Determining control parameters of kinetic shading devices introduces a dynamic problem to designers, which can best be tackled by computational tools. Yet, excessive computational cost inherits in reaching near optimum solutions led to exclusion of many design alternatives and weather conditions. Addressing the issue, the current study aims to explore the design space adequately and evaluate the performance of responsivekinetic shading devices (RKSD) by proposing a novel framework. Current framework adopts a surrogatebased technique for multiobjective optimization of control parameters of a RKSD on randomly sampled daylight hours. To test the plausibility of any results obtained by the proposed framework, a controlled experiment is designed. Empirical evidences suggest RKSD outperforms the static one in daylighting and view performance metrics. However, considering indoor temperature no significant differences observed. 1. G. Hausladen, M. de Saldanha, and P. Liedl, Climate Skin. Basel: Birkhauser, 2008.
2. H. Fathy, Natural Energy and Vernacular Architecture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986.
3. A. Olgyay and V. Olgyay, Solar Control and Shading Devices. New Jersey, 1977.
4. N. Lechner, Sustainable Design Methods for Architects. New Jersey: Wiley, 2015.
5. C. Du Montier, A. Potvin, and C.M. Demers, “Energy and daylighting potential for Adaptive Façades: Evaluation of movable insulated panels,” Proc. of Int. Conf. on Adaptation and Movement in Architecture ICAMA 2013, Oct. 2013, Toronto, Canada.
6. Y.J. Grobman, I.G. Capeluto, and G. Austern, “External shading in buildings: comparative analysis of daylighting performance in static and kinetic operation scenarios,” Architectural Science Review, 2016, Vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1–11.
7. K. Kensek and R. Hansanuwat, “Environment Control Systems for Sustainable Design: A Methodology for Testing, Simulating and Comparing Kinetic Facade Systems,” Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, 2011, Vol. 1, no. Nov., pp. 27–46.
8. D. S. Lee, S.H. Koo, Y.B. Seong, and J.H. Jo, “Evaluating thermal and lighting energy performance of shading devices on kinetic façades,” Sustainability (Switzerland), 2016, Vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1–18.
9. M. V. Nielsen, S. Svendsen, and L.B. Jensen, “Quantifying the potential of automated dynamic solar shading in office buildings through integrated simulations of energy and daylight,” Solar Energy, 2011, Vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 757–768.
10. M. El Sheikh and D.J. Gerber, “Building Skin Intelligence,” Proceedings of the annual conference of the Association of Computer Aided Design in Architecture ACADIA, 2011, pp. 170–177.
11. K. Sharaidin, J. Burry, and F. Salim, “Integration of Digital Simulation Tools With Parametric Designs to Evaluate Kinetic Façades for Daylight Performance,” Physical Digitality: Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe Conference, 2012, Vol. 2, pp. 701–709.
12. T. Wortmann, A. Costa, G. Nannicini, and T. Schroepfer, “Advantages of surrogate models for architectural design optimization,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2015, Vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 471–481.
13. T. Kazanasmaz, M. Günaydin, and S. Binol, “Artificial neural networks to predict daylight illuminance in office buildings,” Building and Environment, 2009, Vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1751–1757.
14. J. Hu and S. Olbina, “Illuminancebased slat angle selection model for automated control of split blinds,” Building and Environment, 2011, Vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 786–796.
15. M. E. Skavara, “Adaptive cellular automata façade trained by artificial neural network,” Barlett School of Graduate Studies, University Collage of London, 2009.
16. E. S. Lee, D.L. DiBartolomeo, and S.E. Selkowitz, “Thermal and daylighting performance of an automated venetian blind and lighting system in a fullscale private office,” Energy and Buildings, 1998, Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 47–63.
17. A. Wagdy, F. Fathy, and S. Altomonte, “Evaluating the Daylighting Performance of Dynamic Façades by Using New Annual Climate Based Metrics Evaluating the Daylighting Performance of Dynamic Façades by Using New Annual Climate – Based Metrics,” Proc. of the 32nd Int. Conf. on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, PLEA 2016. 2016, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 941–947.
18. M. Sadeghipour Roudsari and M. Pak, “Ladybug: a Parametric Environmental Plugin for Grasshopper To Help Designers Create an EnvironmentallyConscious Design,” 13th Conference of International building Performance Simulation Association, 2013, pp. 3129–3135.
19. A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic, “Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings,” Lighting Research and Technology, 2005, Vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 41–59.
20. G. Zhang, B.E. Patuwo, and M.Y. Hu, “Forecasting with artificial neural networks:: The state of the art,” International journal of forecasting, 1998, Vol. 14, pp. 35–62.
21. S. Haykin, Neural Networks and Learning Machines. 2009.
22. M. Riedmiller and H. Braun, “A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation learning: The RPROP algorithm,” IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks – Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1993–Janua, pp. 586–591.
23. I. Chatzikonstantinou, “A Computational Intelligence DecisionSupport Environment for Architectural and Building Design: CIDEA,” IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2016, pp. 3887–3894.
24. Bader, J., Zitzler, E. HypE: An Algorithm for Fast HypervolumeBased ManyObjective Optimization // Evolutionary Computation. 2008, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 45–76.

• Previous article
• Next article

• responsive
• kinetic
• shading
• daylight
• temperature
• view
• simulation
• surrogate
• optimization