage capacityDirect heat gain o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o WWR, SHGCIndirect heat gain o o o o o o o o o o o o o thickness, heat storage capacity

4 Passive cooling Cross Ventilation o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Inlet/outlet opening area, locationStack ventilation o o o o o o o o o o o o o stack height, location, opening areaMass+night cooling o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o area of thermal mass & openings

5 Shading Shading o o o o o o o o geometry, location

6 Daylighting Daylighting o o o o o o o o o o o o optimum DF, WWRLight shelves o o o o o Glare controlDaylight zoning o oSkylights o o o o o optimum DF

Daylight dimming o o o oOccupancy sensors o o o sensor location

7 Renewables Solar power o o o panel sizingWind PowerGeothermal powerSolar DHW o o o panel sizing

Miscellaneous Lighting Thermal Energy

Figure1 : The framework

-1313-

• Knowledge of architectural design processes (and the implications of full “integration”) advances only slowly in the BPS community, compared to technological innovation •

Instead of aiming to standardize processes, attention is given to recurring patterns in design - specific workflows:

• Processes are not linear • but concurrently erratic, iterative, case-specific and linked to performance / design intent

• Simulation scope • improves through time, usually in phases:• a Heuristic design-seed generation• b Partial / explorative simulations (single / multi-domain)• c Whole-building multi-domain interdependent simulations

• Form / Performance knowledge • steadily accretes throughout individual design steps taken by students

• Individual / tacit knowledge constructed through designerly making • coexists with • quantified, multi-domain performance behaviours (which are objective within their evaluatory scope and, in the case studies, geometrically defined) •





Design

AB

DC

Intent

SC

OPE PROCESS

SC

OPE PROCESS

RE

PR

ESE N TA BIL

ITY

RE

PR

ESE N TA BIL

ITY

Building Performance Modeling in Non-simplified Architectural DesignProcedural & Cognitive Challenges in Education

Dr. Farshad Nasrollahi, GtE (Prof. C. Steffan)Dipl.-Ing. Max Dölling, DigiPro (Prof. H. Schwandt)

The 30th International Conference on Education andResearch in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe

September 12th - 14th, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic

AB

CD

N

nn

n

n

04 Multi-Domain Decision-Making & Representability

How are design decisions made in a multi-representational domain that includes parametric performance models?

Individual domain-specific types of knowledge (An etc.) are synthesized by utilizing the semiotic flexibility their multivalent representations (e.g. derived from digital models) enable, and thus continuously update global design intent (N). In return, the field of intent, newly enriched with additional cross-domain knowledge, permanently influences the originally contributing domains, forming a nonlinear knowledge flow framework that relies less on direct hybridization of design and engineering methods, but instead draws potential from the synergistic possibilities rooted in the multivalence of their respective models’ representability.

Multivalent representations encode quantitative descriptors spatially, relate form to projected performance and should be regarded as articulating one possible state of synthesis among many. The shown sections, daylight plans, radiation images and printed daylight models all partially fulfill these requirements.

Florida design conceptual section showing known thermal and daylighting behavior of overhangs / light shelves and ventilated double roof performance.

Daylight map (UDI 100 - 2000) of final design variant as multivalent representation that clearly relates performance to form.

Design Problem Interlinks(Chermayeff / Alexander)

Domains of Inquisition and Representation in Design Synthesis

M. C. Doelling &.......................

F. Nasrollahi (‘13)

Parametric Design :

A Case - Study in Design-Simulation Integration, (Building Simulation’13)

09 Results : Adapted Model / A Field of Influences

• Hence, linear descriptions of design/simulation processes obfuscate their real inherent complexity - but awareness of this problem is increasing in the literature •

Elements of an adapted process model (Doelling & Nasrollahi, Building Simulation 2013):

• Design intent • is intersubjectively constructed and encapsulates (performance) domains (A - D plus many more)

• Design Synthesis • is achieved by continuously overlapping domain states (e.g., through “multivalent” representations)

Domain crosstalk influences design intent; intent modifies domains • resulting in a non-linear process field •

What are the benefits of thinking in such a model?

• The model unburdens design processes from constant rational analysis synchronicity demands •

• It supports holistic knowledge achieved through complex, physically accurate, output-flexible tools (e.g., DIVA) •

“The focus of simulation is to solve design dilemmas. [...] The identification of three main design stages is not neccessarily a reproduction of the [design] process. ”

systems. Depending on the type of assessment, available information can be ignored (gray bullets) or used as inputs (red bullets) in the simulation model. Simplified simulations involve abstractions or even the stipulation of unknown information. The level of simplification depends on the specific dilemma and the stage of design development. A dilemma would not be pertinent if relevant design definitions, directly related to the dilemma, are unavailable. For instance, the quantification of the insulation impact on heating loads should be compromised if the geometry of the building is completely unknown.

Figure 2 Representation of designerly simulation.

The simulation of a design dilemma should adopt information that is used in the formulation of design problems. This information is strictly related to design constraints (Lawson, 2006) that can be pragmatic or abstract (Figure 2). Both types of dilemma constraints are intended to reduce the scope of the analysis. Information generated by pragmatic constraints is easier to implement in simulation models as it can be directly input in the model. The use of abstract constraints, on the other hand, is indirectly transferred to the model. This information should be processed by the designer and translated to be used in the model. Some examples of this translation process can be mentioned: ¥ Cost constraints related to a given dilemma

allows the elimination of solutions that would be too expensive. In a similar way, the definition of performance goals or design ambitions can lead to a range of acceptable solutions.

¥ An abstract conjecture, concept or design intention, such as ‘transparency’, for instance, can generate pragmatic inputs. A ‘transparent’ wall would have a high WWR (window-to-wall-ratio). Similarly, the design of shading devices according to the premise of ‘transparency’ would have to implement specific features. This

concept would, as a consequence, eliminate solutions that block the visual contact between exterior and interior spaces.

Even though the process of transforming abstract constraints into pragmatic inputs is complex to describe or fully represent, similar techniques are widely used in architectural design. Architects intuitively deal with several conjectures in order to formulate problems and identify parameters for acceptable solutions. During this process, designers can use information as ‘shortcuts’ to facilitate the translation of abstract constraints. In design practice, this information is often related to previous experiences of the architect and is rarely based on quantitative criteria. In designerly simulation, information used as a ‘shortcut’ should allow the identification of some inputs. The concern of using misleading precedents is minimized as they can improve using simulation. Two types of information are approached: ¥ Design principles: the use of guidelines can

reduce considerably the scope of analysis. Such information can be used to focus on specific design strategies.

¥ Precedent solutions: the analogy with specific features extracted from precedent solutions can be useful in the process of transforming abstract intentions into pragmatic definitions.

The process of transferring information from these sources to the model depends highly on what is intended by the designer and how the information used as a ‘shortcut’ represents the intention. Of course, the process of designerly simulation has a strong human component. This is clearly related to cognitive processes and assumptions that are an inherent part of any design activity.

EXAMPLES OF DESIGN DILEMMAS The proposed concept was used to tackle design dilemmas extracted from different case studies. In this paper, we present two examples of dilemmas that were investigated using simulation tools. The case studies presented are more influenced by pragmatic constraints, as both have high performance goals. Processes with more abstract constraints should be approached in future works.

Example 1: residence in Zwolle, the Netherlands The first case study was an ongoing design with high performance goals. The residence, located in Zwolle, the Netherlands, was intended to generate its own energy using PV panels connected to a smart grid and solar collectors for water heating. The leading architect Jamie van Lede (Origins architecten, Rotterdam) was interested in using simulation methods to support the design development. Firstly, simulation tools were used to answer general questions from the design team

Proceedings of Building Simulation 2011: 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, 14-16 November.

- 525 -

R. Venancio,

A. Pedrini, A.C.

van der Linden, E. van

den Ham & R. Stouffs (‘11):

Think Designerly! Using Multiple Simulation Tools to

Solve Architectural Dilemmas, (Building Simulation ‘11)Chermayeff & Alexander (‘63):

Design Interdependencies

“An integrated process is ......a dynamic field of........related design states ...........and should not be ..............represented...................linearly. ”





Student Alan Patrick discussing simulations, ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

10 Results : Building Simulation in the Studio

• Continuing success in the stand-alone classes led to an invitation to participate in the ‘Robust’ design studio held by the department of Prof. Regine Leibinger, TU Berlin •

• Goal • Perform design-driven simulations of individualized scope, to aid realization of ‘robust’, heavy bldg. envelopes

• Studio benefits & possibilities •• Students have more time to work on design variants• Interest by design departments is a prerequisite to move• sustainability simulations into the mainstream of practice• More realistic test environment of conflicting influences• Results can be more representative of integrated design &• of high architectural quality (successful in this class!)

• Studio difficulties & pitfalls •• Design staff and students must both be educated• Conflicts of interest can erode intensity benefits• Influencing whole-building morphology can cause friction• If the studio is not primarily sustainability-driven, • performance concerns might become mere addenda

• Process, technology are “ready”. We need positive results!





(Seasonal) UDI100 - 2000 lux& DAv 300 luxdaylight studiesfor alternatingzones of light /

dark

Cross Sections

LateralSection

Light intent & Sim.


+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event

Section North-South 1:200 Section North-South 1:200

Elevation Friedrichstraße 1:200

Elevation Puttkamerstraße 1:200

Section East-West 1:200 Floor plan

Light studies / Opening North and South UDI 100-2000 Lux UDI 100-2000 Lux Sommer UDI 100-2000 Lux Winter Daylight Avilability 500 Lux

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event






10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event






10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event






10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event






10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

• Design / Sim.:• L. de Pedro,• C. Sitzler •

+24,00

+20,00

+14,00

+10,00

+6,00

+0,00

4,35 9,00 3,351234

01.12.

01.06.

Exhibition

Multi-Purpose

Research Center

Exhibition

Event






10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH

10 20 30 40 50 60

OPENINGS [%]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chille

r [kW

h/m

2]

16

17 SOUTH

NORTH

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

OPENINGS [%]

605040302010

HEAT

GEN

ERAT

ION

[kW

h/m

2] SOUTH

NORTH





Multi-metric daylight study of different facade

configurations for maximum

daylight depth & uniformity(500 lux)

SchnittNord-Süd

1:200

SchnittSüd-Nord

1:200

continous daylight autonomy

ohne lightshelfohne fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelfohne fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelfmit fassadeneinschnitt

mit lightshelf 10% geneigtmit fassadeneinschnitt


daylight autonomy

UDI <100 Lux

udi 100-2000 lux

udi >2000 lux

overlit

slicetest


ohne lightshelfmit fassadeneinschnitt


9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

point-in-glare

57%

62% 51% 32%

62%69%

51%51%

32%36%

62%69%64%

51%51%46%

32%36%30%

69%

19%

+8%

+7% 0% +4%

+2%

+1%

57%65%

69%71%

19%20%

- 4%

+2% -5% -2%- 5% -5% -6%

-1%

0%

-12%

-3%

-1%

57%65%53%

69%71%68%

19%20%19%

Schnitt Nord-Süd 1:200 Schnitt Süd-Nord 1:200

Ansicht Friedrichstraße 1:200

Ansicht Puttkamerstraße 1:200

Schnitt West-Ost 1:200 Detailschnitt & Fassadenansicht 1:20

Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

cafe

foyershop

gard

erob

epe

rson

al

lagercafe

Garderobe

lager

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

workshop

workshop

toilettepumi

lager

konferenz

konferenz

Ausstellung

lager

hörsaalworkshop

workshop

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

leiterbüro

besp

rech

er

toile

tte

pers

onal

teeküche

büro

büro

toilettepumi

lager

Ausstellung

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

M

M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M

M

a

a

a

Austellungsfläche

Veranstaltungsfläche

Personalbereich

Lager

Eingang

Belichtung

Lüftung

Interaktionautomatisch Manuell

Temperatur

Frequentierung

Aufenthaltsdauer

Raumprogramm

0

i

ii

iii

Ausstellung

Shop

Büros

Ballsaal

Foyer

Toiletten

Lager

Garderobe

Personal-Garerobe

Geträneklager

Pumi

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tten

Lage

r

Workshops

Pumi

Toiletten

LagerPumi

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tte

Teek

üche

Lage

r

Hoch

saal

AusstellungBallsaal

Foyer

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Workshops

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Teeküche

Konf

eren

zrau

m

Toiletten

Lager

Pers. Garderobe

GarderobePumi

Getränelager

Café

Shop

Toile

ttenLage

r

Pumi

Toiletten

Lager

Pumi

Lage

rPumi

Toile

tten

Büro

0

i

ii

iii

0

i

ii

iii

temperatur

BELICHTUNG

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Nutzung

fassadenstudien

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur

Grundriss 3 1:200 Grundriss 3 1:200




Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Daiagramme

Initial LightShelf Concepts

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

cafe

foyershop

gard

erob

epe

rson

al

lagercafe

Garderobe

lager

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

workshop

workshop

toilettepumi

lager

konferenz

konferenz

Ausstellung

lager

hörsaalworkshop

workshop

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

leiterbüro

besp

rech

er

toile

tte

pers

onal

teeküche

büro

büro

toilettepumi

lager

Ausstellung

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

M

M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M

M

a

a

a

Austellungsfläche


Personalbereich

Lager

Eingang

Belichtung

Lüftung


Temperatur

Frequentierung

Aufenthaltsdauer

Raumprogramm

0

i

ii

iii

Ausstellung

Shop

Büros

Ballsaal

Foyer

Toiletten

Lager

Garderobe

Personal-Garerobe

Geträneklager

Pumi

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tten

Lage

r

Workshops

Pumi

Toiletten

LagerPumi

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tte

Teek

üche

Lage

r

Hoch

saal

AusstellungBallsaal

Foyer

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Workshops

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Teeküche

Konf

eren

zrau

m

Toiletten

Lager

Pers. Garderobe

GarderobePumi

Getränelager

Café

Shop

Toile

ttenLage

r

Pumi

Toiletten

Lager

Pumi

Lage

rPumi

Toile

tten

Büro

0

i

ii

iii

0

i

ii

iii

temperatur

BELICHTUNG

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Nutzung

fassadenstudien

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur





Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Daiagramme

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D9

D8

D10

D7

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

K

K

I

I

J

J

A

A

2,60

5,00

2,60

2,60

2,60

5,00

706,

7525

4,52

254,

3670

7,00

4,53

4,60

13,895 5,42 8,955 5,30 8,07 13,35 5,55 6,60

7,75

2,70

5,00

4,53

2,60

2,70

cafe

foyershop

gard

erob

epe

rson

al

lagercafe

Garderobe

lager

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

workshop

workshop

toilettepumi

lager

konferenz

konferenz

Ausstellung

lager

hörsaalworkshop

workshop

toilettepumi

Ausstellung

leiterbüro

besp

rech

er

toile

tte

pers

onal

teeküche

büro

büro

toilettepumi

lager

Ausstellung

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

M

M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M

M

a

a

a

Austellungsfläche


Personalbereich

Lager

Eingang

Belichtung

Lüftung


Temperatur

Frequentierung

Aufenthaltsdauer

Raumprogramm

0

i

ii

iii

Ausstellung

Shop

Büros

Ballsaal

Foyer

Toiletten

Lager

Garderobe

Personal-Garerobe

Geträneklager

Pumi

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tten

Lage

r

Workshops

Pumi

Toiletten

LagerPumi

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Toile

tte

Teek

üche

Lage

r

Hoch

saal

AusstellungBallsaal

Foyer

Ausstellung

Hörsaal

Wor

ksho

ps

Workshops

Auss

tell

ung

Auss

tell

ung

Wor

ksho

ps

Teeküche

Konf

eren

zrau

m

Toiletten

Lager

Pers. Garderobe

GarderobePumi

Getränelager

Café

Shop

Toile

ttenLage

r

Pumi

Toiletten

Lager

Pumi

Lage

rPumi

Toile

tten

Büro

0

i

ii

iii

0

i

ii

iii

temperatur

BELICHTUNG

Foyer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Cafe

shop

austellung

toilette

lager

garderobe

konferenz

workshop

hörsaal

büro

Sommer

Winter

Nutzung

fassadenstudien

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur

sommer

equinox

winter

sommer

equinox

winter

lightshelf

gebäudestruktur





Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/Diagramme Konzeptskizzen/DaiagrammeSeasonal Facade Overshadowing

SchnittNord-Süd

1:200

SchnittSüd-Nord

1:200







daylight autonomy

UDI <100 Lux

udi 100-2000 lux

udi >2000 lux

overlit

slicetest




9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

point-in-glare

57%

62% 51% 32%

62%69%

51%51%

32%36%

62%69%64%

51%51%46%

32%36%30%

69%

19%

+8%

+7% 0% +4%

+2%

+1%

57%65%

69%71%

19%20%

- 4%

+2% -5% -2%- 5% -5% -6%

-1%

0%

-12%

-3%

-1%

57%65%53%

69%71%68%

19%20%19%






Daylight Autonomy

UDI < 100 lux

UDI 100 - 2k lux

UDI > 2k lux

Daylight

Availability

SchnittNord-Süd

1:200

SchnittSüd-Nord

1:200







daylight autonomy

UDI <100 Lux

udi 100-2000 lux

udi >2000 lux

overlit

slicetest




9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

9.00 Uhr

21.09 21.06 21.12

12.00 Uhr

18.00 Uhr

point-in-glare

57%

62% 51% 32%

62%69%

51%51%

32%36%

62%69%64%

51%51%46%

32%36%30%

69%

19%

+8%

+7% 0% +4%

+2%

+1%

57%65%

69%71%

19%20%

- 4%

+2% -5% -2%- 5% -5% -6%

-1%

0%

-12%

-3%

-1%

57%65%53%

69%71%68%

19%20%19%






A B C D

Regular facade ALight shelf only B

Shelf + plate cut CShelf 10° rotated D

Final South Facade (configuration C) South FacadeCutaway (conf. C)


• Design / Sim.:• K. Kröger• P. Winkler

P. Rust •





Student Majd Murad discussing simulations, ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

13 Conclusion

• Simulation, if used properly, has a massively positive influence on ‘integrated’ processes designers undertake; it also is craft •

• ‘Designerly’ simulations do not weaken form and can be• applied even in a non-sustainability driven creative context •

• Inclusive performance research must happen in a strongly • design-driven framework, to stay generally applicable •

• In this context, individual domains should adapt:• Tools: complex & usable, not simple, to mirror design reasoning• Process: Fluid, adaptable, individual; with rational components• Representations, Metrics: Problem-specific, spatially defined

• “Design changes everything” ...? • Not quite.

Design changes simulation, which in turn influences design.

Architects deal with early-stage unstructured information in a synthetic manner, which shapes design intent and is used to gauge the social and behavioural impacts of space; this gives BPS performed by designers great future potential.





Student Philip Rust co-presenting, final crit of ’Robust’ studio, Summer 2013

A special “Thank You!” to all the students who participated in our classes throughout the last 2.5 years. None of this would have been possible without you.

With deep thanks to:Cecilia, Farshad Nasrollahi, Jeffrey Tietze, Alstan Jakubiec, Christoph Reinhart, Matthias Graf v. Ballestrem, Bogdan Strugar, Jan Kunze, Regine Leibinger (everyone I forgot, apologies)

Thank you, DIVA DAY! Off-conference questions? [email protected]

References

Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2012. Building Performance Simulation in Non-Simplified

Architectural Design. Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe conference, Prague, Czech Republic.

Doelling, M.C. 2012. Hybrid Daylight Models in Architectural Design Education. Proceedings of

DIVA Day 2012, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.

Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2013. Architektur, Simulation und Intention. In: Claus Steffan (Hrsg.),

Parameter des Entwerfens: Architektur und Nachhaltigkeit. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.

Doelling, M.C. & Jastram, B. 2013. Daylight Prototypes: From Simulation Data to Four-Dimensional

Artefact. Proceedings of the 18th CAADRIA conference, National University of Singapore, Sing.

Doelling, M.C. & Nasrollahi, F. 2013. Parametric Design: a Case Study in Design-Simulation

Integration. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2013, Lyon, France.

Building Simulation (not) in the Studio; Max C. Doelling.

Documents

Transcript of Building Simulation (not) in the Studio; Max C. Doelling.